Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 1 – uploaded by Олег Ульчицкий

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
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.

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.

Related Figures (3)

Figure 2. Typology of ‘fortified settlements of the bronze age in the southern Urals. The 3rd degree of fortification complexity, the Srubno-Alakul type (Illustration 1C) - the Olgino (Kamenny Ambar) and Ustye fortified settlements have been virtually reconstructed and studied to the fullest extent possible. The defensive system of this type was a wood-soil rampart in the form of a wall up to 2-2.5 meters high on the outside faced with stone slabs or raw blocks, bonded with clay mortar, surrounded by small ditches or drainage ditches on both sides. Behind the outer ditch, an external clay embankment or a dirt ridge was poured, to which an external ditch or drainage ditch adjoined.
Figure 2. Typology of ‘fortified settlements of the bronze age in the southern Urals. The 3rd degree of fortification complexity, the Srubno-Alakul type (Illustration 1C) - the Olgino (Kamenny Ambar) and Ustye fortified settlements have been virtually reconstructed and studied to the fullest extent possible. The defensive system of this type was a wood-soil rampart in the form of a wall up to 2-2.5 meters high on the outside faced with stone slabs or raw blocks, bonded with clay mortar, surrounded by small ditches or drainage ditches on both sides. Behind the outer ditch, an external clay embankment or a dirt ridge was poured, to which an external ditch or drainage ditch adjoined.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Figure 4. GD 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) E.N. Petrov, 2008. Reconstruction of the Sintashta iron-and-steel furnaces [25] and the alloy types ratio on Sintashta monuments. (C) FN. Petrov, 2008. Objects made of bronze in the Sintashta settlements [25]. ere aE Vee MMe Ane Fete OSB Gan! SSE sere ae ee Sat Seat BMENS FOS aE =e Ree RS re eee ee LE ER aca Sn EE EE EE EI IE EEE of data correlation or the identification of new typological criteria. In evaluation of study results and as an example of practical implementation, un analysis of the objects location on a satellite map using the developed typology is ziven (Figure 3). The diagram demonstrates information on anchor points (anchor ooints 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 n the “scroll” contains all the necessary information about the anchor point: name, image, and basic typological parameters.
Figure 4. GD 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) E.N. Petrov, 2008. Reconstruction of the Sintashta iron-and-steel furnaces [25] and the alloy types ratio on Sintashta monuments. (C) FN. Petrov, 2008. Objects made of bronze in the Sintashta settlements [25]. ere aE Vee MMe Ane Fete OSB Gan! SSE sere ae ee Sat Seat BMENS FOS aE =e Ree RS re eee ee LE ER aca Sn EE EE EE EI IE EEE of data correlation or the identification of new typological criteria. In evaluation of study results and as an example of practical implementation, un analysis of the objects location on a satellite map using the developed typology is ziven (Figure 3). The diagram demonstrates information on anchor points (anchor ooints 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 n the “scroll” contains all the necessary information about the anchor point: name, image, and basic typological parameters.
Related topics:
Architecture TypologyAncient MetallurgyBronze Age MetallurgySouthern UralsFortified Settlements
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved