- Part I-1 - Part I-2 -
Excavations in the fortresses of St. Petersburg
The history of the Peter and Paul Fortress is one of many examples, details of which are hushed up by the official experts on the history of the construction of the city of St. Petersburg.
For example, the excavations on the territory of the Peter and Paul Fortress and the silence of archaeologists about the found granite baths at a depth of 5 meters from the surface. Archaeologists and Vzory (about Vzor, further) will say that they were covered by a cultural layer?
How did they end up there, who made them, if on the site of the Peter's capital there were continuous swamps, according to the assurances of Peter's historians?
Looking at these baths, one cannot but recall the child-rural artifact known as the Babolovskaya bowl, "Tsar Bath". The sad and hushed up fate of this monument of a bygone era makes one think that the abandonment of a unique product is deliberately fulfilled by the city authorities of St. Europe.
Promotional video:
The abundance of inexplicable architectural masterpieces and artifacts in St. Petersburg make a logical thinking person
look for other versions of the construction time of the city and its creators than the official conventional version of historians.
However, why are the conclusions of "logically thinking engineers" so different from the logic of archaeologists and historians? Do the humanities have no logic?
Of course not, but they have it - a kind, corresponding, in individual statements, to the medieval understanding of the ancient traces of the remains of the life of human society.
For example, there is a well-known archaeological appeal to the cultural layer of the earth to assess the level of development of society and the dating of the found remains on the timeline.
What do archaeologists understand by "cultural layer"?
Or, in short.
From my point of view, the very name "cultural layer" does not correspond to either the main meaning or close to the concept of "culture"
It is obvious that by the remnants of the life activity of human society, preserved in the earth, one cannot judge its social and spiritual development. Remains only prints of production activities, and those traces that are not "eaten away" by time - glass, ceramic and clay shards, and metal products that are not subject to corrosion.
Can archaeologists say that traces of modern electronic products will remain in the "cultural" layer of the 21st century civilization through the centuries? Then, and here is “culture” in the cultural layer, if culture is judged by the waste of human activity preserved in the earth for centuries, that is, by the falsifications of society, which are hardly digested by time.
Anachronism sounds from the lips of archaeologists their production term "cultural layer", which could still be perceived from experts in digging in the earthy past in the 17-19 centuries, but is becoming unacceptable for people of the 21st century. It would be more accurate and fairer to call the layer of the earth with the remnants of human activity - the fecal layer, and not the cultural layer.
However, it is nevertheless of interest to consider some reports of archaeologists relating to the history of the city of St. Petersburg, which are cited by opponents of the version of alternatives - the ruins of the city “covered” with mud and sand, where Peter I focused his gaze.
It is these reports that someone under the nickname "Vzor" recalls, sharply defending the official point of view on the history of the emergence of St. Petersburg in his article "St. Petersburg Fortress".
Since the theme of our cultural layer in Petropolis was the so-called fortress before its renaming), then I would like to draw your attention to the information from archaeologists:
To begin with, the plan of the fortress of our days (Botny house, where excavations were carried out, No. 12)
As you can see from the picture, the house is located almost in the center of the fortress, where in different ways, a lot of clay, silt and sand could have been applied by a flood. The Russian Academy of Sciences. "Bulletin 2 Security Archeology" 2011 "Collection of leather items from excavations in the Peter and Paul Fortress (seasons 2007-2008)". V. I. Kildyushevsky, A. V. Kurbatov
And a little official story from Vzor:
Stolpyansky P. N. Peterhof perspective.
The student's eye usually slips along the lines "If a battery is installed on the island of Yeiisari or, even better, a fortress is built, then this fortress will fire at the fairway, and none of the Swedish ships will be able to penetrate into the depths of the Neva" and thoughtlessly swallows this information without hesitation over the question: why should the Swedes penetrate deep into the Neva? Why, if a little further, along the Neva, is the Nyenshats fortress, and the source of the Neva is the Oreshek fortress, why is there a third fortress on the Neva itself, if at the entrance to the Neva on Kotlin Island there was another fortress, which we know as Kronstadt?
How many authors, so many versions about the choice of a place for the city and the fortress.
What did not suit the fortress Nieshants of Peter I, if it was a fortress, in the understanding that is invested by the military to protect the city from the attack of external enemies.
And even if the opinion of a young journalist about the antiquity of the city on the Neva does not exceed 400 years, if we consider the date of the construction of the fortress Nyenskans as the date of the founding of St. Petersburg, but the presence of doubt about the date of foundation of St. Petersburg in 1703 is clearly present among young people as well.
However, why D. Kotsyubinsky did not stop at the date of the appearance of the Nevsky town, which, according to historians, arose in the 13th century, is completely unclear. Swedish historians are nicer to the journalist.
In my version of history, the "star fortress" turned into a fortress of Nyenskans after the deluge and mudflow disaster, when the technological production facility was destroyed and a century later, it was again used, in the form of a defensive outpost with the restoration of stone walls and earthen ramparts. It is clear how the "star" production facility was built before the disaster, possibly 7-8 centuries.
And, if you remember the fortresses on the Neva, then why do historians not mention at all about the fortress, which stood even further downstream of the Neva, in the place where Peter I built the Admiralty shipyards and where the Admiralty is now located.
Found an Admiralty Star Fortress? The same in form as the Peter and Paul Fortress, as Kroshtadskaya, as the fortress-star Nyenskans.
I hope they will not object to me that this map or plan does not show the fortress walls invented by the planner, but those that were once. Look, in addition to the fortress-star at the very tip of the bend of the Neva, there are also external fortress walls, and besides, on the opposite, left bank, another fortress is drawn, again in the form of a star. Why were all these "fortress" structures destroyed at the place where the Okhta River flows into the Neva? Where are the historians who talk about the need to dismantle the Nyenskans fortress for the benefit of building the city of St. Petersburg?
If the plan of the fortress corresponded to reality (doubts can only be in the eyes, saturated with German historical propaganda), then the town of Nien was a remarkable place, not only in terms of population.
A little about Nyen is described in the article by Dmitry Kudinov "The City of Nyen":
And readers' comments on this article:
Naturally, historians will talk about the accidental death of the Royal Swedish Archives.
This is what the modern edition writes about the disappeared city.
Below, from Wikipedia:
And who to believe? Blogger D. Kudinov about the population of the city of Nyen in 20-30 thousand people or RG. RU, which writes about two thousand citizens or Y. Pimenov about the Nevsky town, which arose in the 15th century on the site of the once huge antique-Tartar city. Of course, a newspaper with an audience of several million people, and a blogger - let it have tens of thousands of readers and not Vika, which is used by CIA agents!
In addition to the fortresses of Nyenskans, Petropolis, the Admiralty, we must remember the fortress-star Oreshek! We noticed that only for less than 10 kilometers in the city there were three fortresses-stars! Many publications have already been written about the star fortresses. I will also have to talk about structures in the form of a star, which were the same remarkable objects in that civilization as in ours - nuclear power plants, but not in this part of the article.
However, for now, I draw your attention to the fact that historians say little about the stellar form of the three fortresses and alternatives tell more about them, since it is impossible to fit into the logic of the ancient builders the presence of such a number of fortresses on a narrow patch of water, if they were actually fortresses!
We are told that the plan of the Peter and Paul Fortress was drawn by engineer Lambert (Joseph Gaspard Lambert de Guerin), but nothing allows us to think that a foreigner did not draw it, but sketched the remains of the fortress that existed long before the arrival of Peter I on the banks of the Neva. This is what the plan of the St. Petersburg fortress of 1707, which depicts the outer part of the fortress, by analogy with the numerous star-fortresses in which the outer part of the fortress exists. It seems that the remains of the outer walls should be looked for at the bottom of the Neva, which changed its course after the catastrophe, and there were canals connecting the lakes located along the current bed of the Neva River.
Typical scheme of the fortress-stars, which in numerous versions were built, both in Western Europe and on the territory of Russia.
As you can see, not only the author thinks that the Neva River appeared in the 14th century, after a disaster. However, unlike opinion:
"A certain water system from the Gulf of Finland to Lake Ladoga is clearly traced," I suppose that this "water system" is known in our time as the Luga River.
Yes, it is known that the Luga River in the post-disaster time begins in the Tesov bogs of the Novgorod region. The cartographic source from which Catherine II sketched the contours of the adjacent districts to the place where a large city, familiar to contemporaries like St. Petersburg, was located, is unknown. It is known that the historical series of medals is based on the tsarina's own understanding of the history of the Russian Empire
You can guess as much as you like about where Catherine II came from to reshoot the contours of the terrain between the Varangian Sea and Ladoga for a medal, but to think that this is a fantasy of the ruler is no less absurd than to believe that Peter I built the city on an empty swamp.
"The first years of Petersburg", Timchenko-Ruban Georgy Ivanovich, p. 88.
However, we return to the report of the archaeologists about the excavations in the Peter and Paul Fortress, about which Vzor writes:
Fig. 1 Excavation site I * Senate *.
And then the blogger "Vzor" concludes:
Unfortunately, in my opinion, which is typical for many who cite primary sources, they (like the author who is no better (but no worse) than many) highlight those quotes and schemes that testify and confirm their point of view, and omit those evidence that they are not interested in.
If "Vzor" had read to the end the report of archaeologists, then a zealous adherent of the three-hundred-year history of the city, should have noted that for some reason the cultural layer penetrated into the "continental soil", in which most of the leather waste was found:
“The main object of archaeological observations and excavations, from where the largest number of leather items were obtained, was the Senate. In this collection of things of the greatest historical value, complete sets of shoes are found. In addition, all the finds come from filling a hole dug in the mainland soil and belong to the earliest period in the history of St. Petersburg.”
Of course, it is impermissible financial and labor-intensive excesses for archaeologists to carry out excavations in large depressions, manually, in "continental layers", which the leaders of excavations cannot go to. This is understandable and therefore no one digs deep in St. Petersburg. And why spoil the well-established historical and archaeological picture of the emergence of St. Petersburg.
You can, however you like, tell city-planning stories to people with a liberal arts education, but engineers, mathematicians and physicists, whose education is based on logic, find it very difficult to perceive fairy tales about the architect O. Montferrand, who allegedly erected the Alexandrian Column.
and laid the foundations of the building, which is known to the whole world as St. Isaac's Cathedral, as they write in the historical Russian manuals.
About Bartolomeo Rastrelli, who created many masterpieces in St. Petersburg, and who, at best, restored and reconstructed dilapidated buildings inherited from the Great Country of Civilization
Some examples supporting this thesis:
The palace of Prince Dimitri Cantemir (on the site of house No. 8 along Palace Embankment and house No. 7 along Millionnaya Street). 1721 - 1727, attributed to the architect FB Rastrelli.
This is how the restored building looked like in 1721, and the Cantemir Palace is visible on the engraving by the Dutch master.
Marcelius Christopher, Holland 1728-1729, Panorama of the Neva embankment in St. Petersburg from the Summer Garden to St. Isaac's Church 1.
Looking at the old engravings showing the panoramas of St. Petersburg, you never get tired of being surprised at the skill and talent of St. Petersburg builders, who in 18 years have built so many, not just shacks, but palaces !!!
The proof for the author that the Cantemir palace was not designed by Rastrelli, but under his leadership the dilapidated building was restored, are details from the architectural style of the pre-catastrophic era, such as griffins, porticoes, ornaments.
Another example of the use of the talent of the Italian architect is the completion of the Anichkov Palace: the central part with the portico has been preserved, as is the foundation, and everything else has been rebuilt again, possibly according to Rastrelli's design. As proof of this version: the location of the first floor windows, which are neither the first floor nor the basement. The one who was inside saw the basements. They do not look like a basement, but there is a real first floor of the building.
Anichkov Palace.
About the architect Voronikhin, who allegedly built the Kazan Cathedral, but at best helped to restore and clean it from dirt, etc. etc.
But the same "Vzor" or Pavel Kolosnitsyn will prove that these are the windows of the basements, which were built 50 meters from the Fontanka River, which regularly overflowed its banks during almost annual floods.
The architecture and planning of St. Petersburg together with Kronstadt and forts, suburban royal residences are a silent reproach to historians and local historians who repeat the lie of Peter I that the great tsar founded the northern capital of Russia.
It is impossible to cite all the inexplicable from the point of view of logic, the possibilities of technologies of that time, St. Petersburg artifacts even in a book, let alone an article.
I will highlight only a small fragment from the article “Riddles in the buildings of St. Petersburg. Part 2 , which drew attention to in the article not only Sibved. This artifact is notable for the fact that on the corner section of Palace Square with Nevsky Prospekt in 1768-1775, designed by architect J.-B. Wallen-Delamotte erected the four-story building of the Free Economic Society, in which the Freemasons settled.
The building was built, possibly, on the ruins of a temple, from which fragments of doors and their granite frames are left, made using a technology that does not exist even in our 21st century.
Sibved highlighted these building elements that are inaccessible for their mass reproduction with today's technologies, I highlighted this building, which organically transforms into the famous building of the General Staff of the architect Zakharov, since it is an example of the construction of a structure using the residual ruins of previous buildings.
Take the time to consider the "Axonometric plan of St. Petersburg"
And this is 1765-1773. Destroyed buildings stand at the water's edge on the floor, submerged in the ground. Who builds like this? The buildings are old, brick, with partially preserved ceilings … ("Where is the city from?" Chapter 17. Axonometric plan of St. Petersburg - a witness to the great flood)
How can one fail to recall the “cultural layer” that fell from the sky. Destruction, then on the plan is very specific. The roofs and the first floors that have sunk into the ground have been demolished and - all this is the result of the work of living people who have lived in this place since 1703 and have increased this cultural layer by 2 meters in 60 years! And, after all, simpletons believe in the Eyes, but not the gaze that opens looking at the ruined city, stones and boulders falling from the sky!
Plan of the territory of Vasilievsky Island adjacent to the Bolshaya Neva embankment (Lieutenant Schmidt embankment) between the 25th and 19th lines.
With a rolling falcon's gaze over St. Petersburg in 1765, buildings are seen from above, without roofs and ceilings.
I kept thinking where modern home builders had adopted the method of renting unfinished apartments to Russian citizens without finishing.
It turns out that it was customary to build houses in Peter's times - without roofs and without apartments, only walls. Erect as many stone boxes as possible, with a cultural-fical layer from the heads of historians, first floors, so that later, when the Northern War ends, make residential houses out of boxes.
Author: Damkin
