The article presents brief results of archaeological studies of the fortified settlement of the Sintashta culture of the Southern Trans-Urals Kamenny Ambar (Olgino). The characteristics of the monument, description of the excavated objects (including elements of fortifications and buildings) and collections of artifacts, chronostratigraphic distribution of ceramics are given.

Keywords: Southern Trans-Urals, Bronze Age, Sintashta culture, fortified settlement Kamenny Ambar (Olgino), interdisciplinary research.

Introduction

At the turn of the third and second millennia BC, the foundations of the cultural landscape of a vast territory, including the steppes and forest-steppes of Eastern Europe, the Urals and Western Siberia, were laid. By this time, complexes of fortified settlements and burial mounds located in the northern steppe on the tributaries of the Tobol and Ural rivers belong to the Southern Trans-Urals* (Zdanovich and Batanina, 2007; Batanina I. M., Batanina N. S., 2009). There are many controversial problems in the interpretation of monuments, which are hindered by the lack of published results of their excavations. Only the materials of the Sintashta settlement have been fully put into scientific circulation [Gening V. F., Zdanovich, Gening V. V., 1992], while only preliminary publications are available for the rest [Zdanovich, 1995,

The article was prepared within the framework of the interdisciplinary project supported by the Presidium of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, "Interdisciplinary research of archaeological sites of the Bronze Age of the Southern Urals" and the joint Russian-German project (RFBR 09 - 06 - 91330-NNIO_a).

* Only one settlement (Chekatai) is located on the shore of the lake.

page 61

Fig. 1. Location of monuments in the valley of the Karagaily-Ayat River (A), settlements and burial grounds in the Kamenny Ambar tract (B). 1 - Konoplyanka; 2 - Zhurumbay; 3 - Kamenny Ambar-5; 4 - Kamenny Ambar (Olgino), a - fortified settlement; b - burial ground.

1997; Vinogradov, 2004; et al.]. Despite the rather large number of monuments that have been investigated to some extent by excavations, there is a disproportion between the source analysis of materials and their interpretation. This article, which opens a series of publications on the project "Interdisciplinary studies of archaeological sites of the Bronze Age of the Southern Urals" and is devoted to an overview of the materials of the excavations of the fortified settlement in the Kamenny Ambar tract (excavations 1 - 5), is intended to partially reduce this disparity*. The monument is located 9,5 km east of Varshavka village, Kartalinsky district, Chelyabinsk region. It is located on the almost horizontal platform of the first terrace of the left bank of the Karagaily-Ayat River, in the northern steppe zone within the boundaries of the Trans-Ural peneplain. The previously studied Kamenny Ambar-5 burial mound (Epimakhov, 2005a) is associated with the settlement (Fig.

History of Kamenny Ambar microdistrict research

In 1982, Yu. V. Tarasov opened a settlement and named it Olgino [1983]. Later, in accordance with the rules for describing historical monuments, it was renamed Kamenny Ambar settlement. Paying tribute to the discoverer, we kept the double name. At first, the monument was identified as an undefended settlement. The presence of a closed fortification system was established by I. M. Batanina in 1989 from aerial photographs and confirmed visually (Vinogradov, 2003; Kostyukov, 1992). In 1990, an archaeological expedition of the Chelyabinsk State Pedagogical Institute led by N. B. Vinogradov conducted small excavations (approx. 200 m 2) in the north-eastern part of the settlement**. In 2004, an instrumental survey of the surface of the settlement and the adjacent territory was carried out [Epimakhov, 2005b], in 2008. it was clarified by [Berseneva, 2009]. In 2005, Merrony made the first magnetometric map (Merrony, Hanks, and Doonan, 2009). Later, a complete magnetic survey was carried out by A. Patzelt [Koryakova, 2009] and specialists of the Institute of Geophysics of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences [Muravyev, Noskevich, Fedorova, 2009a, b]. Since 2005, an expedition of the Institute of History and Archeology of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences has been working on the monument [Epimakhov, 2007a, 2010; Sharapova, 2007, 2009; Berseneva, 2009; Koryakova, 2009]***.

More than 100 objects of different times were found in the Karagaily-Ayat river basin. In addition to the one described in the article, the period of interest includes two other fortified settlements: Zhurumbai and Konoplyanka (Zdanovich and Batanina, 2007), located at a distance of 8-10 km from each other (Fig. 1). Their study is also part of the project's objectives.

Principles and methods of research

When starting to study the monument, we were forced to take into account the following circumstances. With one

* More detailed results of the interdisciplinary research will be covered in separate publications.

** The authors express their gratitude to N. B. Vinogradov for permission to use his materials and for moral support.

*** In 2005-2006, the research was conducted in collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh [Hanks and Doonan, 2009], and since 2008 - as part of a Russian-German interdisciplinary project.

page 62
On the one hand, the image of the Sintashta settlement was already formed in the literature based on the publication of the eponymous monument [Gening V. F., Zdanovich, Gening V. V., 1992] and a review article on the Arkaim settlement [Zdanovich, 1997]; on the other hand, we did not have a clear understanding of the archaeological foundations of this image. We proceeded from the need to fully extract information and minimize the damage caused by excavations. Due to the repeated settlement of the site, the main tasks were to establish the stratigraphic correlation of cultural types and study the objects associated with them. Detailed geophysics studies carried out by Russian specialists on certain sites (Murav'ev, Noskevich, and Fedorova, 2009a, b) and a complete survey of the monument by the German geophysicist A. Patzelt made it possible to establish the layout of the settlement (Fig. 2).

Two sites were selected for excavation, including the defense line, presumably adjacent Sintashta dwellings, and a later depression. The study of the layer was carried out in squares of 4 × 4 m. Every 10 cm, the layer was cleaned with fixing all the outlines. As necessary, the edges were removed, and objects were selected according to the context. Flotation and sieving of the layer were performed. Samples were taken for biological analysis. All finds were recorded individually in a three-dimensional coordinate system. Over the period 2005-2010, more than 1.5 thousand m2 were uncovered.

Main results of the monument research

In the course of complex works, it was established that the monument in plan has the shape of a rectangle with rounded corners, oriented with a long axis perpendicular to the river (NE-SW). The area of the settlement within the fortifications is about 18 thousand m2, and taking into account the depressions behind them and traces of the spread of the cultural layer to the west, it reaches 60 thousand m2. The microrelief, smoothed out by long-term grazing, is better expressed in the area of the defensive wall, which is marked by the ends of the stone slabs of the lining, as well as in the late deep depressions marked dense vegetation. The depressions from the buildings of the early (Sintashta) period are not visually traced, but they are relatively well identified on the magnetic map (Figure 2). It shows that the settlement is surrounded by a defensive line, consists of two parts, one of which - the northern one - is occupied by buildings arranged in four rows, separated by two streets. For the southern part, a clear picture has not yet been obtained. Ras-

2. Magnetometry of the Kamenny Ambar settlement (Olgino). 1 - a magnetic map of the settlement made by A. Patzelt; 2 - a model of the combination of the scanned surface (M. Shaikh) and the magnetogram of the settlement (A. Patzelt). Pattern).

page 63

3. General plan of the investigated objects in excavations 1 - 5. 1 - "ash pit"; 2-filling of Sintashta buildings; 3 - filling of wells; 4-filling of building 3; 5-orange puncture; 6-stones; 7-base of the wall; 8-border of building 3; 9-borders buildings 1, 2, and 7; 10 - moat border.

cops 1-5 in the north-eastern part of the settlement investigated a fragment of the fortification, a building site adjacent to it from the inside (buildings 1, 2 and partially 7*), a small area outside the fortification, as well as one of the late pits (N 3).

The monument has an expressive stratigraphy illustrating the features of the formation of the cultural layer, the order of construction, functioning and destruction of elements of the settlement. The thickness of the cultural layer in the excavated area was at least 60 cm (excluding the moat, wells, etc.).

Elements of fortification. The studied section of the defensive line consisted of the remnants of the inner (main)one walls, moats, exterior walls, and entrances. The main wall before the excavation had the appearance of a very flattened low embankment, the outer one was generally "unreadable" on the surface, but it is clearly visible on the magnetic map.

The inner wall with an average width of 4 m is composed mainly of gray loam, bordered on the outside by a strip of calcined soil saturated with organic remains (Figs. 3, 4). The stratigraphy of the sediments indicated that blocks cut from ancient turf and clay removed during the construction of the moat were used for the construction of the wall. The blocks were placed on the buried soil. Outside, the wall was lined with slabs of local stone (flint, amphibolite, slate, quartz, diorite, granite**), the outcrops of which were found 0.5-1.0 km to the north of the settlement. On the inside of some of the stones there were traces of a clay spoon. Individual slabs were reddish-pink from the impact of fire (Fig. 5). Its traces were also recorded in the rubble of the wall in the form of an orange puncture and fragments of heavily baked clay.

The wall wasn't monolithic. On the E/6 section, an opening with a width of 0.5 - 0.6 m was fixed in it, and a cylindrical depression with a diameter of more than 1.5 m was found south-east of the eastern corner of building 1, at the bottom of which animal bones, ceramics and a bronze fragment were found. The moat is on average approx. wide. 2 m deepened into the mainland unevenly: from 30 to 90 cm. The height difference between the crest of the wall and the tallweg of the moat averaged 180 cm. The moat is filled with red, brown-gray and yellow-gray loam, interspersed with thin lenses of gray-green silt and carbonaceous layers. Its walls are slightly inclined or almost vertical, with uneven ledges. Fixed in some places

* Dwellings were numbered as they were identified during excavations.

** Definition of A. I. Levit (Chelyabinsk State University) and A. M. Yuminov (Institute of Mineralogy of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences).

page 64

Figure 4. Profiles. 1-turf; 2-red-brown; 3 - fawn; 4 - yellow loose variegated loam with combustion products; 5 - gray-green; 6-calcined brown; 7-yellow-brown; 8-ortsand; 9-gray humus (modern soil); 10-fawn; 11 - grainy yellow (burrow filling); 12-dark gray (buried soil); 13-gray (wall base); 14-mixed gray-yellow; 15-dark gray with combustion products (filling holes from pillars); 16-orange puncture; 17-coals, coal layers; 18 - light gray (in wells); 19-gray-brown; 20 - beige loam with humus inclusions; 21-light brown loam; 22 - yellow bright redeposited loam; 23-brown-gray loam; 24-yellow-gray loam; 25-red loam; 26-gray interlayers with signs of rejuvenation; 27-loam with traces of burning; 28-black-red calcined; 29 - gray silt; 30-gray-green silt; 31-stone; 32-mainland (yellow loam); 33 - small coals, calcined grains.

niches-depressions from which clay may have been taken, as well as areas where smooth alternating layers of baked clay, ash and charcoal were traced. They were blocked off by the remains of a ruined wall that slid down into the moat. Along the bottom was a narrow groove filled with brownish-red soil with a high content of coal. In addition to it, several local depressions were revealed (see Figures 3, 5). Apparently, the moat was multifunctional. It could be used for collecting water accumulated in depressions, and for household chores. In addition, a large number of animal bones were found in the moat, mostly scattered, as well as dog coprolites. Probably, sometimes garbage was thrown into it.

