In June 1391 (according to the generally accepted chronology), one of the largest battles of the Middle Ages took place on the territory of the Middle Volga region. Here the troops of the ruler of Central Asia, Emir Timur, and the Khan of the Golden Horde Tokhtamysh met in a deadly duel. The very battle broke out, the outcome of which, according to the views of many researchers, largely determined the path of further development of the entire Eurasian region.
“In January 1391 Timur set out from Tashkent with a 200,000-strong army. Having overcome the steppes of Kazakhstan, Western Siberia, the Southern Urals, the formidable conqueror approached the Volga River. Tokhtamysh hoped to delay the enemy's advance on Yaik, but did not manage to gather his troops there and prevent the crossing. The Horde retreated into the depths of their possessions to the north-west and hoped that Timur's troops, tired of the many-day march, would finally deplete their forces. But after the army of the ruler of Samarkand reached the Samara River and approached the Volga, further retreat became impossible. On June 18, 1391, the opponents met in a decisive battle on the right tributary of the Sok River on the Kondurcha River. (Land Samara. Kuib.kn.ed. 1990)
It would seem that such a grandiose battle, such a large-scale and significant event should have left a very clear mark, a mark both in the physical and in the information space. However, this, for some reason, did not happen.
After seven centuries, no visible traces of this battle have survived. Moreover, at present, the very place where this battle took place is not even known exactly. Lack of information, the ambiguity of the nature of this battle (whether it was predetermined by the general course of history or was of a random nature) make many researchers completely abandon the development of this topic.
At the same time, within the framework of the modern concept of the global revision of classical history, a number of quite good-quality publications appeared, not only denying the battle itself, but also interpreting its main "participants" in a completely different way. (One of the examples of literature of this kind is the book by S. Valyansky, D. Kalyuzhny "Another History of Russia", M., Veche, where Timur is "represented" by a crusader, and his war with Tokhtamysh is one of the "crusades" …)
As for the information traces of this event, they are very few in number
For reasons that are difficult to explain, even a proper "artistic reflection" of this battle did not take place (unlike, for example, the famous battle on the Kulikovo field or other equally large-scale battles of antiquity), moreover, even in the scientific literature this event was covered more than restrainedly.
Promotional video:
Perhaps this is somehow connected with the “mystical significance” of the main characters in this battle - Tokhtamysh (the destroyer of Moscow) and the invincible Timur (there is a lot of mystery about the legacy and history of the latter *).
* According to a stable popular belief, the opening of Timur's tomb should have entailed terrible disasters. It is reliably known that Timur's grave was opened by the expedition of the USSR Academy of Sciences on the evening of June 21, 1941, and this event most mysteriously coincided with the beginning of the Great Patriotic War. This “coincidence” struck the citizens of the USSR so strongly and spread so widely that without official support and replication in the media, the collapse of the USSR and the formation of new social communities in the divided republics survived.
The mystery of the information oblivion of this battle makes us once again recall an even more global mystery - the mystery of the disappearance of the largest and most influential state in the region - the disappearance of the Golden Horde.
For several centuries, the Horde literally reigned in Eurasia. But when the Russians established themselves on the Middle Volga already in the XIV century, the “Great Volga Route” from Kazan to Astrakhan passed through very deserted places. And historians somehow didn't bother to explain why and where did the previously so populous and rich Tatar "Sarai" disappear?
Let's return to the battle of Timur with Tokhtamysh
Analysis of the surviving information about the course of this campaign and the battle itself raises many questions:
First, why was the battle accepted by Tokhtamysh under initially unfavorable conditions? Indeed, by its beginning, the army of the Golden Horde was only gathering and after a relatively short time it could almost double. The forces not involved in this battle allowed Tokhtamysh already during 1391-1393 to restore his power over the Horde and then continue the war with Tamerlane. What actually prevented Tokhtamysh from maneuvering and evading a general battle, to wait for the time necessary for the approach of fresh forces? It is well known from history that such a wait-and-see tactic always brought success to the defending nomads (a vivid example is the war of the Scythians and the Persian king Darius).
But it is known that Tokhtamysh did not act this way and accepted the battle, in rather unfavorable conditions. It is difficult to blame this commander for military incompetence and lack of leadership talents. Then it turns out that the given place of the battle was chosen by him quite consciously. Here's just the second question - why was this place so important?
