Open access peer-reviewed chapter
Abstract
This chapter describes the results of a scientific study on the typology of the Southern Urals fortified settlements of the Bronze Age development. Archeological data comprehensive analysis are related to the architectural and urban planning interpretation of previously studied materials, using graphic restoration of architecture methods, which allowed us to clarify the definition of the settlements typology belonging to the ancient cultures of the Southern Urals. The dynamics of the basic typological criteria development, whereby it is proposed to determine a particular type of settlement, is taken into account. Four basic criteria introduce into a new typology of fortified settlements: space-planning structure of the layout nature, the size of settlements with account of surroundings, the morphology in the form of the plan, and fortification power level. In the train of the study, a table was compiled that shows the genesis of fortified settlements of the Bronze Age on the Southern Urals territory. Recommendations for the use of the typology in further research are given, in respect to the visualization of system connections between settlement objects. The method of graphic coding in the typological model development is used as the most effective for displaying informative data on diagrams and graphs.
Keywords
- new typology
- fortified settlements
- the southern Urals
- the bronze age
- planning structures
1. Introduction
The Southern Urals of the Bronze Age fortified settlement typology is under development on the previous results basis but has a number of significant differences that allow identifying and classifying the objects according to the identified typological criteria more precise. Previously, three main types were distinguished: the
Archeological data are updating and interpreting the process of local exploration using virtual reconstructions and modern methods of geo-survey and new data analysis. According to the recent study results, the archeological data interpretation has a vast variety and arouses research interest in terms of generating new scholarly knowledge on early forms of architecture, archaic building technologies, and settlement systems [8, 9, 10].
The purpose of the study is to develop an architectural planning typology of the Southern Urals fortified settlements of the Bronze Age.
This research has the following objectives:
To analyze developments on the research topic and consider a number of examples on deciphering the fortified settlements’ planning structures;
To determine the main typological assessment criteria for the Southern Urals fortified settlements of the Bronze Age;
To characterize and update a number of criteria for typological assessment using archeological data graphical interpretation;
To develop and prove a criterion for the fortification strength assessment;
To develop a diagram of the fortified settlements typology;
To provide recommendations on the developed typology implementation and represent prospects related to the development results approbation.
As a result of the study, the new typology has been clearly investigated, enabling to analyze the fortified settlements’ development dynamics on the territory of the Southern Urals in ancient times and build territorial system connections between different types of settlements. A diagram has been developed, clearly demonstrating the genesis of the studied objects according to the main criteria; in particular, criteria for the fortification strength assessment have been developed in detail.
The first criterion in determining the typology of the objects under study is
Conclusions about the nature of the oldest Southern Urals fortified settlements’ space-planning pattern were made at the early stages of their reconstruction. For more than two decades, the conclusions have been updated and described in detail in the works of historians and archeologists, art historians, and architects [12]. As a result of a planning structure and virtual modeling detailed architectural and urban planning analysis, two specific varieties of fortified settlements that had existed on the territory of the Ural-Tobolsk plateau were distinguished. The first type has conditionally been designated as fortified settlements “with an inhabitable walls pattern;” the second type has been designated “with a continuous building pattern,” by analogy with the definition introduced in the evaluation of the ancient Chorasmian architectural culture by S.P. Tolstov ([13], p. 10).
The second criterion for the development of a typological line is
Earlier on, it was concluded that, mainly, fortified settlements with inhabitable walls, the settlements in which dwellings were closely adjacent to defensive walls and made up a whole with fortification, belong to the Sintashta period. The architecture of such structures may be divided into subtypes: the 1st subtype is small, and the 2nd subtype is large. Conditionally, fortified settlements with a total area of up to 6 hectares may be called “small” and settlements with an area of 6 or more hectares “large,” taking into account the adjacent territory.
The classification of ancient Mesopotamian settlements of the Bronze Age according to Adams-Nissen is used in determining the type and sizes of Sintashta settlements. A three-level hierarchy of settlements in the Uruk region (Mesopotamia), formed during the Jemdet Nasr period (XXXI–XXIX centuries BC) and the Early Dynastic I (XXVIII–XXVII centuries BC), chronologically, corresponding to the nascent stage of the Sintashta fortified settlements in the Southern Urals, is given as an example. According to the settlement type classification, by the III millennium BC, 3–4 hierarchical types were formed in the Uruk region: Type 1 was considered small villages (“vilages”) with an area of 0.1–6 hectares (about 124 settlements), “towns” (“towns”) with an area of 6.1–25 hectares (21 settlements), and “central settlements” (“urban centers” with an area of more than 50 hectares (there were only two settlements), and the fourth level was a “city” formation with an area of more than 400 hectares ([14], p. 18). Another important factor in determining the settlement type classification, according to Adams-Nissen, is the distance between individual settlements and the formed separate groups.
Generally, one of the shortcomings of this methodology is a common approach to the analysis of build-up area indicators and transit distances between settlements. Although for many historical cities, the build-up area size was not a decisive indicator for determining whether a settlement belonged to villages, large villages, or cities. Minimally, such indicators as population density within settlements should be included into the classification typology; this would give an objective idea of the compactness or building or rareness of domestic development in percentage terms. To determine the factor of the settlement functional focus and the principles of the object space-planning pattern, taking into account the state of its preservation is of the essence as well.
Based upon the dwellings planning on the fortified settlements, they were intended for congeneric representatives. Indoors, the dwellings were divided into small rooms intended for a small family of 4–5 people. The average number of inhabitants in one dwelling is calculated as per the formula listed above:
Thus, we obtain the average gross floor area per capita:
The average area per family of four people:
According to modern concepts, these figures, if archeologists’ studies are to be trusted, seem extremely minimal.
Currently, it is not anticipated to introduce a population density criterion, since the current state of the issue does not have sufficient data on population density in the territories of the Southern Urals fortified settlements during their functioning. The data on the proposed number of inhabitants in various sources vary greatly and require further study before these indicators will be included in the typological assessment criteria.
According to the V.F. Gening study materials ([15], p. 24), it is necessary to rest upon the calculations of the Sintashta-1 settlement area, taking into account the adjacent territory, which reaches at least 6.2 hectares, therefore falling under the large object subtypes. Thus, the Sintashta-1 fortified settlement may be considered the base for determining the standard size criterion.
All fortified settlements that are smaller in terms of area than Sintashta-1 fall under the 1st subtype; some of these two subtypes have a two-level system of fortification, that is, consist of two rings of defensive works and dwellings: internal and external. Some do not have an internal defense ring (they either lost it in the process of rebuilding and functioning or did not have it initially); such constructions have a fairly vast courtyard space.
Upon closer inspection of the Sintashta fortified settlements of two-level fortification, such as Arkaim, Sintashta-1 Kizilskoye, possibly Bersuat or the early layers of Steppe, Kuisak, based on the correlation of archeological data decryption of aerial photographs by B.V. Adrianov and I.M. Batanina [16], are considered as fortified settlements, which initially have had a “citadel” in the structure of fortification, around which an outer ring of inhabitable walls was formed in stages, forming the second level of fortification.
In the course of the evolution of scientific study and fortified settlements’ ruin deciphering, such as Sarym-Sakly and Aland, it was found that initially, these settlements did not have an internal citadel at all, or lost it in the process of reconstruction. If such a structure previously took place on the settlements site, then it functioned as an earlier form of construction, on the basis of which, later, a larger settlement arose, and the citadel itself was lost in the process of reconstruction.
On the example of the Andreevsky fortified settlement, the plan shape of the Sintashta type has not always been round or oval, such as in Arkaim, Sintashta, Sarym-Sakly, and others. The plan shape of the Sintashta settlements, presumably, depended on the configuration and shape of the ground. By the graphical reconstruction of vertical planning pattern and the construction of horizontal sectional view of the plan, it can be inferred that all round-planned settlements are located on a table land and radically have the shape of a “saucer”. Thus, this shape was associated not only with defensive but also with the hydrotechnical functions of the construction, protecting it from the force of nature.
Since the mid-1980s, the “landscape archaeology” dimension has been engaged in the study of the processes of settlements’ adaptability and resistance to environmental conditions in different periods of the settlement systems development, from the Paleolithic to the ancient period. “…serious progress is provided not by new epigraphic significant sites rare finds, but by the vast amount of data on the artifacts under study. This knowledge deepening progress can be provided by a complex of methods for studying the interaction of humans and the surrounding landscape” ([17], p. 143–156).
During the floodtime, the site with the settlement provided an island location of the settlement, surrounded by flood waters. Not only the settlement itself remained on land within the boundaries of the defense construction, but the adjacent territory area was also not exposed to flooding.
As a result of the Andreevskoye fortified settlement analysis, it can also be concluded that the plan shape of this settlement is due to the landscape shape: the settlement was inscribed in the riverbed terrace upland.
Initially, by shape, Andreevskoye looked like a citadel with distorted rectangle and rounded corners. Excavations in the Andreevskoye settlement have not yet been carried out; however, in 2013, major geomagnetic and geo-radar studies were carried out by V.V. Noskevich and N.V. Fedorova, the researchers of the Institute of Geophysics of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. As a result, it was found that the significant sites’ ruins had the form of overlays of three asynchronously fortified settlements with a shape similar to a rectangle and the earliest of which was synchronous with the Sintashta period. Furthermore, it was found that the construction was built about 4000 years ago, in the form of a rectangle, and was subsequently finished and rebuilt several times [18].
The issues of chronological component in the development of the fortified settlements typology are not touched upon in this study advisedly, in order to avoid affecting the objectivity of the formation assessment due to disagreements in the cultural layers dating. According to the same approach, Walter Kristaller, the German scientist-geographer, studied settlement systems regardless of their historical background, and this allowed achieving certain results in a universal model development (“W. Kristaller’s model of the hierarchical structure of central places”) [19]. Later, the model has been used and supplemented in the theory of urban planning as one of the basic ones. It has also applied to ancient Mesopotamian settlements [20] where stable indexes of distances between settlements of different ranks were traced, which was inextricably linked to the transportation facilities of the population of that period.
In the rectangular fortified settlements, unlike round-planned settlements, there was no central element—a land area, and there were also no hydraulic ring ditches. Drain was carried out toward the relief; perhaps other drainage canals were laid along the walls and dwellings. Similarly, later settlements of the Petrovka or Srubno-Alakul type were built, characterized by a kind of a continuous building pattern. For such site development, this is the most sustainable solution—the creation of longitudinally axial streets inside the settlement and the building of consolidated dwellings isolated from the fortification. This technique made it possible to rebuild and finish constructing residential and fortification structures and change the configuration of the settlement without affecting residential areas. The fact of such frequent completion and reconstruction of rectangular-type settlements is evidenced by their multi-layered nature.
The Andreevskoye fortified settlement is an extremely important object for understanding the transformation of the typology, since it is this settlement that can be a borderline in the transformation from the Sintashta to Alakul (Petrovka) type of plan.
Andreevskoye demonstrates a transition force from the Sintashta cultural deposit to the Petrovka (Srubno-Alakulsky) [21]. According to the type of building, it is at the initial construction phase with inhabitable walls, but according to the plan form, it is characteristic with fortified settlements with a continuous building pattern.
Such fortified settlements as Rodniki, Steppe, Olgino (Kamennyj Ambar) [22] possibly Kuisak, Kamysty, and and Ustye were multilayered and had all the cultural layers of the Bronze Age. Thus, during steps of the determination of the morphotype, special attention should be paid to the configuration of the initial layer planning structure.
The following that should be focused in the development of the fortified settlements typology on is the fortification system. When analyzing the vertical planning, three different types of fortification have been identified.
In the fortification strength assessment, the term “areotectonics” has been used since the XVIII century. (“Areotectonics is a complex of processes for the of defense works construction” ([23], p. 25).
For convenience of estimating the Sintashta-Petrovka areotectonics characteristics, an assessment level of its complexity or strength is introduced, which is determined by 3 indicators: depth (horizontal), height (vertical), and the number of barrier levels (walls, ramparts, and ditches in the fortification depth).
The peculiarity of this type was that the fortress had two parallel defensive walls, between which there was a drainage ditch. The outer wall in a circle or perimeter had the form of a rampart pattern with indoor premises up to 2.5–3 meters high and up to 3 meters wide at the base, and the inner wall, to which the dwellings adjoined, looked like a complex fortification, and communication system with the width reached 6.5 meters at the base and up to 4 meters at the top of the wall. The parapet height reached 5.5 m sub-mainland. In some sources, this wall is called the “upper circular street” [5]. From the outside, a quite deep drainage ditch up to 3 meters deep was adjacent to the wall. There were premises-cells inside the wall, in which it was possible to get from the dwellings adjacent to the fortification. In some cases, the walls were faced with stone slabs and fieldstones (granites, amphibolites) from the outside. The depth of such fortification could reach 16 meters, and the total height could reach 8.5 meters, taking into consideration the drainage ditch.
Despite the fact that such fortification is specific to large Sintashta fortified settlements, such as Aland and Zhurumbai, it is also found in small “citadels”: Sarym-Sakly or Kuisak (during the opening phase of formation) as an example, possibly Isinei (excavations at the settlement have not been carried out).
Figure 1.
Sintashta-Petrovka areotectonics (graphic reconstruction). (A) the 1st degree of fortification complexity. (B) the 2nd degree of fortification complexity. (C) the 3rd degree of fortification complexity.
Due to the fact that excavations and surface magnetic studies have not been carried out on all Southern Urals fortified settlements, it is not possible to determine the type (level of complexity) of fortification on most settlements at the time of the study.
Based on the analysis, it is possible to identify the main criteria by which it is possible to determine the Southern Urals of the Bronze Age fortified settlement typology.
As a result of the methodology application, based on the definition of typological criteria for assessments, a typological scheme of Southern Urals of the Bronze Age fortified settlements has been formed. Two key indicators, which are determined by the generalized characteristics of the study objects, space-planning pattern and morphology [24], form the basis for criteria for assessments and typological features.
As a result, a graphical scheme has been drawn, which represents the main typological classification of the Sintashta and Petrovka (Srubno-Alakulsky) period fortified settlements in the Southern Urals (Figure 2) at the time of the study.
Figure 2.
Typology of fortified settlements of the bronze age in the southern Urals.
The developed scheme’s advantage is that it is dynamic. Only the main (basic) parameters remain unchanged in it, and criteria may be added or updated in the case of data correlation or the identification of new typological criteria.
In evaluation of study results and as an example of practical implementation, an analysis of the objects location on a satellite map using the developed typology is given (Figure 3). The diagram demonstrates information on anchor points (anchor points indicate fortified settlements). Pictograms on the diagram indicate fortified settlements by morphotypes; linear distances between anchor objects and anchor features are presented (displayed with lines of different types). When mouse over to any of the anchor points, a “scroll” with information appears. The interactive block in the “scroll” contains all the necessary information about the anchor point: name, image, and basic typological parameters.
Figure 3.
Approbation of the typological scheme application results in practice.
2. Sintashta metallurgy and bronze
Briefly, it is worth noting that the Sintashta bronze metallurgy belongs to one of the latest stages of the Middle Bronze Age. At that time, bronze manufacturing technology demonstrated a sufficiently large inventory assortment from housekeeping equipment and votive items to weapons (Figure 4), which, obviously, as trophies were a great asset to their owners.
Figure 4.
Metallurgical production in the southern Urals territory in the bronze age with the analysis of the resource potential and different types of fortified settlements belonging to the raw materials extraction sites. (A) O.A. Ulchitsky, 2021. Fortified settlements groups in relation to resource potential. (B) F.N. Petrov, 2008. Reconstruction of the Sintashta iron-and-steel furnaces [25] and the alloy types ratio on Sintashta monuments. (C) F.N. Petrov, 2008. Objects made of bronze in the Sintashta settlements [25].
On the fortified settlements territory, objects made of metallurgical alloys, the main composition of which was copper and antimony, have virtually been not found (there are isolated finds), but inventory of its kind was mainly part of the Kurgan tombs of the Bronze Age and later period. The main and most interesting finds were made on the territory of the Arkaim and Sintashta burial grounds. Smelter slag was found in large quantities on and around the settlements, as well as spatters and molds [26]. This topic is dug deeper into the I. V. Chechushkov dissertation [27].
3. Conclusion
The study extension on the development of the fortified settlements’ typology in the Southern Urals at the end of the III to the first half of the II millennium BC provides a more accurate and overall picture of the evolution formation of ancient settlements.
The new developed typology of ancient fortified settlements of the Southern Urals essentially fills up the previously known developments. It specifies and classifies objects much more precisely according to the identified criteria. Generally, the developed typology specifies 3 main types of the Southern Urals fortified settlements of the Bronze Age, (1) Sintashta round-shaped “with an inhabitable walls pattern,” (2) Sintashta subrectangular “with an inhabitable walls pattern,” and (3) Petrovka or Srubno-Alakulsky subrectangular “with a continuous building pattern, which are combined into six morphotypes.
The study continuation on the development of the fortified settlements typology in the Southern Urals at the end of the III to the first half of the II millennium BC provides a more accurate and overall picture of the settlements’ oldest forms evolution, which represents a linear, cluster, and poly- or monocentric settlement system over a vast territory.
The developed typology forms ten subtypes, which are combined into six morphotypes.
The developed scheme is a good example of typological connection invariants possible in theory and may be used as a tutorial for studying fortified settlements ruins on topographic maps at various scales and in the construction of linear structures conjoint by typological connections.
The theoretical significance of the study results’ approbation lies in the fact that the graphical display of information about objects and their connections provides operational possibilities for visualizing data on anchor points (fortified settlements) on satellite maps. The practical significance of the implementation lies in the prospects of creating a software module pegged to GIS systems.
References
- 1.
Gurevich LL. O kruglyh gorodah drevnih irancev. In: Zony i etapy urbanizacii: Teoreticheskie aspekty problemy Gorod i process urbanizacii v Srednej Azii Tez. dokl. konf. Namangan. Tashkent. 1989. pp. 48-49 - 2.
Petrov FN, Ankushev MN, Medvedeva PS. Material’nye svidetel’stva tekhnologicheskih processov v kul’turnom sloe poseleniya Levoberezhnoe (Sintashta II): opyt funkcional’nogo podhoda, Magistra Vitae. elektronnyj zhurnal po istoricheskim naukam i arheologii. 2018; 1 :112-147 - 3.
Chechushkov IV, Dakovich G, Yakimov AS. Arhitekturno-planirovochnye resheniya sintashtinsko-petrovskih poselenij i problema voennogo dela epohi bronzy. Rossijskaya arheologiya. 2018; 2 :75-93 - 4.
Zdanovich GB, Batanina IM. Arkaim, Strana gorodov: Prostranstvo i obrazy. Chelyabinsk: Krokus; 2007. p. 260 - 5.
Malyutina TS, Zdanovich GB. Alandskoe–Arkaim: drevnee nasledie Yuzhnogo Urala. Orenburg. Izd-vo Ministerstva kul’tury, obshchestvennyh i vneshnih svyazej Orenburgskoj oblasti {Orenburg: Publishing House of the Ministry of Culture, Public and External Relations of the Orenburg Region. 2013. 30 p - 6.
Soldatkin NV. Arhitektura ukreplennyh poselenij sintashtinsko-petrovskogo tipa v sushchestvuyushchih variantah vizual’nyh rekonstrukcij. Vestnik arheologii, antropologii i etnografii. 2020; 1 (48):15-25 - 7.
Ul’chickij OA. Osobennosti arhitektury protogorodov drevnego Urala (na primere Arkaima): avtoref. Russia: dis. … kand. arhit. Ekaterinburg; 2006. 24 p - 8.
Masson VM. Dinamika razvitiya tripol’skogo obshchestva v svete paleodemograficheskih ocenok. In: Pervobytnaya arheologiya: poiski i nahodki. Kiev: Naukova dumka; 1980. pp. 204-212 - 9.
Fyodorova NV, Noskevich VV. Rekonstrukciya planirovki ukreplennyh poselenij epohi bronzy na YUzhnom Urale (Ol’gino i Konoplyanka) po rezul’tatam detal’noj magnitnoj semki. Ural’skij geofizicheskij vestnik. 2012; 1 :52-59 - 10.
Fyodorova NV. Geofizicheskie metody issledovaniya arheologicheskih pamyatnikov Sarym-Sakly i Vorovskaya Yama (Yuzhnyj Ural). Ural’skij geofizicheskij vestnik. 2013; 2 (22):46-53 - 11.
Ulchitsky OA, Bulatova EK, Kazaneva EK, Veremey OM. A comparative study of the layout of bronze age fortified settlements in the southern Urals (3rd to 1st millennia BC). Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia. 2019; 47 (1):64-72 - 12.
Ponomarenko EV. Goroda Yuzhnogo Urala. Vol. Tom I. Chelyabinsk: Izd-vo Chelyabinskogo oblastnogo komiteta statistiki; 2005. p. 24 - 13.
Tolstov SP. Po sledam drevnekhorezmijskoj civilizacii. M.; L.: Izd-vo AN USSR; Moscow-Leningrad: USSR Academy of Sciences; 1948. 328 p - 14.
McC AR. Land behind Baghlad. A History of Settlements on Diala Plants. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press; 1972 - 15.
Gening VF, Zdanovich GB, Gening VV. CH. 1. In: Sintashta: Arheologicheskie pamyatniki arijskih plemen Uralo-Kazahstanskih stepej: v 2 ch. Chelyabinsk: Yuzh.-Ural. kn. izd-vo; 1992. 408 p - 16.
Batanina NS, BRK H. Chapter 12. Soviet period air photography and archaeology of the bronze age in the southern Urals of Russia. In: Hanson WS, Oltean IA, editors. Archaeology from Historical Aerial and Satellite Archives. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC; 2013. pp. 199-219. Chapter 12. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-4505-0_12 - 17.
Malyshev AA, Trebeleva GV. Evolyuciya sistemy rasseleniya v periferijnyh rajonah Aziatskogo Bospora (na primere p-va Abrau). In: Problemy istorii, filologii, kul’tury. Vol. 3. 2018. pp. 143-156. DOI: 10.18503/1992-0431-2018-3-61-143-156 - 18.
Noskevich VV, Fedorova NV, Bebnev AS, Vdovin AG, Mekhonoshina TL. Rezul’taty issledovaniya geofizicheskimi metodami arheologicheskogo pamyatnika bronzovogo veka gorodishche Andreevskoe (Yuzhnyj Ural). Ural’skij geofizicheskij vestnik. 2014; 1 (23):72-80 - 19.
Christaller W. Die zentralen Orte in Süddeutschland. In: Eine ökonomisch-geographische Untersuchung über die Gesetzmäßigkeit der Verbreitung und Entwicklung der Siedlungen mit städtischer Funktion. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft; 1980. (Repr. d. Ausg. Jena 1933) - 20.
Adams R, Nissen HJ. The Uruk countryside. Chicago-London: University of Chicago Press; 1972. 241 p - 21.
Epimakhov AV. Multidisciplinary archaeological research in the study of migration and mobility (bronze age of the Southern Urals). Problemy istorii, fi lologii, kul’tury. 2021. p. 5-17. DOI: 10.18503/1992-0431-2021-3-73-5-17 - 22.
Koryakova LN, Krause R, Epimakhov AV, Sharapova SV, Panteleyeva SE, Berseneva NA, et al. Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia. 2011; 39 (4):61-74 - 23.
Artyuhovich DV. Areotektonika, Stroitel’stvo. In: Enciklopedicheskij slovar. Stavropol: Paragraf; 2011. 766 p - 24.
Yankovskaya Yu. S. Obraz i morfologiya arhitekturnogo ob’ekta /YU. S. YAnkovskaya. Ekaterinburg: Arhitekton; 2004. 91 p - 25.
Nikolaevich PF. Arkaim i Strana gorodov: istoriya i priroda stepnogo Zaural’ya: [fotoal’bom/avt. teksta i sost]. Chelyabinsk: Kprkus; 2008. 72 p - 26.
Prihod’ko VE, Ivanov IV, Zdanovich DG, Zdanovich GB, Manahov DV, Arkaim IK. ukreplennoe poselenie epohi bronzy stepnogo Zaural’ya: pochvenno-arheologicheskie issledovaniya. M.: FGUP Izdatel’skij dom “Tipografiya” Rossel’hozakademii. Federal State Unitary Enterprise; Typography, Russian Agricultural Academy Moscow. 2014. 264 p - 27.
Chechushkov IV. Bronze Age Human Communities in the Southern Urals Steppe: Sintashta-Petrovka Social and Subsistence Organization [Thesis]. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburg; 2018. 214 p