The dwelling of the Yudinsky culture from the Russian settlement 1

Adamov Aleksandr Aleksandrovich ORCID: 0000-0002-1600-778X PhD in History Chief Scientific Associate, Tobolsk Scientific Department of Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences 626152, Russia, Tyumen region, Tobolsk, Academician Yuri Osipov str., 15 adamowaa@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Turova Natalya ORCID: 0000-0002-0909-9073 Scientific Associate, Tobolsk Scientific Department of Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences 626152, Russia, Tyumenskaya oblast', g. Tobol'sk, Academician Yuri Osipov str., 15 turova2707@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction.

The monuments of the Yudin culture are localized in the forested Trans-Urals in the basins of the Tura and Tavda rivers. The ceramic complex of the Yudin antiquities is characterized by a corded decoration in the form of horizontal lines located in the upper part of the vessels.

In a detailed work by V. N. Chernetsov published in 1957, the Nizhneo culture was singled out for the Middle Ages in Western Siberia, which occupied a vast territory from the Gulf of Ob to the Tyumen region ^{[29, p. 238]}. The researcher noted that the monuments located along the Tura River contain ceramics with Molchanov-type corded ornaments. He wrote that cord ornamentation is widespread southwest of the Tobolsk region on archaeological sites dating from the middle of the 1st millennium BC and up to about the 10th-12th centuries ^{[29, pp. 220-223]}.

V. A. Mogilnikov identified six main historical and geographical regions for the forest belt of Western Siberia in the late I – early II millennium AD, among which Turinsky occupies the territory of the basins of the Tura and Tavda rivers. The main difference between the monuments of this area is the corded ornamentation of ceramics ^{[15, pp. 5, 6]}. For the forest Trans–Urals of the X-XIII centuries, V. D. Viktorova singled out the Yudin culture, which was characterized in sufficient detail ^[2]. Molchanov–type monuments dating from the 6th-9th centuries were common in the basins of the Tura and Tavda rivers ^{[1, pp. 13, 14]}. In his generalizing work "The Ugrians and Samoyeds of the Urals and Western Siberia", V. A. Mogilnikov attributed Molchanov–type monuments dating from the 7th–9th centuries, as well as the Yudin culture of the 10th-13th centuries, to the cultures of the forest Trans-Urals, where the imprint of a twisted cord was actively used in the ornamentation of pottery ^[16]. Later, the researcher wrote about the Molchanov culture with a slightly expanded dating in the framework of the VI–IX centuries ^{[14, p. 65; 17, p. 10]}.

In 2009, N. P. Matveeva, L. A. Orlova, and T. N. Rafikova proposed combining the Molchanov and Yudinsky monuments into a single Yudinsky culture dating from the 7th to the 14th centuries ^{[11, p. 150]}. A.V. Gordienko disagreed with this opinion, believing that the period of the VI–IX centuries in the Trans-Urals forest should be considered within the framework of an independent culture and suggested calling it Molchanov-Andryushinskaya ^{[6, p. 31]}. Analyzing the ceramic complex of the Pesyanka 1 cemetery, T. N. Rafikova identifies the Molchanov stage, dated to the 7th–9th centuries, within the framework of the unified Yudin culture of the 7th–13th centuries ^{[19, p. 69]}.

In the collective monograph "Western Siberia in the Early Middle Ages: the Interaction of ethnocultural communities" published in 2022, the third chapter was written by E.A. Tretyakov, who analyzed materials from monuments belonging to the Molchanov type and came to the conclusion that all these monuments date no earlier than the 9th century ^{[23, p. 146]}. Based on this, the researcher sees no reason to make the materials of the Yudin culture more ancient by isolating the early Molchanov type within its framework, and proposed to exclude the name "Molchanov type of monuments" or culture from the taxonomic structure, considering that the period of existence of the Yudin culture is determined by the boundaries of the IX–XIII centuries ^{[23, p. 160]}.

