Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 49 (1) 2021   doi:10.17746/1563-0110.2021.49.1.085-093

Annotation:  Evolution of the Lithic Industry in Central Dagestan During the Early Pleistocene: The Rising Occurr New Evidence of the Late Neopleistocene Peopling of the Lower Ob Valley Cruciform Signs Decorating Paleolithic Bone Artifacts from Cherno-Ozerye II, the Middle Irtysh Area From Ore to Metal: Exploitation of the Novotemirsky Mine, Southern Trans-Urals, in the Second Millen On a Distinctive Feature of the Andronovo (Fedorovka) Funerary Rites in the Baraba Forest-Steppe A Method for Attributing Non-Refi tting Fragments to a Single Artifact: The Case of Bronze Age Flat Three Silver Dishes from Yugra On Early Medieval Contacts of the Urals and Western Siberia with Central Asia: The Evidence of Ceram Composite Belt Ornaments with Bear Claw Pieces in Medieval Men’s Costume of the Perm Region, Western Unfortifi ed Settlements of the Cheptsa Culture (9th–13th Centuries): Ambiguity of Interpretation an Sections of the Early 18th Century Ditch at Fort Umrevinsky The Use of Natural Scientifi c Methods in the Study of Leather Items from Archaeological Excavations Cattle in Buryat Mythology and Ritual Evenki Reindeer Riding Saddle: Certain Principles of Mobility in the Taiga The Consecration of Altars in 17th–21st Century Siberian Orthodox Churches: The Neurosymbolic Aspect The Peopling of the Baraba Forest-Steppe in the Neolithic: Cranial Evidence Morphofunctional Characteristics of Mongolian Children and Adolescents Living in Different Ecologica   

Unfortified Settlements of the Cheptsa Culture (9th–13th Centuries):
Ambiguity of Interpretation and Delimitation of Boundaries

I.V. Zhurbin

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

Unfortified rural settlements have traditionally been detected by thepresence of surface finds in tilled soil or of a cultural layer in test pits, by the conformity of the area to known landscape features, and by the absence of salient signs of defensive structures. The totality of these parameters is not always an unambiguous indicator of an unfortified settlement. Owing to intense tillage in the late 20th century, affecting many sites in Central Russia and the western Urals, their outward features have been obliterated, and erosion has resulted in a gradual displacement of habitation deposits from watersheds and slopes to negative landforms. Given these destructions and the resulting unreliability of traditional archaeological criteria, the most efficient way of revealing unfortified settlements, delineating their boundaries, and tentatively reconstructing their layouts, is to use multidisciplinary approach. This study focuses on medieval unfortified settlements in northern Udmurtia—Nizhnebogatyrskoye I, and Kushmanskoye II and III. Their outward features are virtually identical. They were explored using geophysical prospection, soil drilling, and archaeological excavations. On the basis of the results, types of settlement were reliably determined and boundaries of cultural layer were delimited. In all cases, preliminary interpretations were rejected. Kushmanskoye III is shown to be a fortified settlement, and Kushmanskoye II is likely to have been a medieval economic development zone without any structures. In the case of Nizhnebogatyrskoye I, its previously determined boundaries, deduced from the distribution area of finds and landscape features, were substantially corrected.

Keywords: Medieval settlements, Cheptsa culture, settlement boundaries, defensive structures, geophysics, morphological/chemical soil properties