The profiles show two phases of the moat archeologization. On the floor side, a strip of redeposited loam was recorded on the humus of the buried soil - the remains of a low external wall (or shaft).

In the northern part of the investigated area, the entrance to the settlement was found in the form of a gap in the inner and outer walls with a width of approximately 3 m, oriented along the line NE-SW in exact accordance with the direction of the street. However, the moat at the entrance was not interrupted, it only decreased to the width of the groove. The rectangular configuration of the "gap", a large number of coals and wood residues indicate that wood was used in its design. This is also evidenced by the pits from the pillars, located in parallel lines along the passage and in a row on the outside of the moat. Opposite the entrance, on the outside of the moat, there is a small section of calcined area extending beyond the excavation, but clearly visible on the detailed magnetogram (see Fig. 3).

5. Fragment of the defensive line: the main (inner) wall with stone lining and the moat. View from the southeast.

page 65
Building 1. It was located in the north-eastern part of the settlement and its eastern corner adjoined the defensive wall, which at this point made a turn, forming an angle between the south-eastern end wall of building 1 and the north-eastern longitudinal wall of building 2.The resulting space was filled with the same material from which the defensive wall was built. Thus, the principle of abutment of a residential building to the wall of the settlement was preserved here by changing the configuration of the latter (see Figure 3). The 144 m2 structure had a sub-rectangular shape and was oriented along the NW-SE line with a long axis. Part of the north-eastern wall and the eastern corner are disturbed by burrows and actions of the inhabitants of the settlement of a later period. The pit was deepened by 40 cm into the buried soil, the thickness of which in this place reached 60-70 cm. The floor of the building was 20-25 cm above the level of the mainland. The walls gave way to a flat bottom that sloped gently down to the center of the pit. The filling of building 1 was saturated with combustion products, the concentration of which increased as we approached the settlement wall: the entire south-eastern part was filled with highly calcined clay. On some pieces of baked clay, the imprints of wood fibers are clearly visible, which indicates the use of wood and clay in the construction of walls. The northern and central parts of the building had a two-layer filling. A layer of fine powdery clay of a bright light yellow color with a thickness of 20 to 40 cm lay on top. It contained many finds, including a huge number of animal bones, from large to very small fragments. Most likely, they were thrown into the existing depression by later inhabitants of the settlement. The bottom layer of filling with a thickness of 10 to 20 cm was a dense soil of a red-brown hue, saturated with small and large pieces of baked clay and coal. The construction revealed 67 holes from the pillars, which are not located everywhere regularly, which suggests the possibility of repair actions. However, there are no traces of housing reconstruction.

Two wells were found in the central part of the building at a distance of 1 m from each other. Since the filling of the dwelling equally "sank" over both wells, it can be assumed that they collapsed either simultaneously with the construction, or a little earlier than the collapse of the roof. There were probably some heat engineering structures near the wells. In particular, the remains of a small, presumably domed stove were found in well 1/2, where it apparently slid as a result of the collapse of its walls. The Sintashta vessel collapse and an accumulation of animal bones were found in situ near the wells.

Building 2. It was located south-west of building 1, had a long wall in common with it, the base of which was a strip of ancient soil 80-90 cm wide left untouched during the digging of ditches, and significantly exceeded it in area (see Fig. 3). The south-western wall of dwelling 2 was destroyed: first by an "ash pit"*, then building 3. Judging by the three confidently identified corners, the structure had a shape close to a trapezoid, its south-western wall was longer than the north-eastern one by 3 m. The estimated area is 273 m2. The pit was sunk deep into the ancient soil, its floor sloping south almost to the level of the mainland. The completion of Building 2 was somewhat different from the previous one. A bright light yellow layer, saturated with bones, was recorded only in the northern part, directly adjacent to pit 1. In the eastern part, no large punctures were found, although the amount of combustion products in the filling increased as we approached the defensive wall, and in the south-eastern part there were slightly more traces of fire, here the soil had a reddish tint. In comparison with building 1, the filling of dwelling 2 looks more uniform, less colored, and "recycled". There are a lot of holes from the pillars - 105. They were located along the walls and in the center of the pit. The eastern and western corners of the building are well marked with pillars, and they are arranged randomly in the southern corner, which may indicate that perestroika took place in the Sintashta period.

In the central part, dwelling 2 was cut through by the later building 3, which almost completely destroyed its entire south-western half. At the same time, she blocked 11 wells and the burial of a child found in the north-eastern part below the floor of building 3.

Construction 3. Excavations have shown that the pit, which was sunk into the mainland, had an irregular sub-rectangular shape with a rounded protrusion in the north-western part (see Fig. 3). Its walls were very flat, the bottom was uneven. The maximum depth in the mainland was 80 cm. At the bottom, large slabs were laid in two parallel strips along the NW-SE line, apparently taken from the settlement wall. The area of the pit is 168 m2. The filling is generally homogeneous - strongly humusized loam of a yellowish hue with inclusions of calculus grains. Post holes found within the pit are few and concentrated in the central part, rather than along its borders. Some of them could be from-

* This name is conditional, because, despite the visual similarity of the soil, preliminary analyses (x. J.-W. Goethe University) did not confirm the presence of ash.

page 66
run to the Sintashta building 2. In addition, several pits were revealed under the stone layout. Well 3/1 is connected to building 3.