Despite the significant number of studied monuments of the Yudin culture and the undoubted successes in studying various spheres of the material and spiritual life of the medieval population, by now the issues of chronology and periodization of the Yudin culture are acutely debatable, and a number of topics have been poorly developed. Among these are the features of the housing construction of the Yudinsky population.

In this regard, it is important to publish new materials obtained during the study of the Russian 1 settlement, located in the Yarkovsky district of the Tyumen region, in the floodplain of the right bank of the Tobol River, 9 km south of the mouth of the Tura River. During the excavations at the site, the remains of four residential buildings were almost completely investigated. Most of the artifacts from the monument are represented by fragments of clay vessels decorated with horizontal lines made with cord impressions, which makes it possible to consider the settlement a monument of the Yudin culture.

The purpose of this work is to determine the type of dwelling and reconstruct the appearance of the lost structural elements of a residential structure based on a planographic analysis of the archeologized dwelling No. 4.

The main part. The Russian 1 settlement is located in the Yarkovsky district of the Tyumen region, in the floodplain of the right bank of the Tobol River, on the shore of the old lake, 9 km south of the mouth of the Tura River. It was studied in 2006 by a joint team of the Tobolsk Museum-Reserve and the D.I. Mendeleev Tobolsk State Pedagogical Institute. The settlement with an area of about 1000 sq. m. is located on a triangular promontory, with a moat and an inner rampart on the ground side. There are 12 housing depressions located in a circle on the site of the settlement. An excavation site with an area of 248.1 square meters has been uncovered at the monument, where the remains of four semi-underground structures have been almost completely examined. The light continental loam and the dark-colored cultural layer made it possible to clearly capture the contours of the housing pits, as well as the details of their internal structure. Based on the data obtained, it is possible, with a high degree of probability, to recreate in detail the design of the studied buildings, which we implement using the example of dwelling No. 4.

On the daytime surface, the archaeologized remains of the excavation of dwelling No. 4 were fixed in the form of a rounded depression up to 0.6 m deep. During the excavations, a square-shaped excavation was revealed, measuring 5.4 x 5.36 m and 22 to 40 cm deep from the mainland, with an area of about 29 square meters (Fig. 1). Adjacent to the central part of the southwestern wall of the dwelling was a corridor-shaped entrance, which did not fully enter the excavation. Its maximum investigated length reaches 2.2 m, width ranges from 0.92 to 1.04 m. The entrance descends smoothly from the level of the mainland outside the dwelling to the floor level in the excavation. A groove, 0.1 m wide and 2-3 cm deep, perpendicular to the entrance, was found at the boundary of the excavation of the dwelling and the recessed entrance. During the dismantling of the excavation of the dwelling and the cultural layer behind its back wall, the remains of burnt boards or blocks, poles lying perpendicular to the three walls of the excavation were revealed. Along the walls, inside the excavation, small pits were traced from the poles of the wooden frame, which protected the walls of the excavation from crumbling. The pits were small in diameter, not deep, and therefore could not serve as the bases of the supporting pillars of the structure of the dwelling itself.

Figure 1. Russian settlement 1. Plan of dwelling No. 4.

The dwelling was heated by a simple open hearth located in the center. Traces of another fire pit were recorded at the rear wall of the building. At the same wall of the dwelling, a number of pits were traced, 1.8 – 1.9 m away from the edge of the excavation. Apparently, these are the remains of the construction of wooden bunks about two meters wide, located along the wall. Next to the central hearth, there were both utility rooms and, possibly, a pillar pit.

It should also be noted that such a feature in the location of dwellings on the Russian settlement 1 is the small distance between neighboring buildings (the minimum distance between them was only 0.53 m).

Speaking about the reconstruction of the exterior of the building, it should be noted that V.D. Viktorova distinguished two types in the construction of dwellings of the Yudinsky culture: summer and winter. The first was a shallow foundation pit with a hipped roof, a simple hearth in the center and central support pillars, as well as bunks along the walls. Winter – with ground log cabins, a corridor-shaped entrance and clay hearths ^{[2, p. 242]}.

