: 133-151
Lviv Polytechnic National University, Department of Architecture and Conservation

The article opens a series of thematic publications, which should outline the current state of preservation and destruction of historically important objects of cultural heritage - fortifications. Based on field studies of fortresses and available digital materials, the author derives a cause-and-effect algorithm for the destruction of 11 selected research objects. The description of the state of preservation includes a general description of the territory and objects of fortification, the identified losses.

The article opens a cycle of thematic publications, which should outline the current state of preservation and destruction of historically important objects of cultural heritage - fortifications. On the basis of field studies of fortresses and available digital materials, the author derived a cause-and-effect algorithm for the destruction of 11 selected research objects. The description of the state of preservation includes a general description of the territory and objects of fortification, discovered losses.

Annual monitoring of the state of preservation of fortifications is not a component of the reports of local and regional departments for the protection of monuments of immovable cultural heritage of Ukraine, the territory and objects of which are subordinate to the state. Brief information is found in the annual reports of archaeological expeditions, which describe the available remains of material substrates and found items of cultural layers (Collection, 1947-2022). In tourist and excursion reviews, which appear as author's articles and video tours (Butrov, 2021), we are often told which objects we can visit, brief popular information and historical figures. The authors do not deepen their publicly available reviews to the level of cause-and-effect relationships of the destruction, being guided by the general impression of visiting the sites of monuments of fortification art.

Since the middle of the 20th century, interest in the fortresses of southern Ukraine (modern Odesa, Mykolaiv, and Kherson regions) has been traced in the publications of individual researchers of the Odessa Society of History and Antiquities ((Ivanyuk, 2011). Their works aim to specify, clarify historical events, deepen knowledge in fortification order the territory, introduce new historiographical sources into scientific circulation (Bertier-Delagarde, 1900) (Bertier-Delagarde, 1888) (Stamati, 1850). Only a limited number of researchers record the current state of fortresses, in particular, when creating security documentation or historical-architectural reference plans. The most relevant today are the descriptions of the terrain of the fortresses by historians and archaeologists Viktor Sapozhnikov, Andrii Krasnozhon, Iryna Stankevich (Karashevych), Oleksandr Stepanchenko, architect Viktor Vecherskyi. Currently, there are almost no detailed descriptions and studies of the material component of the architectural details of the buildings and the territory of the monuments, which mostly  limits the introduction and use of modern materials during restoration and restoration.

The method of work consists in a field survey, carried out under the condition of the possibility of architectural measurements and a mathematical calculation of the volume of losses of objects over the last hundred years. The starting model of the calculation is a three-dimensional model of the researched fortress created on the basis of archival drawings and images, which in general spatial parameters corresponds to the architectural dimensions. Part of the fortresses, in particular Ochakiv, Kinbourn and Kiliya, are currently completely lost objects, it is impossible to carry out architectural measurements of the remains, therefore three-dimensional models of fortress reconstructions are used in relative volumes, not actual ones.

Two main groups of destruction factors were identified: anthropogenic and natural.

Anthropogenic include: 1.1. Violation of the boundaries of the monument. which are defined in the IAOP, unauthorized or system land development; 1.2. Extraction of land, sand and arrangement of landfills for household waste. Mechanical destruction of earth lines of fortifications; 1.3. Use of landmark stones as building material by local residents; 1.4. Unregistered archaeological searches - black archaeologists; 1.5. General vandalism; 1.6. Fortification measures were carried out in an unprofessional manner; 1.7. Military operations.

Currently, there is an important issue of entering the territories of fortification objects - fortresses, castles, fort posts - objects of fortification art of the south of Ukraine into the list of historical monuments of local importance, because in this way it is possible to achieve their rightful protection and conservation. Entering areas into protected zones, assigning a protected number and recognizing historical value becomes the reason for bringing the local population to criminal responsibility in case of conscious and unconscious destruction, littering, conducting illegal economic activities. The minimization of anthropogenic impact on the territory and the surviving material remains of objects of fortification art should become the basis for the implementation of monument protection measures.

Natural factors include: 2.1. Weathering of earth and stone, falling of bricks or collapse of wall fragments; 2.2. Irrigation and wetting of the grounds of the attraction; 2.3. Brick wetting and biodamage

The influence of climatic factors is almost impossible to stop, because they do not depend on the activities of the local population, and to minimize them - yes. Each project of monument protection measures or conservation project must include measures for amortization of climatic changes, take into account forecasts and calculation of possible risks of using materials and technical equipment on the territory of monuments of fortification art. Modern materials and mixtures of polymeric substances can protect limestone surfaces from intense insolation and erosion. Monitoring of the state of preservation should go from visual and quantitative (use of photo reports and measurements, installation of dynamic beacons) to digital - use soundings and calendar checks of the molecular composition of stone and plaster to check and clarify the factors of destruction, develop a program for mitigating climate impacts. Carrying out drainage works, draining or watering the necessary areas to ensure the equalization of microclimatic indicators, to prevent landslides or wind erosion.

The study of microdendrology and stone biodamage of fortresses in southern Ukraine is rather limited or inaccessible to specialists in architecture and monument preservation. Currently, it is not known which algae, mosses and plants deteriorate the structure of the stone or contribute to its preservation. Exudation on the surface and inside the stone or brick manifests itself differently in different regions. Only the next molecular studies of the materials from which the monuments were built will provide a greater range of possibilities in the use of ancient fortification technologies or the introduction and invention of new restoration materials.

The most dangerous are the illegal economic activities of the local population, the absence of warning signs, lack of information about fines and criminal liability, and monitoring of violations should be on the eve of significant restoration works. The community that will use the monument must be aware of the challenges and risks caused by careless treatment of the object of protection, in this case a monument of fortification art. Conducting joint seminars and training camps for children and teenagers with scientists will expand their awareness of the value of fortresses and adjacent territories, and will avoid vandalism and systematic littering of the territory based on the principle of "common open use". In the future, the wishes and demands of the community can be taken into account in the project of restoration and adaptation of monuments to the modern needs and functions of the community itself, thus we will get rid of the physical and cultural isolation of the monument and the user.

In general, the fortification areas are filled unevenly, there is fragmentary preservation of individual structures or territories of the defensive field. The complete preservation of the fortification environment, in which all the constituent parts were present, was not found. The Akkerman fortress (47.5%) is classified as an incomplete integral state of preservation, and the Kherson, Izmail, and Perekop fortresses are classified as average (40%). These fortresses include the outer lines of defense lines, walls, gates and planning parcelling, fragments of the defensive field, and fortification inspection fronts. These fortresses are well located within the city center and are a popular place for recreation and public events. They require regulation of visiting regimes, discovery and emphasis of architectural and spatial qualities, improvement of the quality of exposition of the historical landscape. The Perekop Fortress requires separate preservation and exhibition measures, the development of which is currently problematic. The fragmentarily preserved fortresses (Kinburn and Kiliya) do not have significant spatial elements of fortification, are lost and built over, but their historical and cultural significance for modern Ukraine is important, the reproduction or exhibition of these objects is of state importance. Unfortunately, the lost fortresses (Tatar-Bunar, Yeni-Duniya, Ochakiv, Kuchuk Hasan Pasha, Khadzhibey) do not have resources for architectural or landscape reproduction, their territory is completely built-up and degraded, they are in the state of an archaeological monument.

Risks of further loss of historical-architectural and spatial qualities were identified for all the examined fortresses. The integrity of the historical landscapes of fortresses directly depends on the economic activity of local residents. Due to agriculture, the Ajider fortress may lose part of the defensive moat and be built up by private sector economic structures. Active clogging of fortress grounds leads to loss of interest in visiting, general aesthetic properties of panoramas. The littering and remoteness of the earthen lines of Izmail's fortifications, bordering with the fences of industrial territories creates a depressing impression, a sense of danger. Also, active earthworks can destroy the geometry of the profile of the earthen bastions of the fortress.

The lost fortresses (Tatar-Bunar, Yeni-Duniya, Ochakiv, Kuchuk Hasan Pasha, Hadjibey, Kiliya, Kinburn) were subjected to a complex of destructive factors for a long time. The Yeni-Duniya fortress, which was dismantled for the purpose of building a new fort post and setting up a gun bridgehead, was completely destroyed in one moment. The Hadjibey fortress was destroyed in order to arrange a park and a recreation and festival area. The territory of the Kuchuk Hasan Pasha fort was rebuilt recently, so it is impossible to determine the extent and factors of the structure's destruction, stating only that it was a deliberate reconstruction. Tatar-bunar fortress, one of the examples of gradual natural and anthropogenic destruction, part of its bricks were used for construction of surrounding buildings, the rest – has undergone natural erosion. It is known that some of the large white brick blocks of Fort Kinbourn were used by the locals as building material, and then the estuary and the wind completely buried any remains of the mighty fortress in the sand.

Berte-Delahard, A., 1888. Catalog of maps, plans, drawings, drawings kept in the Museum of the Imperial Odessa Society of History and Antiquities. Odessa: avtor nevidomyi. [in Russian]
Berte-Delahard, A., 1900. On the state of the Akkerman fortress. Zapysky Odesskoho obshchestva ystoryy y drevnostei, T. ХХII, pp.75-82. [in Russian]
Bilyayeva, S., Karashevych, I. and Fialko, O., 2014. The main results of archaeological research on the Kinburn spit in 2009-2013. Arkheolohiya, 3, S.92-103. [in Ukrainian]
Butrov, I., 2021. Izmail under the Turks: how the city and fortress were created. [online] Available at: <> [Accessed: 20 August 2022]. [in Russian]
Vechersʹkyy, V., 2003. The heritage of urban planning of Ukraine: theory and practice of historical and urban planning preservation studies of inhabited places. Kyiv: NDITIAM. [in Ukrainian]
Vechersʹkyy, V., 2011. Historical and urban planning studies: Vasylkiv, Vinnytsia, Horlivka, Izmail. Kyiv. [in Ukrainian]
Ivanyuk, O.L., 2011. Contribution of the Odessa Society of History and Antiquities to the military-historical research of Transdnieper Ukraine and Crimea. Visnyk mariupolʹsʹkoho derzhavnoho universytetu, seriya: istoriya. Politolohiya, 30, S.41-51. [in Ukrainian]
Karashevych, I., 2014. Application of GIS technologies for the study of the Ackerman fortress ensemble. Naukovi zapysky, Seriya: Istorychni nauky, 20 pp.218-225. [in Ukrainian]
Krasnozhon, A., 2019. Khadzhibey Castle: history of research, dating, localization. Stratum: V poiskakh sushchnosti, S.395-413. [in Russian]
Sapozhnikov, I., 2019. Ottoman Tatarbunar castle of the 17th-18th centuries: a historical and topographical essay. TYRAGETIA, XIII [XXVIII](2), pp.9-22. [in Russian]
Stamati, K., 1850. About Bessarabia and its ancient fortresses. ZOOÍD, T. 2, S.806-818. [in Russian]
Stepanchenko, O., 2018. About the reasons for the decline of the Akkerman fortress and its current state. [online] Available at: < [Accessed: 01 December 2022]. [in Ukrainian]