Building 7. Was discovered in the south-western corner of the excavation, but only a small part of it was investigated. Here, the filling of the object is almost completely destroyed by the "ash pit", with the exception of small sections on the north and south sides. 41 holes from pillars were found under the "ash pit". The pit was deepened into the buried soil, not reaching the mainland. The remaining filling - red-brown loam with small combustion products-is almost similar to the filling of building 2. Two wells (7/1 and 7/2) were found within the excavated area. The above-mentioned "ash pit" was up to 50 cm thick, sometimes entering the mainland, and consisted of several layers of loose dry soil, resembling ash in appearance. Its color varied from ashen to pinkish. The "ash pit" contained a large number of large bones (including those in joints) and skulls (with holes from impact) of animals, as well as fragments of ceramics of the Sintashta, Petrovsky and Srubno-Alakul types. This item appeared later than buildings 2 and 7, because it cuts through their filling, but earlier than Buildings 3 (see Figure 3). It is not known what its actual size is.

Wells (Fig. 6). In total, 16 wells were completely excavated on the studied site, which differ in their filling and construction. Of these, 15 are associated with the Sintashta construction horizon and one with the Srubno - Alakul horizon. A lot of well-preserved wood, organic materials, and wood products were obtained from the wells.

Children's burial (fig. 7). It was discovered during the investigation of wells 2/1 and 2 / 1a. Next to them, a rectangular structure in the form of a wooden "shield" was revealed, lying obliquely under a layer of continental clay and oriented along the CER-YUZ line with a long axis. Its width is 50 cm, the length of the preserved part is 80-110 cm. In the southern part of the "shield" were found fragments of a vessel, and to the north-lying compactly cranial bones of an infant (?), thin, poorly preserved, then-several more bones of the skeleton. At the northern end of the wooden structure, an altar consisting of the skull and limb bones of a sheep was cleared at a depth of -177 cm; a piece of cloth stuck to the jaw was preserved.

Fig. 6. Wells. 1 - well 2/1; 2-well 2 / 1a; 3-ratio of wells 2/1 and 2/1a; 4-well 3/1 (level -200 cm).

page 67

7. Remains of a children's burial, altar, wells 2/1 and 2 / 1a. The level of stripping is 190 cm. View from the north.

Judging by the position of the skull, the buried person was oriented with his head to the south-south-west. A vessel was placed in the heads on the right. The wooden "shield" was more of an overlap of the grave pit (rather than a floor covering at its bottom), which may be supported by the fact that some wood fibers were located on top of the skull bones.

Probably, the burial was made in the Sintashta period 60-70 cm below the floor level of building 2, after which the pit was filled with clay. The floor of the later building 3, which destroyed the Sintashta layer in this place, was 10-15 cm higher than the burial. It is difficult to judge with certainty the ratio of wells and burial sites. The northern half of the burial "slid" into the well 2/1 in such a way that the height difference between it and the southern part was 35-40 cm. The burial could have been arranged earlier than the well or simultaneously with it, but it is unlikely later, since when the latter was destroyed, movements in the nearby soil also affected the burial.

Clothing complex of the settlement. It is represented by traditional categories, including metal, stone, clay and bone tools. In most cases, we are dealing with fragments or industrial waste, which once again emphasizes the nature of the monument, which served as a permanent (?) dwelling place for a group of people.

Stone artefacts (including building materials, untreated talc fragments, and alluvial pebbles) are numerically predominant. Among the products, abrasives, impact tools, pestles, trowels, arrowheads (Figs. 8, 1-4), flakes, jewelry in the form of a palm tree, talcum powder objects with traces of attachment, etc. are reliably identified. The collection contains many stone disks with a diameter of 7-8 to 13-14 cm (Figs. 8, 9, 10), originating mainly from the pits of buildings. Studies of geologists working with the collection from 2005 to 2007 have shown that 24 types of rocks and minerals of various origins were used to make stone objects (Zaikov et al., 2009).

In addition to abrasive and impact tools, a number of finds are associated with the production and processing of metal: blanks of talc molds, fragments of molds, casting bowls, and nozzles. Ore fragments, slag, drops and other undetectable metal fragments (fragments of rods, paper clips, etc.) were also found.Slag was found mainly in the filling of buildings, wells and ditches.

The metal complex (93 specimens), according to preliminary analyses, is represented by products made of pure copper and arsenic bronze. Bronzo-

Figure 8. Inventory. 1, 3, 10, 11 - from the moat; 2, 4, 9, 12 - from building 2; 5, 7-from plot K / 20; 6 - from plot M / 18; 8-from building 3.

page 68
8, 8) of rhombic cross-section, with a rectangular heel, without a marked intercept and crosshair, found in dwelling 3, dates back to the Late Bronze Age (Phase II-III). The crescent-shaped tool (Figs. 8, 11) has some features (a rather wide blade, a relatively high curvature index) that tend to belong to the Petrovskaya series (Dergachev and Bochkarev, 2002, pp. 36-41). The collection also includes bronze awls of various sizes and two flat petiolate tips (with a short flat petiole of 8 and 10 mm) with a weakly pronounced rib and a triangular feather (Figs. 8, 6, 7). Such tips have not yet been found in Sintashta settlements.

Bone (rarely horn) inventory is found in abundance. Piercing tools, such as awls, punctures, needles and knitting needles, items related to the leather industry, such as dead ends and hollows (Figs. 8, 12), and large products made from small and large cattle ribs, the purpose of which has not yet been determined, are presented in series. The collection includes a lot of astragalus with worked edges, there are pendants made of fox fangs and a bone disk with a hole in the center. All of the above, as well as one of the two bone petiolate arrowheads, do not have a clear cultural and chronological attribution within the Bronze Age, but some of them (pendants, astragalus, punctures) show direct analogies with the materials of the Kamenny Ambar-5 burial ground. A rare find is a mounted handle made of horn.

The collection of ceramics totals 3,124 items.* More than half of them (1,843 copies) are represented by fragments whose cultural affiliation cannot be determined. The identified ceramics are divided into three groups: Sintashta type (fig. 9) - 55.3% (708 copies), Petrovsky type (Fig. 10) - 17.5% (225 copies) and Late Bronze ware of the Srubno-Alakul type (Fig. 11) - 27.2% (348 copies). The maximum concentration of ceramic fragments is recorded in the filling of buildings and ditches. The inter-dwelling space turned out to be relatively "clean", and the layers forming the outer and inner walls of the settlement contained only isolated shards.

There are 788 fragments collected in Building 1. Among the identified ceramics (399 specimens), Sintashta predominates (Table 1). In the course of sampling the wells, another 18 fragments of Sintashta ware and unidentifiable ones were found. The most saturated finds were found in the horizons in the range from -20 to -50 cm, corresponding to the middle and lower filling of the dwelling. Comparison of the stratigraphic position of different types of ceramics showed that the highest position is occupied by Late Bronze Age tableware. Like Petrovskaya, it is mainly associated with the upper and middle filling of the pit. Small values of variance for both groups indicate a rather compact position in the layer. Sintashta-type ceramics are represented in all horizons, but most of them are found in the lower filling and on the floor of the building, including the collapse of the vessel at a depth of -70 ÷ -72 cm (Table 1).

9. Ceramics of the Sintashta type.

* The analysis was completed only for the 2005-2008 collection, but it seems that the conclusions will be slightly adjusted.

page 69

10. Ceramics of the Petrovsky type.

11. Late Bronze age ceramics (srubno-Alakul appearance).
Table 1. The amount and conditions of occurrence of detectable ceramics within the studied objects

An object

Type of ceramic

Quantity

%

Interval of occurrence, m

Average depth, m

Variance

Building 1

Sintashta Region

291

73,0

+0,10 ÷ -0,83

-0,45

0,064

Petrovsky

68

17,0

-0,04 ÷ -0,78

-0,31

0,032

Srubno-Alakulsky

40

10,0

-0,01 ÷ -0,62

-0,27

0,026

Undetectable

389

Total

788

Building 2

Sintashta Region

157

68,3

-0,05 ÷ -1,12

-0,56

0,035

Petrovsky

36

15,6

-0,09 ÷ -0,62

-0,39

0,019

Srubno-Alakulsky

37

16,1

-0,08 ÷ -0,86

-0,52

0,031

Undetectable

400

Total

630

Building 3

Sintashta Region

52

21,5

-0,52 ÷ -1,26

-0,93

0,048

Petrovsky

23

9,5

-0,52 ÷ -1,54

-0,94

0,091

Srubno-Alakulsky

167

69,0

-0,44 ÷ -1,60

-0,89

0,060

Undetectable

356

Total

598

Moat

Sintashta Region

49

30,6

-0,14 ÷ -1,65

-1,00

0,153

Petrovsky

74

46,3

+0,01 ÷ -1,47

-0,88

0,124

Srubno-Alakulsky

37

23,1

-0,32 ÷ -1,57

-0,83

0,148

Undetectable

282

Total

442

page 70
When studying Building 2, 630 fragments were taken into account, of which 230 were definable. This area is also dominated by Sintashta-type pottery (Table 1). Another 52 potsherds, also mostly Sintashta, were found in the filling of wells and pits from pillars. Most of them are connected with well 2/1, including the collapse of the Sintashta vessel that accompanied the children's burial at the upper edge of the object. The maximum density of finds falls on conditional horizons in the range from -40 to -60 cm, corresponding to the middle and lower infill of the building. Sintashta ceramics occupy the lowest position in the layer and are characterized by the greatest dispersion. It prevails on the floor of the structure, where the collapse of the vessel at a depth of -80 cm was also found. Shards extracted from lower levels are associated with the remains of the lower filling of the pit, which sank into the upper filling of wells. The highest stratigraphic position and the highest compactness in the layer are recorded for fragments of Peter's type ware. Apparently, they are not connected with the object and got there later than the time of functioning of the dwelling. Late Bronze Age ceramics occupy an intermediate position (Table 1). 1). It should be noted that 70% of the Srubno-Alakul shards are concentrated along the border with building 3. They may have moved to the layer of an earlier structure as a result of soil processes that accompanied the destruction of the later dwelling.

Ceramics from the northern part of Building 3 have 598 fragments, including 242 detectable ones. Late Bronze Age pottery dominates (Table 1).The bulk of the fragments are concentrated in the depth range from -70 to -130 cm (middle and lower filling). Although the dominant cultural type is the Srubno-Alakul type, single shards of Sintashta and Petrovsky ware were found in all horizons, and the average depth values of their occurrence exceed the indicator calculated for the late group (Table 1). Fragments of ceramics of Sintashta and Petrovsky types are obviously associated with building 2, cut through by a late dwelling. They could have entered building 3 both during its construction and later, when the object began to collapse and material from an earlier dwelling stratigraphically located higher up could have moved into its deep pit.

Analysis of the ratio of different types of ceramics to the layers recorded during the excavation yielded the following results. Dishes of the Sintashta culture dominate in the layers that fill the pits of buildings 1 and 2. Ceramics of the Srubno-Alakul appearance predominate in the horizon of the modern soil and in the layers that fill the pit of building 3. Fragments of dishes of the Petrovsky type make up a small percentage in collections from all the above layers. Thus, buildings 1 and 2 confidently correlate with Sintashta ceramics, which is associated with the lower fillings of these objects and wells, and building 3-with the ceramic complex of the Late Bronze Age.

