KALOS LIMEN - CRIMEA

George Page
Micha Jelisavcic
John Sloan

History

In the summer of 1997 we visited this ancient Greek sea port colony founded on far northwest corner of Crimea. From Donizlav we drove northwest, across a narrow section of the Tarkhankutskii peninsula to the bustling town of Chernomorskoye on the northwest coast. It is located on a small bay whose lovely appearance brought the Greeks, who appreciated such things, to name it. What follows is a transcript of an on- site lecture about the ancient Greek colony in the Crimea, known as Kalos Limen or the beautiful harbor, by the noted archaeologist working on numerous sites in Northwestern Crimea since the 1970s, Dr. V. A. Kutaisov, who appears in some of the photographs. We wish to express our appreciation to Dr Kutaisov, who not only gave us considerable personal time but also gave us a valuable new book on archeology in Crimea in which there is an extensive article on Kalos Limen. His article "Fortification of the Chersonessos area" is published in Fortifikatsiya v Drevnosti i Srednyevyekov'ye, St Petersburg, 1995
We will add a summary of the article to this web site. As always Micha recorded the discussion while interpreting.
Kalos Limen, is an elevated area over the beautiful harbor, which overlooks the bay of Karkinitkida. The delegation was standing on the east wall of an early Greek fortified settlement. The present excavated area of the settlement is estimated to be 2.3 hectares. A portion of the settlement has been reclaimed by the Black Sea, approximately a half has been washed away. In the ancient times the overall area is believed to have been around 4 hectares.
In the rear, Dr. Kutaisov pointed to an earthen burrow; in early settlements the cemeteries were covered with earthen mounds. He gave the number at thirty, one of which was being excavated. At this point because of the interpreters lack of knowledge of the subject matter it was unclear what was being talked about. Fortunately a tape recorder was recording the lecture and so the material has been translated here. The second group of burial mounds was under the present village, practically all of which where lost. However some twenty burial tombs have been excavated. A third small group was found behind the house in a line on a little elevation. The settlement has four hallmarks which tell us the history of this area and its graphic nature. One can refer to the recollections in the writings of the ancient writers (the historian Herodotus). Secondly various kinds of information is found on the scribings or inscriptions on the tablets in Khersonese. The fortification in proper was a right angled square and was flanked by towers on the corners. This was a Khersonese fortification and settlement. A few years ago in the south western part of the fortification of Khersonese, we found adjacent to the fortification, a much older settlement which is dated to the end of the fifth century BC at the turn of the fourth century. It existed for three quarters of the fourth century BC until it was brought under Khersonese control along with the other settlements of the north west Crimea. It is unknown whether this settlement had its own fortifications and we have only begun to explore its secrets. The period of control of the area by Khersonese, beginning at the end of the third quarter or perhaps into the fourth quarter of the fourth century BC, continued until the middle of the second century BC, when the fortification was taken by the Scythians. This was followed by the process of the restoration of Khersonese control of the area during the course of some wars, the winners of which were the army of military leader of the Pontic army, Diophantes, sent by Mithridates, known as Evpator. A Pontic garrison was established in the fortification. With the fall of Mithridates the local area reverted back to the barbarians, the Scythians. The fortification is known to have been in existence in the second century AD. In the middle ages, in the ninth and tenth centuries, a small settlement existed of Turkic or early Bulgars. A mirror of this early period with the exception of the last mentioned settlement is the presently excavated site of the fortification, with which Mr. Kutaisov focused his continuing lecture.
The fortification was 120 meters in width on the eastern side. On the far side a tower was unearthed in nineteen twenty nine. There is practically nothing remaining of it. In 1950, our predecessors, he said, unearthed or at least attempted to do it, the tower at the other end which was not unearthed but we know that it is there. The builders who put up the walls of the fortification made a grievous error. We know that the first tower was added later. The gates to the settlement were not guarded by a tower. The inhabitants had to pay for this mistake. The gates were not flanked by a tower which would have allowed the defenders to rain fire on the attacking warriors who assaulted the gate. The result of this miscalculation is that we can see fresh evidence of burned out living quarters, which we dug out seven years ago. However even now we are not sure that the Scythians burned the Kalos Limen fortification and more than likely the attacks were repulsed.
Immediately followed a reassessment of the layout of the defensive emplacements and construction of a reinforcing tower, at which time Mr. Kutaisov pointed out chariots' tracks and a sidewalk.
Of interest is the technique of construction of the tower. It is generally understood that blocks were cut out at the quarry and prepared at the quarry site. Nothing of the sort happened at this tower. What is evident here with the different rows allows us to ascertain the process of laying each stone. For each row, segments were laid out which determined the needed size of blocks needed for the intended segment. The blocks which formed the lower part of the wall were 34 centimeters in height. Higher up, blocks were used of which some were 64 centimeters or two and a half widths of a hand. Even higher at the top adobe bricks were used. The tower was constructed at the end of the first third of the first century BC. Whether the adobe bricks had to be replaced every 70 years or so is not known to us. It is known that an adobe brick construction is durable especially if it is protected from dampness with a clay tile roof. The thing to note is that adobe bricks were used here which have since crumbled. Geological deposits of sea shells were from a Sarmatian era of paleontology. Sarmatian limestone is one of numerous deposits of bygone millennia.
A discussion ensued during which course it was learned that an American team was working at a lake in the environs. The tour continued to the southern side of the fortification. Dr. Kutaisov pointed out the southwestern tower site, which was excavated in nineteen twenty nine. An imaginary line was drawn for us in the direction of the light house across the bay, which provided the locale for the once existing wall from the tower of which there only remained a depression consisting of rubble of the wall when it was disassembled in the 19th century in order to use the materials for the erection of a mosque. We continued along this depression to another fortification emplacement. Dr. Kutaisov stopped us at a segment of the edifice to explain that a tower showed us an amazing technical detail. Four construction periods are seen at this, the most well preserved structure. This he considered to be the most interesting and telling part of the site. He pointed to a breach in the excavation trench to a portion of the most ancient wall of the earliest period, in the fourth century BC. At this early period a tower had not been built yet. He pointed to a segment of the earliest wall, some ten to twenty meters in length. It could also be seen better standing inside the tower where it had been excavated deeper and was greater in length. This period was followed at the end of the third century BC, after which the Scythians began to press the settlers of Khersonese, and many settlements ceased to exist, especially those which had no defense, evidence of which is the imposing citadel which was erected here. A monolithic tower of the dimensions of ten meters by ten meters was erected one which was very imposing. Following a short time culminating in the erupting of a series of wars between the Khersonese and the Scythians the tower was further strengthened by a skirt (plinth) rising in the manner of a pyramid excluding the possibility of bringing an assault tower against the wall of the tower. This tower was skirted from the outer side, the side facing the citadel and even the side facing the settlement. Even if the citadel was taken the tower offered a last ditch resistance. Dr. Kutaisov said that he thinks the tower was built here for a specific reason, purposefully built here. Perhaps it was a light tower. It is the singular most suitable position to aid ships to navigate using the crossed beacons of light from the other light tower on the other side of the bay. It was the most suitable site for navigation as a point of reference. Furthermore, the sea was four meters lower and the bays sides made for a much narrower passage way.

Illustrations

	Number	Description
		Dr Kutaisov and his son checking stone walls
		Dr Kutaisov describing tower to Micha
		Sea wall and bay
		Unexcavated section and bay
		Dr Kutaisov describing city to Micha
		Main tower foundations
		Unexcavated areas, Dr Kutaisov with George and Micha
		Gate towers
		Corner tower by sea
		Another view of corner
		Bay viewed over walls where Greek ships docked.

High quality prints and digital copies of these photographs are available. To obtain these or inquire about visits to this location please contact Xenophon. Return to Xenophon. Return to Ruscity. Return to Rushistory. Return to Ukraine.