Most researchers pass over this topic in complete silence. Only one of the historians of the late 19th century, M. I. Ivanin, gives a completely sensible explanation for it:
“The Uryu-Tyupya tract (on the Volga) was the seat of the summer headquarters of the khans of the Golden Horde. There were innumerable herds grazing, and a multitude of people wandered …”M. I. Ivanin "On the state of military art among the Central Asian peoples under Tamerlane" (1875) based on the book "Tamerlane. Epoch. Personality. Acts ", M:," Gurat ", 1992)
Perhaps this explanation is sufficient, perhaps not. There are many examples in history - the abandonment of capitals, the deliberate surrender of them to the enemy, to ensure a maneuverable advantage and ensure subsequent tactical advantage. It is another matter if, maneuvering, Tokhtamysh led his formidable enemy to a place where his army would have suffered very tangible losses. (An example of this kind of maneuver is the death of German knights on the ice of Lake Peipsi.)
But in the Middle Volga region, there seems to be no such opportunity and there was no such possibility … But if nature does not want to help, then maybe it can be helped?
At the same time, folk memory, which has completely different features than scientific or religious-spiritual, provides an extremely interesting clue explaining the place of choice of the battle that took place. Here we are talking about the legendary Arrow of Tokhtamysh.
For the first time, the Samara ethnographer Viktor Pylyavsky drew attention to this legend.
The national memory has preserved the information that Tokhtamysh had a "special big arrow". (To our great regret, we have not yet been able to find any details of this legend, just as we have not been able to find any literary references to this object or events directly related to it.)
According to religious occult ideas, “in Islam, an arrow means anger and God's punishment, sent to his enemies. (Giant arrow - huge anger) … In other cultures, the magical meaning of the arrow icon is almost the same. The arrow protects, brings victory, increases strength, will, sometimes heals the wounded …"
(OA Ibliev "Complete encyclopedia of symbols", M:, "World of the book", 2005)
It can be assumed that, maneuvering Tokhtamysh, he brought out the invincible troops of Tamerlane under the blow of the "big arrow", calling upon them the wrath of heaven. (Which, however, did not help him, Tokhtamysh lost the battle and was forced to flee.)
When asked about the possible veracity of this concept, local historians only shrugged their shoulders. They did not know anything about the arrow, and did not want to believe in folk stories. It remained only to seek confirmation (or refutation) of popular beliefs, to prove the existence of Tokhtamysh's Arrow.
***
Well, with such an obvious information impoverishment of the history of Timur's campaign on the Volga, a completely new image appears at the disposal of interested researchers - the Arrow of Tokhtamysh. It is quite obvious that this circumstance could not pass beyond the attention of the ongoing research on the search and study of various legendary objects of the Middle Volga region.
Probably, the first who began the search for this object was the previously mentioned Samara regional historian Viktor Pyliavsky. Using the capabilities of aerial reconnaissance, in the area of the alleged location of the object, he made several flights and discovered a very interesting structure - a clearly pronounced steep slope, about 6 m high, surrounded by a break in a ravine (possibly a remnant of an ancient defensive ditch), with a general orientation of the system to the south-west.
A trip to this object in the fall of 2005 by a group of researchers from "Avesta" revealed the manifestation in this place of some energy features (features periodically observed in other mythological regions of the Middle Volga region. In particular, here we are talking about a very specific radio interference, the so-called " mockingbird "and the effect of a rapid change in the level of illumination of the area. Although the latter may have a biological nature of individual susceptibility, with a sharp change in blood pressure arising under the influence of some little-studied factors.)
The next very important stage - the study of Tokhtamysh's Arrow - was the desire to check how this object is perceived from space. Let's make a reservation right away that we did not expect anything special from this request.
What was our amazement when a rather characteristic contour was found in the space photograph of this area received by the Global system, its outlines very reminiscent of an arrowhead … (photo 1, 2)
It probably makes sense to clarify that at present this object is well expressed only as a relief element and is perceived exclusively from a cosmic height.
On the ground, the object (currently identified by the authors with the so-called Tokhtamysh Arrow) is a relatively small area of a separate hill on three sides bounded by steppe plots plowed up for fields, and on the fourth floodplain of the Sok River. Its surface is overgrown with not thick grass and small shrubs, where numerous small birds feel quite at ease. The hill is cut by small ravines (perhaps, these are ancient man-made ditches that have swirled over). They create very bizarre outlines, practically not "readable" from the ground, but quite clearly distinguishable from a height.