Among the detectable potsherds from the inter-core space, Sintashta shards significantly predominate, which mainly originate from buried soil. Individual fragments of Petrovsky and Srubno-Alakul ceramics are associated with layers formed above the ancient day surface.

The study of the spatial distribution of the material in the elements of the fortification showed that the main part of it comes from filling the ditch - 442 fragments, including 160 detectable ones. All three types of ceramics are represented with a slight predominance of Petrovsky (Table 1). The shards collected during the analysis of the external and internal walls are not numerous and mainly belong to the Sintashta type.

In filling the moat, the highest position was occupied by ceramics of the Late Bronze Age, below which Petrovskaya lay quite compactly. For Sintashta ware, the lowest depth marks were recorded, as well as the highest dispersion index, indicating the greatest dispersion (Table 1). Taking into account the predominance of this ceramic in the lower filling and at the bottom of the moat, as well as in the layers that formed the outer and inner walls, it can be concluded that it is associated with the earliest phase of functioning the defensive system of the settlement. The presence of single shards of Sintashta in the upper horizons is probably a consequence of the destruction and sliding of the wall mounds into the moat.

Analysis of the distribution of ceramics has shown that different types of ceramics are associated with certain soil layers recorded during the moat analysis. Thus, Sintashta fragments predominate in the layers recorded in the near-bottom part of the object, Petrovsky-in the yellow-gray and gray ashy layers, ceramics of the Late Bronze Age are most numerous in the brown-gray and red layers. Referring to the moat sections, it is possible to note that layers with a predominant presence of one or another type of ware in them are located in a stratigraphic sequence corresponding to the chronological positions of these ceramic complexes. Obviously, this indicates several phases of accumulation of potsherds in the ditch, and therefore several periods of functioning of the settlement.

A different picture is shown by the data obtained as a result of the study of the ditch at the sites of,

page 71
where the entrance to the settlement was located. First of all, there are very few ceramics collected here - only 84 fragments. Second, Late Bronze Age pottery is the most numerous (24 specimens, or 55.8%), Sintashta potsherds are less numerous (15 specimens, or 34.9%), and Peter's fragments are isolated (4 specimens, or 9.3%). Third, almost all layers in the moat filling contain mainly srubno ceramics-Alakul appearance. The only exception is the underlying layer of orange calculus, which is dominated by fragments of Sintashta ware. It seems that the small amount of material collected is due to the functional load of this part of the fortification. Apparently, the inhabitants of the settlement periodically cleaned the entrance of garbage or even tried not to accumulate it here. First of all, this observation relates to the initial stages of the monument's functioning in the Middle Bronze Age.

Analysis of the stratigraphic and planigraphic distribution of ceramics within the fortified site allows us to confidently speak so far only about two chronological complexes associated with the corresponding objects: Sintashta and Srubno-Alakul. Peter's-type tableware stands out here only typologically; its position in the layer can be estimated as redeposited. Nevertheless, taking into account the data obtained during the study of the fortification, it can be concluded that the time of use of these dishes corresponds to the interval between the Sintashta (closer to it) and Srubno-Alakul periods. This observation, along with a fairly significant amount of Petrine ceramics in the collection, excludes the possibility of considering it as an admixture to the Sintashta complex and allows us to hope for the discovery of Petrine objects in an unexplored part of the monument.

Relative and absolute chronology of the monument

The materials obtained during the excavations and the analysis of the spatial distribution of ceramics allow us to distinguish two periods in the history of the settlement relatively confidently: the early one-conditionally Sintashta-Petrovsky, when the settlement existed within the fortifications and had a regular layout, and the late one - srubno-Alakul, when a new settlement with chaotic development appeared on the ruins of the first one. Obviously, between the end of the first and the beginning of the second-

Table 2. Radiocarbon dates of settlement

Place of sample collection

Lab Code

Sample

Convention date

Calibrated date, years BC

σ

2σ

Building 2, well 2/1 a

Hd-28408

Tree, outer five rings ETH-38106

3644 ± 31

2120 - 2100 (5,9%)

2140 - 1920 (95,4%)

2040 - 1950 (62,3%)

Hd-28430

Tree, inner 4th ring ETH-38104

3617 ± 31

2020 - 1990 (8,4%)

2040 - 1880 (95,4%)

1980 - 1900 (59,8%)

Hd-28431

Tree, inner 10th ring ETH-38105

3618 ± 31

2025 - 1940 (68,2%)

2120 - 2090 (3,9%)

2040 - 1890 (91,5%)

Hd-28432

Tree, outer five rings ETH-38107

3594 ± 31

2020 - 1990 (8,4%)

2040 - 1880 (95,4%)

1980 - 1900 (59,8%)

Building 2, well 2/4

Hd-28457

Tree, outer five rings ETH-38150

3559 ± 26

1950 - 1880 (68,2%)

2020 - 1990 (1,7%)

1980 - 1870 (80,2%)

1850 - 1810 (8,2%)

1800 - 1770 (5,3%)

Hd-28458

Tree, outer five rings ETH-38151

3636 ± 26

2030 - 1955 (68,2%)

2130 - 2080 (10,5%)

2050 - 1920 (84,9%)

Moat, bottom filling, line -3, uch. K/-3, carbonaceous layer

Ki-15502

Soil

3900 ± 70

2480 - 2280 (68,2%)

2580 - 2190 (94,3%)

2170 - 2140 (1,1%)

Moat, average filling, line -3, uch. K/-3, gray ash layer

Ki-15503

"

3820 ± 70

2440 - 2420 (3,1%)

2470 - 2120 (90,1%)

2410 - 2370 (6,0%)

2100 - 2040 (5,3%)

2350 - 2190 (50,8%)

2180 - 2140 (8,3%)

Line -3, top layer of buried soil under the shaft

Ki-15508

"

6020 ± 100

5050 - 4780 (68,2%)

5250 - 4700 (95,4%)

page 72
there must have been a certain chronological gap in this period. At the same time, we can also expect a chronological heterogeneity of objects belonging to each period, which is confirmed by some facts and observations concerning the first of them in particular.

