Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 48 (1) 2020   DOI: 10.17746/1563-0110.2020.48.1.120-128

Annotation:  Early Upper Paleolithic Serpentine Ornaments from Ust-Karakol, Northwestern Altai Unshaped Bone Tools from Denisova Cave, Altai The Sartan Upper Paleolithic Assemblages of the Northwestern Altai Stages in the Late Pleistocene and Holocene Peopling of Lake Bolshoye Ushkovskoye Shore, Kamchatka Fishing in the Early Holocene Human Ecosystem of the Northern Angara Region: Findings from Stratifi Late Bronze Age Smelting and Processing Furnaces of the Eastern Variant of the Pakhomovskaya Culture Late Bronze Age Petroglyphs of Unyuk Mountain, in the Minusinsk Basin Tagar Artifacts at the Stavropol State Museum Reserve (G.N. Prozritelev’s Collection) An Early Pazyryk Kurgan at Khankarinsky Dol, Northwestern Altai: Chronology and Attribution of Artif The Triquetras from the Filippovka Kurgans, Southern Urals Early Iron Age Carpenter Tools from the Altai and Adjacent Territories A Comparative Analysis of Structural and Developmental Trends at Major Cheptsa Fortifi ed Sites in t Ancestors of the Oriental Horse in Eurasia: Origin and Distribution Regional Features of the Traditional Clothing of Ukrainians and Belarusians in the South of the Russ Collection Related to the Omaguaca Indians from the Pucara de Tilcara Fortress, Northwestern Argenti   

A Comparative Analysis of Structural and Developmental Trends
at Major Cheptsa Fortifi ed Sites in the Western Urals
(Idnakar, Uchkakar, and Guryakar)

I.V. Zhurbin

Udmurt Federal Research Center, Ural Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, T. Baramzinoy 34, Izhevsk, 426067, Russia

This article outlines the findings of interdisciplinary studies at the three largest medieval fortified settlements (9th-13th centuries AD) on the middle Cheptsa River, northern Udmurtia: Soldyr I Idnakar, Kushman Uchkakar, and Gordino I Guryakar. To assess the general trends and characteristic features of their structure and planning, a geophysical survey was carried out, using electrical and magnetic prospecting methods. By correlating geophysical anomalies with excavation findings, two interrelated tasks were completed: reconstructing past events on the basis of archaeological evidence, and assessing the reliability of the geophysical findings. Previously unknown defense lines were revealed at all the sites. Inner layout was virtually linear. Settlement areas (residential, household, and production) were identified. Despite external similarity, the three sites show significant differences in structural and developmental trends. Specifically, at Idnakar and Guryakar, the “annexed” territory protected by a new line of fortifications was used as a household and production periphery. At Uchkakar, this territory was used mainly for residential and household activities, whereas the household and production zone was outside the enclosure. Another distinction of Uchkakar is that the promontory did not reveal the residential, household, or production development zone traditional for Cheptsa settlements. At Guryakar, in contrast to two other sites, an in-depth fortification system was revealed, but no annexed areas.

Keywords: Medieval settlements, Cheptsa culture, structure, layout, settlements, defense constructions, geophysics