On the slopes of hills and ravines, numerous circles and rings are clearly visible, highlighted by the color of the grass, reaching in size from ten to forty steps in diameter. (The nature of their origin, as well as the order of general placement at the facility, if there is such a thing, cannot be interpreted at present.) (Photo 3, 4)
Circles on the Arrow of Tokhtamysh again make one think about the nature of the phenomenon of the so-called "crop circles". Even in the Middle Volga region, these formations are striking in their complexity and diversity, varying from a simple circle or ring to a very complex pentagram found on the outskirts of the city of Togliatti in the Samara region.
There are many "circles" found on the Arrow. But many of them are not excessive. There are clear repetitions in their size and relative position.
Perhaps one can consider "this formation as a system of certain signals?" And if the answer is “yes”, then by what parameter should this information be read?
Let's return to the discovered "arrow".
Here are a number of questions that "generates" this object and an attempt to answer them (in italics) - which were given by Sergei Alexandrovich Samarov, with the involvement of an additional object "arrows near Sergeevsk" *:
(* When considering space photographs of a number of other areas of the Middle Volga region, another structure was discovered - a forest in the area of the village of Sergeevsk, with its border defining an approximate arrow contour.)
1. Does the resulting image (and with what degree of probability) meet the criteria of artificiality?
(Yes, both arrows meet the artificiality criterion at the
98 percent (checked both by the correlation criterion (it was used by the astronomer A. V. Arkhipov. I adjusted the boom) and by the topographic criterion.)
2. Are there any alleged analogs of the discovered arrow known?
(Probable analogues of our "arrow" are drawings of the Nazca plateau and a number of other megalithic structures of antiquity.)
3. Can this arrow be considered as a kind of pointer?
(Yes, both Tokhtomysh's arrow and the arrow near Sergievsk indicate the dominant heights, and the directions given by these arrows intersect near the third dominant height.)
4. What can provide such a high level of contrast of the contour of this rather accidentally detected object?
(This is the simplest question. The width of the contour is about 100 meters. Most likely this is a plowed strip planted with blackberries or similar plants. These plants have anisotropic light scattering and when viewed from a perpendicular view, this strip will be very bright. When viewed from heights of less than a few kilometers, the strip will be difficult then this band will self-sustain for centuries.)
5. How do the geometric dimensions of the individual parts of the image correlate?
(The arrow of Tokhtomysh is built from an oval natural object by drawing three stripes and a contrasting border. The artificiality of the stripes is proved very reliably (the distribution of the angles of rotation of the vector sliding along the contour is BIMODAL!). The resulting arrow coincides with the drawing of the constellation Virgo (the tip is Alpha Virgo, the northern point of a single the stripes are Zeta Virgo (Virgo's right chest), the lower point of the arrow triangle is Virgo's Gamma (Virgo's left chest and heart; curiously, in our arrow this place is highlighted with a bright horizontal arc); Virgo's legs did not fit on the hill and their position is set by a pair of vertical stripes drawn so that the continuation of the lower edge of the arrow triangle intersects the continuation (downward) of the first of the pair of stripes at the point where the left foot of the Virgo is located (Beta Virgo and the corresponding cathedral in Reims). We have height 178 here (near the village of Chesnokovka). The position of the right foot of the Virgo (Epsilon Virgo)) is set in the same way.
Nowadays there is a trail (single lane) and a country road (along one of the paired lanes) along the edge of the strips.
6. What role can the "circles" found on the slopes of the arrows play?
(This question remains unanswered so far).
As we can see, these issues can be worked on.
Probably the closest analogue of the discovered object is the famous drawings of the Nazca plateau and its lesser known continuation of the drawings of the Palpa plateau.
Here is what the website of the Laboratory for Alternative History reports, April 2004: “Thanks to aviation in the 20th century, mysterious drawings of enormous sizes were accidentally discovered on the surface of the earth. The most famous today are the drawings in the Nazca desert (Peru). The mysteriousness of these drawings lies in the incomprehensibility of their purpose, in the unknown people who created them, as well as the method of applying them to the surface of the earth. These drawings can only be seen from an airplane or from a high altitude …
Neither photographs nor video are able to convey the impression that this macro-complex produces when you see it all with your own eyes. The relief of the area itself is no less surprising and admirable … It should be emphasized that up to the present time there are no detailed maps of the Nazca plateau, let alone Palpa. I talked to three pilots at Nazca airport trying to find out this question, but the answer was always the same: no maps. There are unpretentious tourist diagrams, on which, first of all, drawings are indicated … Non-specialists of the Palpa plateau are practically unknown, occasionally in some publication or on the network there will be a few photos with Palpa's drawings. The most amazing thing is that Maria Reiche did not study this plateau, although she could not be unaware of it. In my opinion,the Palpa plateau is much more characteristic and indicative in terms of studying the entire Nazca macrocomplex. Moreover, the Palpa complex is more diverse both in the complexity of the images and their number, and in the variety of monuments."
Their similarity - both can be observed from the air
The difference is expressed in the fact that the images of the Nazca plateau are massive (there are quite a few of them), these objects are visible from a relatively lower altitude (when flying at an altitude of 300 to 500 m) and on the surface these drawings are formed by “shoveling thousands of tons of volcanic pebbles towards as a result of which the light base of the desert was exposed - yellowish sand and clay. Here none of the cleared strips is more than a few inches deep … "(G. Hancock" Traces of the Gods "M:," Veche ", 1997)
Our “arrow” is not a system of cleared strips, but rather a really rebuilt hill, which makes it closer to somewhat different (and more ancient) megalithic monuments of the past.
Many modern researchers agree that in the period between the VI millennium BC. until the 9th century BC a fairly homogeneous culture existed over a large area of the Earth, which created many megaliths. Most of its traces were found in the coastal strip, on the islands of the inland seas and large river valleys. The largest number of discovered structures of this culture were erected (or survived?) In a strip limited by coordinates from 50 to 54 ° N.
By the nature of the finds, three stages of the construction of these megaliths are well distinguished.
The first - from the VI millennium BC. to III millennium BC oblong hills or embankments, dimensions: 90 to 100 m long, about 2.5 m or more in width, and 1.5 to 3 m in height. (A classic example of these megaliths is the so-called Stonehenge 1.)
For Europe, during the construction of these megaliths, the general construction method is clearly traced, which is also characteristic of the earlier period from the 10th to the 8th millennium BC.
At present, archaeologists have discovered on the territory of the Middle Volga region a number of objects dating back to the 6th millennium - 3rd millennium BC. These are the Kameniki tract of the Pestravsky region, the "burial grounds" and mounds of the Bogatovsky and Neftegorsky regions. The finds made in these places are the possibility of the existence of ancient peoples in the Middle Volga region, technologically not inferior to Western European megalithic cultures.
In the second period, somewhere between 3200 and 3000 BC, the people of Europe stop building hills and instead (according to the same rules) begin to erect stone circles, alleles and round mounds. (The construction of one such mound required the efforts of at least 500 people who worked all seasonally for about 15 years. A similar facility is Stonehenge 2)
It can be assumed that something similar is happening in the study area. Round mounds and alleles of stones are erected (legendary Dummy Road).
In the period from 3200 to 2900 BC. archaeologists note a sharp decline in the European population and a drop in its construction activity (this is the so-called era of "Withering elms"). What caused this is not entirely clear.
The third final period of the construction of megaliths (while maintaining the ancient metric system) dates from the period from 2800 to 1600 BC. (Stonehenge 3) and can be traced in very small areas.
From 1500 BC up to 600 BC examples of the construction of megaliths are rare, structures are characterized by a lack of unity of style. A little later, the construction of megaliths practically ceases everywhere. What caused this is also unknown.
In this regard, the mystery of the "information silence" of the megalith epoch is in many respects similar to the mystery of the "information oblivion" of Tamerlane's Volga campaign.
And in this regard, the material accumulated by the group regarding the riddle of Tokhtamysh's Arrow makes us take a completely different look at this object and its role in the history of the Middle Volga region. Moreover, it again makes us think about the possibility of the existence of ancient civilizations, about their information heritage, as well as ways of making developmental contacts.
We can assume a certain ancient system, which at a strictly definite moment of time introduces a certain absurdity into the information field - forcing the researcher to pay increased attention to this or that topic. And some "not indifferent" begin to look for and ask questions, a bunch of questions …
And if you are one of those who asks these questions and start asking, then answers begin to come to you, which in turn lead to you to new questions …
One has only to start asking and investigating how your consciousness begins to develop along a very definite path …
And in this regard, the megaliths, the necropolis of Giza, drawings of the Nazca plateau, and the studied Arrow of Tokhtamysh are ideal generators of questions …
I. Pavlovich (engineer), O. Ratnik (historian)