Building 1 looks archaeologically "one-act", it is quite compact, has a well-fixed floor without traces of repair. Building 2 is noticeably different from it. It is characterized by a complex configuration of the south-eastern wall, large dimensions that are not typical for Sintashta and Petrovsky buildings, several rows of pits from pillars along the long axis of the pit, a large number of used and clogged wells, lower leveling floor marks. All this may indicate alterations that may have taken place in the history of dwelling 2.

A serial radiocarbon dating program was implemented to determine the absolute age of specific settlement sites. The materials used were coal, wood, and soil; samples were taken from well-diagnosed sites. However, some dates (primarily based on soil samples)* obviously older, the rest generally fit into a relatively compact interval (Table 2).

To summarize the data for the OxCal 3.10 program, only the results of tree dating from wells were used. The following calibrated intervals were obtained: 2030-1920 (σ) and 2130 - 1870 (2 σ) BC. These dates do not contradict the previously formulated conclusion about the age of Sintashta and Petrine antiquities in general (Epimakhov, 2007b). Less clear is the coincidence with the total intervals of seven values for the burial ground Stone Barn-5 - 1960 - 1770 (σ) and 2020-1750 (2 σ) BC, where only the bones of the buried were used as dating material. The trail of late dates here was created by burials of one of the mounds (N 4) [Epimakhov, 2005a, p. 161-164].

Conclusion

The material obtained during the excavation is being processed and analyzed. This applies to all aspects of the study. This article briefly covers only the archaeological part of the project. Based on it, we can draw the first, still cautious conclusions, which will be clarified, and perhaps changed as a result of further research.

Apparently, we can expect correction of the forms of fortified settlements in the Southern Trans-Urals and their correlation. Magnetometric studies of settlements on the Karagaily-Ayat River have shown that their true shape and structure may not correspond to what is recorded from an aerial photograph. This is well demonstrated by the monument under study. Originally built by the Sintashta culture carriers, presumably at the turn of the third and second millennia BC, the settlement was planned in the form of a rectangle and consisted of two parts that were clearly of different functions. At this stage, it is difficult to say whether they were simultaneous. In the northern half, the development is regular: at least 21 buildings formed three groups (one row along the walls and two along the central axis), separated by two streets. Based on the excavated part and the analysis of the magnetogram, we can assume with a certain degree of probability that the streets ended with exits outside the fortification line. The defensive line consisted of a main (inner) wall, an associated moat, and a small outer wall (or rampart). The moat, most likely, was not of strategic importance, but was used mainly for household and household purposes. However, it is possible that the fortifications also served as a protective function.

During the excavations, we came across a number of facts that did not fit into the previously created scheme of the Sintashta dwelling. At the settlement of Kamenny Ambar (Olgino), the buildings were deepened only into the buried soil, their pits practically did not reach the mainland. In addition, the interiors of the excavated buildings were devoid of the" correctness " that is characteristic of the dwellings of the settlements of Sintashta [Gening V. F., Zdanovich, Gening V. V., 1992] and Arkaim [Zdanovich, 1997]. They also differed from the latter in a large number of wells. Stone and clay, sometimes baked to the state of brick, were used in the construction. The basis of the buildings was a wooden frame. As far as we can tell from the excavated dwellings 1 and 2, they had an adjacent layout, although perhaps this rule was not always observed. The buildings of the outer rows tightly fit the end walls into the configuration of the settlement wall.

An intriguing question is about the time and reasons for the cessation of life in an early settlement. There is no doubt that the people who made ceramics of the Srubno-Alakul type came to the settlement when it was already abandoned by its creators: the buildings were destroyed, but, apparently, their ruins were still visible. The new inhabitants did not know the regular layout, but they also made wells in the buildings, just like their predecessors.

* Despite the sharp difference from the results of tree dating, the dates for the moat (Ki-15502 and Ki-15503) coincide with stratigraphic observations.

page 73
Many aspects and details of the study remain outside the scope of the article. But it is not finished yet, and we hope that in the future we will be able to answer many "difficult" questions about the ancient history of the Southern Urals.

Acknowledgements

We thank Mr. R. Wurth, Chairman of the Supervisory Board of the Wurth Group of Companies, for his generous sponsorship. We are also grateful for the logistical support provided by the Eurasian Branch of the Archaeological Institute in Berlin (Prof. S. Hansen); the Consulate General of the Federal Republic of Germany in Yekaterinburg, in particular, the Consul General Ms. R. Shimkorayt; the head of the Kartalinsky District Administration A. G. Vdovin; the head of the Varshavka village Administration L. V. Varennikov; and the staff of the Kartalinsky Museum of Local Lore represented by its director B. A. Prytkova; the Russian engineering company Prosoftsystems represented by its General Director A. S. Rasputin for financial assistance in carrying out field work in 2006.