During the study of the Krivoluk settlement of the Yudinsky culture, the remains of eight dwellings were examined, represented by semi-dugouts 10-30 cm deep, with sloping walls, an area of about 16.5 square meters, with vertical pits from pillars located at the corners and perimeter of structures. According to these signs, researchers reconstruct buildings as frame structures with walls made of horizontal scaffolds. The roof covering consisted of large slabs lying on vertical pillars of the frame of the dwelling. Poles and planks were placed on top of them, tree bark was laid, and the roof was additionally insulated with earth. Three buildings had an exit in the form of a corridor or an entrance hall ^{[13, p. 109]}.

At the Yudinsky settlement of Revda 2-1, three excavation pits from dwellings with a depth of 0.2 m were examined, without traces of hearths, in which traces of pillars were found along the walls and at the corners of buildings. Moreover, the pillars inside the dwellings did not form strict configurations, but, according to researchers, only supported the frame of the walls ^{[10, p. 64]}. The dwellings consisted of sub-rectangular buildings, frame-pillar structures with corridor-shaped exits ^{[10, p. 71]}.

In his dissertation research, E. A. Tretyakov identifies two groups of dwellings of the Yudin culture: terrestrial and semi-underground. Semi-dugouts are represented by pillar and log cabins, among which medium-sized (up to 25 sq. m.) and large (up to 35 sq. m.) are distinguished by area ^{[22, pp. 12, 13]}.

The good preservation of the excavated dwelling allows us to create a reliable reconstruction of the building from the Russian settlement 1. Let's consider whether the construction of a structure based on a log cabin is possible, especially since a number of researchers directly write about log cabins among the population of the Yudinsky culture. First of all, it should be noted that if the log house had been built, it would have been located not inside the excavation, but outside, since the walls of the excavation were reinforced with poles, which left small pits and, possibly, blocks or boards. If the log house stood inside the excavation, then it would not make sense to strengthen the walls. The log house placed outside the excavation dictates its straight walls, which is not the case in our case. This is especially noticeable on the curved back wall. At the same time, the log house would be very massive (with a log length of about 6 m), but of the four dwellings studied, this is the smallest, besides, the log houses on the Russian settlement 1 would stand close to each other (after all, the distance between neighboring buildings is only 0.53 m), making it difficult to access the outer walls of the dwelling..

If we consider the structure of the building as a frame one, it should be noted that in the dwelling itself and next to it, in fact, there are no pits from vertical pillars serving as the frame of the building. Only in the center of the dwelling, near the hearth, there is one hole 32 cm deep, which could be a pillar, but this is clearly not enough for the reconstruction of buildings based on horizontal frame pillars. It should be noted that there are no pits near the excavation, deepened into the mainland, which could be interpreted as pillars.

Taking into account the above, we will rely on ethnographic materials on the semi-earthen skeleton dugouts of the Khanty ^{[21, Fig. 7]} and Ketov ^{[21, Table VI:2]}. When reconstructing homes, it is often the work of Z. P. Sokolova that most researchers use ^[21]. However, neither the drawings nor the descriptions of the dwellings in this work contain any small details that would help interpret the studied archaeological sites. Therefore, in our reconstruction, we will rely on the photograph of G. M. Dmitriev-Sadovnikov from 1912, kept in the collections of the Tobolsk Museum-Reserve (TM 15550/56), which shows the wooden frame of a truncated pyramid building from the village of Laryaksky on the river. 2), as well as the works of U. T. Sirelius ^[20], M. B. Shatilov ^[30] and B. O. Dolgikh ^[7]. The latter described in sufficient detail the construction of the ancient Ketov dugout, recalling a private conversation with archaeologist M. V. Voevodsky, who reproached ethnographers for not providing enough data to explain and reconstruct archaeological excavation materials ^{[7, p. 158]}.

The size of the excavation of the Khanty semi-excavation of the myg-kat frame structure on the river. The Vax was 5-6 m long and 4-5 m wide, with a depth of 40-50 cm ^{[30, p. 40]}. The dimensions and depth of the excavation of the Khanty truncated pyramid structure, judging by the photograph, fully correspond to the data of M. B. Shatilov (Fig. 2). U. T. Sirelius reports that the square earthen dwelling of Karamo had a side length of 4.85 m, and a depth of one pound (0.3 m) below the daytime surface ^{[20, p. 162]}. Z. P. Sokolova notes that the depth of the Khanty frame-pillar semi-earthworks was 0.3-0.8 m ^{[21, p. 37]}.

Figure 2. The frame of a truncated-pyramidal semi-earthen house from the village of Laryakskoye on the Vakh River.

The depth of the Ketskaya excavation pit reached 50-75 cm, and it began to be dug only after installing two pairs of thick (diameter about 14 cm) rafters. According to ethnographic data, the walls of the excavation were not reinforced, only poles 4-5 cm in diameter were laid along the edges of the pit for the Kets ^{[7, p. 160]}, and for the Khants, judging by the drawings, thin logs were used for this ^{[21, Figs. 6, 7]}. The excavation of dwelling No. 4 of the Russian 1 settlement is quite comparable in size and depth to the ethnographic data (if we take into account the depth not from the mainland, but from the level of the ancient daytime surface). The difference lies only in strengthening the walls of the excavation of dwelling No. 4, as clearly indicated by small pits from the pillars located close to the walls (Fig. 1).

The framework of the ethnographic types of dwellings among the Khants and Kets is based on two pairs of pillars dug along the edge of the excavation. At the same time, there is no data on the depth to which the pillars were buried in the Khanty, while in the Kets the lower end of the pillars was 10-15 cm deep into the ground ^{[7, p. 160]}. It must be assumed that the frame logs of the Khanty semi-earthworks were also not thoroughly buried in the ground, since the stability of the frame of the dwelling, interconnected by crossbeams, did not depend on the significant depth of the inclined pillars dug in. Most likely, this is why there are no pits from the pillars of the frame around the excavation of dwelling No. 4, at the level of the mainland.: they were buried in the turf, not in the continental loam.

Among the Khants, skeletal semi-dugouts are known to be both pyramidal ^{[21, Fig. 6]} and truncated-pyramidal ^{[21, Fig. 7, 8]}. In Kety, despite the fact that the pair of main rafters each consist of two pillars connected at right angles, set at an angle to each other, they still do not connect together at the top (which would form a pyramid), but were spaced 80 cm apart. Just below their completion, a horizontal platform was formed with the help of longitudinal and transverse crossbars (it looked like a truncated pyramid), which was used as a window, which was closed by an ice floe in winter ^{[7, p. 161, Fig. 4]}.

Most likely, the dwellings at the Russian settlement 1 were nevertheless truncated-pyramidal, since in addition to the square foundation of dwelling No. 4, elongated sub-rectangular buildings were also studied, over which it would be difficult to erect a pyramidal frame. Therefore, the frame of such a structure (Fig. 2) ^{[20, Fig. 197]} could consist of four inclined pillars fixed in pairs at the top with crossbars. They were fixed together from above with logs that formed the basis of the roof. The frame was reinforced from the front and back with inclined pillars, which were also dug into the ground, which gave it rigidity. Two pillars were placed on the front side, between which the door was located, and on the back sides, judging by the photo, three pillars were installed (Fig. 2). Additionally, the pillars were placed strictly at the corners of the excavated excavation, thus forming rounded corners of the semi-excavation. There were also horizontal sleighs fixed at different heights, which served to support the walls.

The walls and ceiling of the Khanty were built from poles, which were then covered with earth ^{[30, p. 40]}. Thin shingles or boards covered with reeds and covered with earth were also used for the walls ^{[20, p. 162]}. The fact that the walls of dugout No. 4, arranged at a slight slope, were covered with boards or scaffolds, is directly evidenced by the remains of burnt floor boards discovered during the study of the dwelling (Fig. 1). At the same time, it was found that they partially extend beyond the boundaries of the excavation, as in ethnographic realities, and a layer of loose earth is traced on top of them (zavalinka).

We can only judge how the entrance to the semi-underground frame house was designed by the work of B. O. Dolgikh. Among the Kets, a step was dug into the ground in front of the dwelling 20-25 cm below the ground level, vertically, a rectangular frame of four poles was placed here, which was held at the top by two more poles attached to a horizontal bed on the front wall of the building. Inside the dugout, in front of the entrance, there was another earthen step covered with a block ^{[7, p. 161, Fig. 6]}.

It is quite possible that in the excavated dwelling No. 4 there was a vertical frame with a door, arranged similarly to the Ket buildings. This may be indicated by a groove (for the lower pole of the frame) located on the threshold, between the excavation of the dwelling and the entrance. The chopping blocks or floor boards of the entrance could also rest on this pole. However, the entrance to dwelling No. 4 of the Russian 1 settlement was not arranged by a step (like the entrance to the Ketsky semi-underground), but by a narrow and long passage, which suggests that there could be an entrance hall. Indeed, a number of ethnographic works have published photographs of Khanty semi-underground dwellings, including frame, truncated-pyramidal ones, to which porches were attached ^{[20, fig. 150, 195]}. There are also brief descriptions of the designs of the vestibule: "Two poles extend forward from the roof of the dugout, the outer ends of which are held on poles with forks. There are five slats across these poles, and on them a row of crossbars is placed across the previous row. There is hay on the crossbars. A row of poles is attached to the sides of the roof" ^{[20, pp. 163, 164]}. One of the photographs shows that planks could have been used for the walls of the vestibule, and the front poles may not have a fork ^{[20, Fig. 195]}.

In the excavated dwelling No. 4, a number of pits were found along the back wall, 1.8-1.9 m away from the wall. Here, most likely, a wooden platform was built on pillars, which fully corresponds to the drawing of the dugout given by U. T. Sirelius, where sleeping bunks with a height of 50 cm were built along the entire back wall ^{[20, p. 161]}. M.B. Shatilov writes that among the Vakhov khanty, the part of the yurt opposite from the entrance was called the "cat-peta" – "in front of the yurt" and serves as a place for household goods and a place for overnight, and a wide shelf is arranged here in full length ^{[30, p. 44]}. The photo of such a shelf shows that it is a wooden flooring located on poles, about 60 cm high ^{[30, photos, L. 5]}. It can be assumed that in dwelling No. 4, a fairly wide shelf was attached to the back wall, which was used to store inventory and supplies, and also served as a sleeping place. But, apparently, this shelf in the center had a gap where a bonfire was lit on the earthen floor, as evidenced by the preserved puncture.

Thus, dwelling No. 4 consisted of a semi-underground building with a wooden frame in the form of a truncated pyramid installed along the outer perimeter, the roof and sloping walls were covered with boards or scaffolds, possibly with reeds and sprinkled with earth. There was a hole in the flat roof for smoke to escape from a campfire burning in the center of the building. Long, also covered vestibules were attached to the dwelling, the floor of which was made of scaffolding. In the dwelling itself, on the opposite wall from the entrance, bunks were built on both sides, between which a bonfire was sometimes lit.

There is little available data for dating the Russian 1 settlement. The main inventory is ceramics, but clear criteria for attributing it either to the second half of the first millennium or to the X–XIII centuries have not yet been worked out, on the contrary, all ceramic collections with cord ornaments, previously considered as Molchanov's, are now attributed to the IX–XIII centuries ^{[23, p. 146]}. But if we accept this point of view, it turns out that the whole region has not been inhabited since the second half of the 1st millennium AD, but in the 9th century. He suddenly found himself densely populated. Such a scenario of the historical and cultural process for the forest areas of the Tura and Tavda rivers looks implausible.

A skate pendant with realistically rendered horse heads lowered to the base of the pendant, with a triangular central slot in the center, under which there is a horizontal row of convex pearls, was found among the ornaments on the hillfort. L. A. Golubeva attributed a similar pendant from the Uryinsky burial ground to type V, the second variant and dated it to the VIII – early IX centuries ^{[5, p. 92, fig. 7: 13]}. R. D. Goldina defines the dating of the Uryinsky burial ground as the end of the VIII–IX centuries ^{[4, p. 131]}. In addition, a small heart-shaped bronze plaque with a floral ornament and a border decorated with grain was discovered in the excavation, immediately under the turf. The closest analogies are known in the burial ground of the X–XI centuries. Higher education institutions ^{[25, fig. 1: 28-30]}.

Glass-shaped crucibles were also found in the cultural layer of the settlement. Crucibles of a similar shape are rarely found in West Siberian archaeological sites. Glass-shaped crucibles were found at the settlement of the Yudinsky culture of Konyashino 2, which the authors dated to the Early Medieval period ^{[12, Fig. 3: 3, 5]}. Fragments of glass-shaped crucibles were discovered at the settlement of Sartymuriy 18 along with ceramics of the Karym stage of the Ob-Irtysh cultural and historical community ^{[28, ill. 4: 12, p. 115, 120; 24, ill. 23: 9, p. 427]}. The remains of two more similar crucibles come from the village of Sartymuriy17 ^{[24, ill. 7: 5]}, the materials from which belong to the Karym stage ^{[24, p. 427]}.

In the staged collective work devoted to the Surgut Ob region in the Middle Ages, glass–shaped crucibles are a characteristic feature of the Zelenogorsk stage of the VI-VII centuries ^{[26, p. 135]}. A similar crucible from the Barsov Gorodok II/3 settlement is dated to the 7th–9th centuries ^{[9, catalog No. 181, p. 145]}. Quite a lot of glass–shaped crucibles were discovered at the Potchevash settlement ^{[18, Table XIV]}, where their existence can be fully considered within the framework of dating the Potchevash culture of the VI-IX centuries. Similar crucibles were found at the Emder settlement ^{[8, Fig. 39: 17; 42: 10]}, where they are connected to structures 1 and 2 of the construction horizons ^{[8, p. 98]}. The authors date the first construction horizon for ceramics of the Zelenogorsk type of the VI–VII centuries, the second for ceramics of the Kintusovsky type to the end of the XI – middle of the XII centuries ^{[8, p. 14]}. The remains of a glass-shaped crucible were discovered in the village of Sartym–Uriy 16 and researchers associate it with the Vazhpai complex of the second half of the 9th-10th centuries ^{[27, ill. 1: 9, pp. 179, 185]}.

Thus, based on the analogies considered, only the ridge can be dated within a fairly narrow chronological range of the 8th–9th centuries. Glass–shaped crucibles, apparently, date from a wide chronological period from the Karymsky stage to the end of the Kintusovsky (that is, from the turn of the III-IV to the XII centuries). It is difficult to rely on the bronze heart-shaped monument in dating the monument. the overlay found on the Russian 1 hillfort, as it is the first find discovered immediately under the turf, and could have got to the hillfort by accident, after its existence ceased. Therefore, the most likely date of the settlement's existence will be the period within the VIII–X centuries.

Conclusion. Located on the Tobol River, near the mouth of the Tura River, the Russian 1 settlement can be tentatively dated within the VIII–X centuries AD and attributed to the monuments of the Yudin culture in an expanded sense of the term, including the early Molchanov stage. At the same time, it should be understood that the settlement existed for a very short period of time, since the buildings erected according to a single plan were no longer rebuilt. Most likely, the monument functioned for only a few decades, given the cultural layer, which is quite saturated with artifacts. Residential building No. 4, which was studied at the settlement, can be attributed as a truncated-pyramid-shaped semi-earthen frame building with a flat roof and sloping walls made of planks and scaffolds sprinkled with a thin layer of earth. A canopy was erected over the long corridor-shaped entrance. This building was heated using an open hearth located in the center. At the back wall there were bunks used for storing supplies and utensils, and there could also be sleeping places.