List of literature

Batanina I. M., Batanina N. S. Kyzyl-Mayak - a new fortified settlement of the Bronze Age in the Southern Trans-Urals. Petropavlovsk: North Kazakhstan State University, 2009, vol. 1, pp. 18-22.

Berseneva N. A. Report on archaeological exploration in the valley of the Karagaily-Ayat river in 2008. Yekaterinburg, 2009 / / Archive of IA RAS.

Vinogradov N. B. Report on field research in the Kurgan and Chelyabinsk regions in 1990, Chelyabinsk, 2003.

Vinogradov N. B. Sintashtinskiye i petrovskiye drevnosti Yuzhnogo Urala: Problema otnosheniya i interpretatsii [Sintashtinskiye i petrovskiye drevnosti Yuzhnogo Urala: Problema otnosheniya i interpretatsii]. Pamyatniki arkheologii i drevnogo iskusstva Evrazii [Monuments of Archeology and Ancient Art of Eurasia], Moscow: IA RAS, 2004, pp. 261-284.

Gening V. F., Zdanovich G. B., Gening V. V. Sintashta: An archaeological monument of the Aryan tribes of the Ural-Kazakhstan steppes. Chelyabinsk: South-Ural Publishing House, 1992, vol. 1, 408 p.

Dergachev V. A., Bochkarev V. S. Metal sickles of the Late Bronze Age of Eastern Europe. - Chisinau: Vyssh. antropol. shk., 2002, 348 p. (in Russian)

Epimakhov A.V. Verkhne-Kizil'skii klad: variantsii interpretatsii [The Upper Kizil treasure: interpretation options]. - 2003. - N 4. - p. 96-102.

Epimakhov A.V. Early complex Societies of the North of Central Eurasia (based on the materials of the Kamenny Ambar-5 burial ground). - Chelyabinsk: Chelyabinsk. press house, 2005a. - Book 1. - 192 p.

Epimakhov A.V. Report on archaeological research on the territory of the Chelyabinsk region in 2004, Chelyabinsk, 2005b.

Epimakhov A.V. Report on archaeological excavations of the fortified settlement Kamenny Ambar in 2005 Yekaterinburg, 2007a / / Archive of IA RAS.

Epimakhov, A.V., Relative and absolute chronology of Sintashta monuments in the light of radiocarbon dating, Problemy istorii, filologii, kul'tury [Problems of History, Philology, and Culture], Magnitogorsk, Novosibirsk, 2007. - Issue no. 17. - p. 402-421.

Epimakhov A.V. Report on archaeological excavations of the fortified settlement Kamenny Ambar in 2008 Yekaterinburg, 2010 / / Archive of IA RAS.

Zaikov V. V., Yuminov A.M., Kotlyarov V. A., Zaikova E. V., Churin E. I. Report on research on the topic "The Bronze Age Epoch of the North of Central Eurasia", section "Mineral and raw material base of the Bronze Age in the Southern Urals" / / Koryakova L. N. Report on the excavations of the fortified settlement Kamenny Ambar (Olgino) in 2007 5. Yekaterinburg, 2009 / / Archive of IA RAS.

Zdanovich G. B. Arkaim: Arias in the Urals or a failed civilization / / Arkaim: Research. Search results. Openings. Chelyabinsk: Krokus Publ., 1995, pp. 21-42.

Zdanovich G. B. Arkaim-cultural complex of the Middle Bronze Age of the Southern Trans-Urals / / RA. - 1997. - N 2. - pp. 47-62.

Zdanovich G. B., Batanina I. M. Arkaim-the Land of cities: Space and images. - Chelyabinsk: Krokus, South-Ural Publishing House, 2007. - 260 p.

Koryakova L. N. Report on archaeological excavations of the fortified settlement of Kamenny Ambar (Olgino) in 2007, Yekaterinburg, 2009.

Kostyukov V. P. Report on field archaeological research in Kartalinsky and Nagaibaksky districts of the Chelyabinsk region in 1992. Chelyabinsk, 1992 / / Archive of IA RAS.

Murav'ev, L. A., Noskevich, V. V., and Fedorova, V. V., Interpretation of the results of magnetometric studies of archaeological monuments of the Bronze Age in the Southern Urals, Pyaty nauchnye chteniya pamyati Yu. P. Bulashevich, 2009, Yekaterinburg, 2009a, pp. 237-240.

Murav'ev, L. A., Noskevich, V. V., and Fedorova, N. V., Results of magnetometric studies of archaeological sites of the Bronze Age in the Southern Urals, Ural. geofiz. Vestn. - 2009b. - N 1. - p. 44-52.

Tarasov Yu. V. Report on archaeological exploration in the Kartalinsky district of the Chelyabinsk region in 1982 (Chelyabinsk, 1983).

Sharapova S. V. Report on excavations of the Kamenny Ambar (Olgino) settlement in the Kartalinsky district of the Chelyabinsk region in 2006, Yekaterinburg, 2007.

Sharapova S. V. Report on excavations of the Kamenny Ambar (Olgino) settlement in the Kartalinsky district of the Chelyabinsk region in 2008, Yekaterinburg, 2009.

Hanks B., Doonan R. From Scale to Practice: A New Agenda for the Study of Early Metallurgy on the Eurasian Steppe // J. of World Prehistory. - 2009. - Vol. 22. - P. 329 - 356.

Merrony C., Hanks B., Doonan R. Seeking the Process: The Application of Geophysical Survey on some Early Mining and Metalworking Sites // Metal and Societies. Studies in honor of Barbara S. Ottoway. - Bonn: Verlag, 2009. - P. 421 - 431.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 15.11.10.

page 74

Permanent link to this publication: