Seeking the Process: The Application of Geophysical Survey on some Early Mining and Metalworking Sites

10 Pages·1.553 MB·English

by  Merrony C., Hanks B., Doonan R.

421
Colin Merrony – Bryan Hanks – Roger Doonan
Seeking the Process: The Application of Geophysical
Survey on some Early Mining and Metalworking Sites
Abstract logical geophysical survey. One project which saw
the early application of caesium-vapour magneto-
The production of metal, and the technologies of min-
metry to archaeology was Barbara Ottaway’s project
ing and processing associated with this production, are
on the Galgenberg near Kopfham in Lower Bavaria
an intensely debated component within the discussion of
(Ottaway 1999). From this time on, during her pro-
the development of complex societies. The study of these
fessional career at Bradford and then Sheield Uni-
processes and technologies has developed signiicantly in versity she encouraged the application of geophysi-
recent decades because of the application of scientiic tech-
cal techniques (in particular luxgate magnetometry)
niques both in the ield and in the laboratory. The applica- on early copper mining and bronze metal production
tion of geophysical techniques for the discovery and inves-
sites in many areas including Austria and the United
tigation of mining and processing sites, while having a long
Kingdom as part of a number of PhD programmes
history within Bronze Age studies, has recently seen a surge
(Marshall 1995; Doonan 1996; Wager 2003). This lega-
in interest as a result of continuing technological advances.
cy continues today in Sheield with current projects,
Building on the legacy of previous studies this paper discusses
as geographically diverse as the Russian Federation
a new program of geophysical survey on Middle Bronze Age
and the United Kingdom, applying magnetic survey
landscapes in the Southern Ural region of Siberia and looks techniques across early copper mining and bronze
forward to the further application of these and related tech-
metalworking sites.
niques in Siberia, Britain and throughout Europe.
A major current project is a collaborative ield
study, bringing together a wide range of participants
including the authors and others from Russia, the
United States and the United Kingdom. This project
At the heart of discussions of the Bronze Age and the is focused on a group of Middle Bronze Age (c. 2100 to
development of complex societies has been the view 1700 cal BC) sites in the area immediately to the east
that the development of early metal production tech- of the Southern Urals (ig. 1) which may be termed
nologies and mining methods provided a key stimu- the Sintashta pattern. This group of sites has been
lus (Yener 2000; Maddin 1988; Tylecote 1987; Linduf discussed since the 1980s as demonstrating major de-
2004). The production of metal as a mechanism by velopments in social, economic and political organi-
which wealth accumulation could be achieved is seen sation combined with a signiicant intensiication in
as an important element for the growth of systems mining and metal production. This has ensured that
of trade and for the innovation and difusion of new these sites and the associated Petrovka and Alakul’-
ideas and technologies (Chapman 2003; Kristiansen Fyodorovka patterns, within the southern Ural to
1998: 73). This debate, already one of the most in- northwest Kazakhstan area, have received particu-
tensely active in prehistoric archaeology, has been lar attention within the Central Eurasian Steppe re-
able to develop signiicantly recently as a result of gion (Mallory 1989; Chernykh 1992; Kuz’mina 2002;
the large scale application of a wide range of scien- Boyle et al. 2002; Jones-Bley/Zdanovich 2002; Levine
tiic techniques on many archaeological projects (Ot- et al. 2003; Hanks et al. 2007; Hanks/Doonan 2008).
taway/Roberts 2008: 193). Although a signiicant focus has been placed on the
The last 30 years have seen enormous develop- investigation and discussion of the Sintashta pat-
ments in the technology available for archaeological tern, there remain large gaps in the evidence for the
geophysics and a huge increase in the application of organisation of metal production, trade and social
a wide range of techniques on archaeological sites organisation with the only relatively complete pub-
(Becker 1990; 1995: 218–220; Aspinall 1992: 233–240; lished work to date on a settlement being that from
Gafney et al. 2002: 12–24; Gafney/Gater 2003: 1–6). the site of Sintashta itself (Gening et al. 1992).
Many ield archaeologists, such as Barbara Ottaway, The Sintashta pattern is characterised by new
have long encouraged the application of archaeo- forms of nucleated, enclosed settlements (most com-
422
Colin Merrony – Bryan Hanks – Roger Doonan
Fig. 1: Location map showing the region of known Sintashta sites.
monly referred to as ‘fortiied’) in association with the 3 sites in the Karagaily Ayat river valley which
elaborate cemeteries which contain large-scale animal are only approximately 8 kilometres apart). This and
sacriice, complex tomb construction and evidence many questions relating to resource management,
for early chariot technology (Anthony/Vinogradov mean that the standard view of Sintashta political
1995). This has led to discussions of chiely leadership and economic organisation is very likely to be chal-
and large scale territorial control (for broad reviews lenged in the future.
of the region and period see Anthony 2007; Kohl 2007; There are strong suggestions that the enclosed
Koryakova/Epimakhov 2007). sites may be associated with open settlements
Sintashta settlements have been grouped into (Zdanovich 1989), particularly as the habitable area
three chronologically ranked categories based on within each enclosed settlement is very limited.
aerial photographic evidence and small scale excava- It seems highly probable that additional domestic
tion. The earliest of these are the oval shaped settle- structures would be situated outside the enclosed ar-
ments (e.g. Alandskoe, Bersaut, Rodniki/Stepnoye). eas along with other structures for the management
The middle category are rounded settlements such of livestock, storage of food resources for the winter,
as Arkaim, Sintashta I, Kamennyi Ambar (Ol’gino) waste disposal and so on. Unfortunately no archaeo-
and Zhurumbai. The inal phase is made up of rec- logical evidence exploring this matter has been pub-
tangular shaped settlements including Sintashta II, lished recently. This is particularly the case for the
Konoplyanka, Ustye and Chernorechy’e (Zdanovich/ management of livestock, as there appears to be no
Batanina 2002). Recent results have already begun evidence for animal enclosures or stalls within the
to alter some of these categorisations (Zdanovich/ fortiied settlements. We are only now beginning to
Batanina 2007: 97–102). These sites are widely spread see the exploration of areas outside the enclosed ar-
across the region. However, some of the sites are 40 eas as for example with the recent luxgate magne-
to 60 kilometres apart which has led to a suggestion tometer survey undertaken at the Kamennyi Ambar
that each site may have a territory with a radius of (Ol’gino) settlement in 2005.
approximately 20 to 30 kilometres (Epimakhov 2002; Evidence of metalworking items in cemeteries
2005; Zdanovich/Batanina 2002). This has led to the (in addition to the animal sacriice, chariot technol-
idea that the enclosed settlements are able to func- ogy and weaponry) has also been used to support the
tion as efectively socio-economic and political enti- hypothesis that Sintashta sites represent a strongly
ties. However, it should be noted that the spacing of hierarchical society (Koryakova 2002; Kristiansen/
Sintashta sites is very irregular with several examples Larsson 2005). Again the assumptions made may
with much smaller separation distances (for example well be challenged in the near future as the increas-
423
Seeking the Process: The Application of Geophysical Survey on some Early Mining and Metalworking Sites
ing amount of material recovered from Sintashta Karagaily Ayat River valley. Settlement and mortu-
cemeteries is more closely considered. For example ary activities in the valley are well documented for
items relating to metal production (moulds, hammer the Middle and Late Bronze Age phases along with a
stones, etc.) are widely distributed across age and sex number of Iron Age and Medieval mortuary sites. The
categories (Epimakhov 2002: 144). However, ceme- appearance of three Sintashta settlements in such
teries have produced very useful amounts of metal close proximity to each other immediately raises
objects and metal working items which form an im- questions about their relationship. For example do
portant resource when considering Sintashta metal they perhaps represent three separate relocations of
production technology. a single smaller community after the degradation of
Many questions remain unanswered regarding resources in an immediate site catchment area (ap-
signiicant aspects of Sintashta settlement and social proximately 4–5 km radius), or are they three sepa-
organisation. This is partly because the discussion rate communities occupying the sites contemporane-
of metallurgy dominates most interpretations of ously? Questions such as this can only be answered
both the emergence of the Sintashta pattern and the through more intensive investigations of the settle-
models for its social complexity and organization. ments and their relationships within their local en-
Archaeol ogical research continues to demonstrate vironments. However, such settlement distributions
that each of the Sintashta house structures within appear to challenge the model of larger catchment
the enclosed areas of settlements contains one or zones between autonomous Sintashta settlements.
more wells (or cistern features) and cupola shaped The main focus of collaborative work in this
hearths (interpreted as furnaces), which are believed area (2005–2007), in conjunction with A. Epimakhov
to be principally connected with metal processing (Southern Ural State University) and L. Koryakova
including smelting (Gening et al. 1992; Zdanovich/ (Ural State University), has been the settlement of
Zdanovich 2002). Other objects connected with met- Ol’gino itself and its immediate locale, including the
allurgy, such as pestles, slag and metal droplets, are Kamennyi Ambar 5 cemetery. Large areas of magne-
also routinely recovered from household contexts tometer survey were conducted over both the settle-
These materials are found throughout all the en- ment area and across the nearby cemetery. Further
closed settlements (although not in equal amounts). surveys were also conducted over a possible area of
This could be taken to suggest that metallurgy was early mining/quarrying to the north-east and across
not a specialized activity undertaken by diferent in- other burial features (ig. 2). Here the discussion will
dividuals or groups within communities (Epimakhov cover the surveys on the settlement and mining ar-
2002: 143). Material such as slag is also found outside eas. For a complete discussion of all the results from
of the enclosed areas even though little investigation the geophysical survey see Hanks et al. (in prep.) and
of the areas outside of the enclosed areas has so far for further information on the investigation of the
been undertaken. possible mining/quarrying site see Hanks and Doo-
In parallel to the questions surrounding Sintashta nan (in press).
metal production has been a lack of evidence for min- The largest survey was across the settlement area
ing or quarrying near the settlements. This has lead which had been interpreted as a rounded (middle
to great speculation over whether Sintashta socie- category) settlement from the results of air photo-
ties were exploiting localized ore resources for their graphs. This survey included the whole of the settle-
needs or were trading over (perhaps long) distances ment (as identiied from aerial photographs) as well
for unprocessed ore and/or partially processed met- as the available area of land to the west of the site
als (ingots) for later on-site reining. The almost (situated between the settlement and the river) and
complete lack of archaeological research outside of extending approximately 80 metres eastward beyond
the enclosed settlements (apart from cemeteries) the margin of the settlement (ig. 2).
ensures that most of this discussion remains specula- The magnetometer survey revealed very good in-
tion and systematic full coverage surface surveys and formation in relation both to the enclosing boundary
site catchment studies are urgently needed within of the settlement and to internal features including
the zones surrounding the settlements. features which are consistent with hearths or furnac-
The current collaborative project by American, es within house units and some possible internal di-
British and Russian teams at the Sintashta pattern viding boundaries; substantial magnetic dipoles near
sites of Kamennyi Ambar (Ol’gino), Stepnoye and the centre of the settlement consistent with struc-
Chernorechy’e have provided opportunities to apply tures or deposits of burnt material or metal; and an
a variety of techniques including geophysical survey internal ‘dividing’ boundary ditch.
in order to examine a number of important problems As can be seen in igure 3 there is a clear bound-
surrounding Sintashta settlements. The settlement of ary (a ditch) to the settlement which has most likely
Ol’gino is situated to the east of the modern village of developed in at least two phases. The boundary of the
Varshavka and close to two other Sintashta pattern settlement is clearly rectangular in shape. There is a
settlements (Konoplyanka and Zhurumbai) in the faint linear anomaly running north-west to south-
424
Colin Merrony – Bryan Hanks – Roger Doonan
b
a
Fig. 2: Map of the Kamennyi Ambar area (showing the relative positions of the Sintashta sites).
east near the centre of the settlement (‘1’ in ig. 3) rather complex picture which is further confused by
which appears to be a continuation of the northern the fact that the area of an excavation conducted in
part of the enclosing boundary ditch (‘2’ in ig. 3). The 2004 cuts through this double section. The apparent
southern part (‘3’ in ig. 3) of the enclosing bound- phasing on this site is unusual for a Sintashta pattern
ary then looks like it has been added on. The weaker site and this suggests that the length of occupation of
anomaly (1), which was probably originally the south- this site may be particularly informative.
ern boundary of the settlement, has probably resulted The second set of features deined in the geophysi-
from a ditch which has fallen out of use and has then cal survey which we should consider are discrete pos-
been deliberately backilled as the settlement had ex- itive magnetic anomalies which lie in straight align-
tended to the south and an internal division was not ments within the northern part of the settlement
required. While the geophysics results cannot be used area. These are moderately strong features and are
to guarantee that this sequence of events is correct consistent with possible hearths or furnaces or with
(and certainly do not give any idea of date or times- large pits, which may mark the central area of house
cale) the data strongly supports this interpretation. units. These features are visible on igure 3 as dark
One further complicating factor relating to the shapes 3 to 4 metres in diameter, some of which also
interpretation of the enclosing boundary ditch is have surrounding light (negative) shadows (they are
the north-east corner of the settlement. As is clearly marked as black dots on the interpretive diagram in
indicated on the interpretive diagram the enclosing ig. 3). Also visible as magnetic anomalies within the
ditch, which is a single feature around most of the pe- northern part of the settlement area are a few linear
rimeter of the settlement, appears as a double feature positive anomalies which appear to run on the same
in the north-eastern corner. The results provide a alignment as the rows of features discussed above.
425
Seeking the Process: The Application of Geophysical Survey on some Early Mining and Metalworking Sites
Fig. 3: Greyscale plot of magnetometer results for the survey of the Ol’gino settlement (Kamennyi Ambar).
These linear anomalies are consistent with the foun- To the north-east of the site an area was initial-
dations of internal boundary walls and are also shown ly identiied during a walk-over survey as a possi-
in black in the interpretive diagram. ble mining area. This was subject to a small sample
This survey strongly suggests that there is a geophysical survey covering 800 m2. This showed no
clearly deined spatial patterning within the north- magnetic anomalies and so further investigation was
ern part of the settlement enclosure. The features in- conducted in 2007 by more extensive ield survey and
terpreted above as possible hearths, pits or furnaces some small sample excavations. This area proved not
show a clear linear arrangement suggesting that the to be a source of metal ore but possibly the source
household units within the settlement are arranged of stone used within the nearby settlement. While
in straight lines parallel to or perpendicular to other this initial survey did not reveal any early metal ore
lines forming something of a grid pattern. The south- mining it very quickly showed the potential for as-
ern part of the settlement area does not show such sociated archaeological features within the landscape
patterning. However, it is likely that this is a later surrounding the settlement and reinforced the case
phase of enclosure on this settlement and may not for extensive ield survey and site catchment studies.
contain such regular features. It is also possible that The project is also undertaking extensive survey
the southern part of the settlement area has sufered in an area on the northern edge of the Sintashta pat-
greater erosion/disturbance (it has certainly partly tern distribution area (approximately 130 kilometres
been eroded by the nearby river). north of the Karagaily Ayat River valley) in collabo-
Close to the centre of the enclosed area of the ration with Dmitri Zdanovich (Center Arkaim). This
settlement (just north of feature 1) are three areas work is in the valley of the River Ui at the settle-
of strong magnetic anomalies. These are substan- ment and cemetery site of Stepnoye, the settlement
tially stronger than the features outlined above, and of Chernorechy’e and its nearby cemetery of Krivoe
two are clearly magnetic dipoles. These anomalies Ozero (approximately 15 kilometres south-east of
are consistent with bodies of burnt material. These Stepnoye; see ig. 5). The site of Stepnoye is particu-
anomalies could represent large pits illed with suit- larly striking as it contains the largest Middle Bronze
ably magnetic material. These anomalies are marked Age cemetery in the southern Urals region, which
‘4’ on igure 3. consists of at least 45 kurgan structures dating from
The results of the geophysical survey have ena- the Middle to Late Bronze Age. This area is among the
bled a reinterpretation of the layout of the site most mineral rich areas of western Siberia and conse-
(Zdanovich/Batanina 2007: 97–102) which had origi- quently ofers great potential for the deinition and
nally been deined from aerial photographs (Zdanov- examination of early mining sites.
ich/Batanina 2002). A continuing programme of ex- No signiicant excavation of either settlement has
cavation by the Russian team will no doubt reveal been undertaken in the past. The Krivoe Ozero and
further information about the spatial organisation Stepnoye cemeteries have been partially excavated,
of this site and the activities taking place within its with the Stepnoye cemetery currently undergoing a
boundaries. programme of excavation. In 2007 preliminary mag-
426
Colin Merrony – Bryan Hanks – Roger Doonan
limitation large areas were surveyed in 2008 using
luxgate magnetometry. However, in addition to this,
large areas were also covered by a resistivity survey
utilising a twin-probe array.
This approach proved successful at Stepnoye
where the results from the surveys complimented
each other. As can be seen from igure 6, the resisti-
vity survey has produced very good results regarding
the boundaries and internal features of the settle-
ment. The enclosing boundary is a particularly clear
feature and, while there is some masking of archaeo-
logical features by the efect of modern features such
as tracks and old cultivation marks, there are many
deinable internal features.
The magnetometer results show nothing of these
features. However, they do show some interesting
contrasting features. There is one strong positive
magnetic anomaly in the north-western part of the
survey area. This feature lies within the area of settle-
ment deined by the resistivity results just inside the
enclosing bank, near the north-west corner of the set-
tlement. This feature is compatible with a large burnt
feature such as a furnace or kiln or perhaps a large pit
illed with burnt material. If this is a structure such as
a kiln it is quite large for a Sintashta period feature.
It would also be most unexpected for there to be just
a single feature of this nature within a Sintashta set-
tlement therefore making its further examination a
matter of great interest. It is, however, possible that
this is a later feature coincidently situated in the
north-west corner of the Sintashta settlement. For
this question to be resolved the feature would need
to undergo excavation.
Fig. 4: The interpretation of the aerial photographic evidence
for the Ol’gino settlement (Kamennyi Ambar) by Zdanovich and The second feature of interest in the magnetome-
Batanina. A is a simpliied version of the original interpretation ter results is the linear dark feature (positive magnetic
(after Zdanovich/Batanina 2002). B is a simpliied version of the
anomaly) visible in igure 6 running north-eastwards
interpretation which appears to take some consideration of the
from the south-west corner of the magnetometer
results of the magnetometer survey (after Zdanovich/Batanina
2007). Comparison with igure 3 shows that this interpretation is survey area. This feature ends after running for ap-
still somewhat at odds with the evidence from the magnetometer proximately 80 metres. There is then a gap and then
survey. Also clear is that the features interpreted as Late Bronze
another area of positive magnetic readings. The linear
Age structures overlying the Sintashta site are not visible in the
magnetometer data.
Fig. 5: Map of Stepnoye/Chernorechy’e area showing the relative
positions of the two settlements along the Ui river course and the
recently identiied possible early mining sites.
netometer surveys were conducted on both sites
which proved largely unsuccessful. In order to exam-
ine the reasons for this soil samples were taken for
magnetic susceptibility analysis. These were com-
pared to samples from Ol’gino. It was clear from the
samples that the soils and sediments at Stepnoye and
Chernorechy’e consisted of coarser sandy material
and this proved to have a very low magnetic suscep-
tibility compared to the Ol’gino samples. This prob-
ably demonstrates that levels of iron oxide at Step-
noye and Chernorechy’e are much lower than levels
at Ol’gino and consequently archaeological deposits
have a much lower potential to become magnetised
by the actions of past human groups. Even with this
427
Seeking the Process: The Application of Geophysical Survey on some Early Mining and Metalworking Sites
quickly this work has identiied six potential early
mining sites all with surface outcrops of ore. There
was time to undertake a rapid preliminary examina-
tion of these sites and this work suggests that these
sites yield rich, yet limited in size, ore deposits. This
explains clearly why the sites are unattractive to
modern industrial scale exploitation and conirms the
high potential for early evidence to still survive on
these sites and perhaps at further sites in the area.
It was not possible to explore these potential early
mining sites and their surroundings using geophysical
survey methods during 2008. However, this is clearly
a potential future use for geophysical techniques. If
there is any kind of ore processing on or near these
sites then magnetometry in particular could yield
useful results.
A signiicant amount of slag has already been re-
covered from the excavations at Stepnoye itself and
an initial examination of this has shown that this is
the product of copper metallurgical processes. How-
ever, this preliminary analysis has revealed interest-
ing variations in the material suggesting these slags
come from only part of the ore processing sequence.
Unless other classes of slag are forthcoming from the
settlement then it seems that the Sintashta metal-
lurgical tradition may have been a segmented proc-
Fig. 6: Greyscale plot showing the results of the geophysical sur-
ess with only the latter steps of production being
veys on the Sintashta settlement site of Stepnoye (note the area
undertaken at Stepnoye. Given the rarity of metal
covered by the magnetometer survey is smaller than the area cov-
ered by the resistivity survey: A, B, C, and D mark the limits and processing material from Ol’gino and the apparent
location of the magnetometer survey). abundance of material from Stepnoye, it is strongly
suggested that the level of metal processing is not
simply equal across all Sintashta sites. The immediate
feature is running through the settlement area as de- implication of this is that future surveys in the vicin-
ined by the resistivity survey and ends just inside the ity of Sintashta sites must anticipate other types of
enclosing boundary of the settlement. The gap coin- metallurgical sites which, to date, have not been re-
cides with the enclosing boundary of the settlement cognized. The combination of large scale ield survey
and then the additional positive magnetic feature to and the application of geophysical techniques in the
the north which lies outside the settlement area. It is
not clear what is causing this feature although a small
sample excavation in the area outside the settlement Fig. 7: Magnetometer survey underway on the steep slopes of the
revealed an area of deeper soil containing signiicant copper mining site on Ecton Hill, Stafordshire, U.K. (photograph
R. Doonan).
amounts of slag and artefactual material. It is possi-
ble that the linear positive magnetic feature and the
additional area outside the settlement are part of a
natural feature which has become illed with a deeper
soil causing the magnetic anomaly. The settlement
may then have been built over this natural feature.
However, this interpretation is not entirely convinc-
ing as the low magnetic properties of the soils and
sediments at Stepnoye do not strongly support this.
It is hoped that in future further excavation may shed
light on this. The presence of slag and artefactual
material outside the settlement is a welcome conir-
mation that archaeological features and deposits are
present outside these enclosed settlements.
One of the additional activities in 2008 was a pre-
liminary reconnaissance in the area around Stepnoye
to explore the possibilities of early mining sites. Very
428
Colin Merrony – Bryan Hanks – Roger Doonan
from the University of Leicester (David et al. 2008:
19–38). We are also seeing the exploration of new
forms of detector with the advantages of vector-ield
instruments being explored with 3-axis luxgates (ig.
8) for example at the University of Sheield. These
developments are now being combined with Global
Positioning System (G.P.S.) technology to provide
greater lexibility in survey methods. Consequently
archaeological geophysics has a positive future and
will continue to play an increasing role in prospection
and in the investigation of archaeological landscapes.
Building on the legacy of the last 30 years we will see
increasingly powerful instruments and systems be-
coming available providing further options for the
exploration of early mining and metal working sites.
This, combined with new instruments for chemical
analysis such as portable X-Ray Fluorescence tech-
nology and large scale multi-disciplinary integrated
projects, suggests an exciting future for the study of
the archaeology of early metal production.
Fig. 8: 3-axis luxgate gradiometer with integral G.P.S. being tested Acknowledgements
at Castleton, Derbyshire, U.K. (photograph A. Staford).
The authors would like to thank their Russian col-
laborators, D. Zdanovich, E. Kupriyanova, L. Korya-
vicinity of possible mining sites and on open settle- kova and A. Epimakhov and the students and staf of
ments will hopefully rapidly yield useful information Ural State University, Southern Ural State University,
with which to address these questions. Chelyabinsk State University and the University of
Western Siberia is not the only early mining and Pittsburgh for their support in carrying out the re-
metal producing area that is currently being studied. search discussed within this paper. We also gratefully
Many other sites are being examined including a cur- acknowledge funding from the National Science Foun-
rent project at Ecton in Stafordshire in the U.K. Here dation, Wenner-Gren Foundation and the Russian and
again large scale geophysical survey is being applied East European Center at the University of Pittsburgh.
to a known early mining site in order to explore the
possible areas for ore processing sites. As can be seen
from igure 7, however, the hills of the western Peak
District do not ofer such comfortable geophysical
surveying conditions as are found on the Sintashta
sites of Western Siberia. References
Just as thirty or more years ago technological
developments provided a huge stimulus for the in- Anthony/Vinogradov 1995
D. W. Anthony/N. B. Vinogradov, The Birth of the Chariot.
creased application of geophysical techniques for the
Archaeology 48, 1995, 36–41.
examination of archaeological sites, we are now again
Anthony 2007
in a period of signiicant development and innovation D. W. Anthony, The horse, the wheel and language: how
within archaeological geophysics. Total-ield instru- Bronze Age riders from the Eurasian Steppes shaped the
modern world. Princeton: Princeton University Press
ments such as alkali-vapour magnetometers have
2007.
gradually grown in their application as these instru-
Aspinall 1992
ments have become more available. However, there A. Aspinall, New developments in geophysical prospection.
have also been several innovations recently develop- In: A. M. Pollard (ed.), New developments in archaeologi-
cal science. Oxford: Oxford University Press for the British
ing the delivery systems for existing types of equip-
Academy 1992, 233–244.
ment, for example the use of carts, sleds or hand held
Becker 1990
multiple sensor arrays. These vary from multiple H. Becker, Combination of Aerial-Photography with
magnetometer systems from manufacturers such as Ground-Magnetics in Digital Image Processing Technique.
In: C. Leva (ed.), Aerial Photography and Geophysical
Geoscan, Bartington and Foerster to multiple sensor
Prospection 2. Proceedings of the Second International
platforms such as the new cart system from Geoscan
Symposium Brussels 8-XI-1986. Brussels: C.I.R.A. – I.C.L.
Research Ltd or the GEEP mobile sensor platform 1990, 25–35.
429
Seeking the Process: The Application of Geophysical Survey on some Early Mining and Metalworking Sites
Becker 1995 Koryakova 2002
H. Becker, From Nanotesla to Picotesla – a New Window L. N. Koryakova, The social landscape of Central Eurasia in
for Magnetic Prospecting in Archaeology. Archaeological the Bronze and Iron Ages: tendencies, factors and limits
Prospection 2, 1995, 217–228. of transformation. In: K. Jones-Bley/D. G. Zdanovich (eds.),
Boyle/Renfrew/Levine 2002 Complex societies of Central Eurasia from the third to the
K. Boyle/C. Renfrew/M. Levine (eds.), Ancient Interac- irst Millennia B.C.: regional speciics in the light of global
tions: East and West in Eurasia. Cambridge: McDonald In- models. Volume I. Journal of Indo-European Studies Mon-
stitute 2002. ograph Series 45. Washington: Institute for the Study of
Chapman 2003 Man 2002, 97–117.
R. Chapman, Archaeologies of complexity. London: Koryakova/Epimakhov 2007
Routledge 2003. L. N. Koryakova/A. V. Epimakhov, The Urals and Western
Chernykh 1992 Siberia in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge
E. N. Chernykh, Ancient metallurgy in the U.S.S.R.: The University Press 2007.
Early Metal Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Kristiansen 1998
1992. K. Kristiansen, Europe before history. Cambridge: Cam-
David/Linford/Linford 2008 bridge University Press 1998.
A. David/N. Linford/P. Linford, Geophysical survey in ar- Kristiansen/Larsson 2005
chaeological ield evaluation. Swindon: English Heritage K. Kristiansen/T. B. Larsson, The rise of Bronze Age Socie-
2008. ty: travels, transmissions and transformations. Cambridge:
Doonan 1996 Cambridge University Press 2005.
R. C. P. Doonan, Old lames, slags and society, copper Kuz’mina 2002
smelting technology in the Ramsau Valley, Austria, during E. E. Kuz’mina, On the origins of Indo-Iranians. Current
the Bronze Age. PhD Thesis, Department of Archaeology, Anthropology 43, 2002, 303–304.
University of Shefield 1996. Levine/Renfrew/Boyle 2003
Epimakhov 2002 M. Levine/C. Renfrew/K. Boyle (eds.), Prehistoric Steppe
A. V. Epimakhov, Complex societies and the possibilities adaptation and the horse. Cambridge: McDonald Institute
to diagnose them on the basis of archaeological data: Sin- 2003.
tashta type sites of the Middle Bronze Age of the Trans- Linduff 2004
Urals. In: K. Jones-Bley/D. G Zdanovich (eds.), Complex K. Linduff (ed.), Metallurgy in Ancient Eastern Eurasia
societies of Central Eurasia from the third to the irst from the Urals to the Yellow River. New York: Edward Mel-
Millennia B.C.: regional speciics in the light of global lon Press 2004.
mod els. Volume 1. Washington: Institute for the Study of Maddin 1988
Man 2002, 139–147. R. Maddin (ed.), The beginning of the use of metals and al-
Epimakhov 2005 loys. Cambridge: MIT Press 1988.
A. V. Epimakhov, Ranniye Kompleksniye Obshyestva Sev- Mallory 1989
era Tzentral’noi Evrazii (po materialam mogil’nika Ka- J. P. Mallory, In search of the Indo-Europeans: language, ar-
mennyi Ambar 5). Chelyabinsk: Nauka 2005. chaeology and myth. London: Thames and Hudson 1989.
Gaffney/Gater 2003 Marshall 1995
C. F. Gaffney/J. A. Gater, Revealing the buried past: geo- P. D. Marshall, The environmental impact of mining and
physics for archaeologists. Stroud: Tempus 2003. metalworking activities in Steiermark, Austria. PhD The-
Gaffney/Gater/Ovenden 2002 sis, Department of Archaeology, University of Shefield
C. F. Gaffney/J. A. Gater/S. M. Ovendon, The use of geo- 1995.
physical techniques in archaeological evaluations. Read- Ottaway 1999
ing: Institute of Field Archaeologists 2002. B. S. Ottaway, A Changing Place. The Galgenberg in Lower
Gening/Zdanovich/Gening 1992 Bavaria from the 5th to the 1st Millennium BC. BAR Inter-
V. F. Gening/G. B. Zdanovich/V. V. Gening, Sintashta: Ar- national Series 752. Oxford: Archaeopress 1999.
cheologicheskii pamyatnik Ariiskikh plemen Uralo-Kaza- Ottaway/Roberts 2008
khstanckikh stepei. Chelyabinsk: Uzhno-Ural’skoe knizh- B. S. Ottaway/B. Roberts, The emergence of metalworking.
noe Izd-vo 1992. In: A. Jones (ed.), Prehistoric Europe: theory and practice.
Hanks/Epimakhov/Renfrew 2007 Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell 2008, 193–225.
B. K. Hanks/A. V. Epimakhov/C. Renfrew, Towards a re- Tylecote 1987
ined chronology for the Bronze Age of the Southern Urals. R. F. Tylecote, Early History of Metallurgy in Europe. Lon-
Antiquity 81, 2007, 353–367. don: Longman 1987.
Hanks/Doonan in press Wager 2003
B. K. Hanks/R. C. P. Doonan, From scale to practice – a new E. C. Wager, The character and context of Bronze Age min-
agenda for the study of early metallurgy on the Eurasian ing on the Great Orme, North Wales, U.K. PhD Thesis, De-
Steppe. Journal of World Prehistory in press. partment of Archaeology, University of Shefield 2003.
Hanks/Merrony/Epimakhov in prep. Yener 2000
B. K. Hanks/C. J. N. Merrony/A. V. Epimakhov, A geophysi- K. A. Yener, The domestication of metals: the rise of com-
cal prospection of Middle Bronze Age settlement and cem- plex metal industries in Anatolia. Boston: Brill 2000.
etery organization in the Southeastern Urals, Russian Fed- Zdanovich 1989
eration. Archaeological Prospection. G. B. Zdanovich, Phenomen protogorodkoi tsivilizatsii
Jones-Bley/Zdanovich 2002 bronzovogo veka Uralo-kazakhstanskikh stepei. Kultur-
K. Jones-Bley/D. G. Zdanovich (eds.), Complex societies naya I sotsialnaya obuslovlennost. In: V. M. Masson (ed.),
of Central Eurasia from the third to the first Millennium Vzadimodeistvie kochevykh kultur I drevnikh tsivilizatsiy.
B.C. – regional specifics in light of global models. Vol- Alma-Ata: Nauka 1989, 179–189.
umes I and II. Journal of Indo-European Studies Mono- Zdanovich/Batanina 2002
graph Series 45. Washington: Institute for the Study of G. B. Zdanovich/I. M. Batanina, Planography of the for-
Man 2002. tiied centers of the Middle Bronze Age in the Southern
Kohl 2007 Trans-Urals according to aerial photography data. In: K.
P. Kohl, The making of Bronze Age Eurasia. Cambridge: Jones-Bley/D. G. Zdanovich (eds.), Complex societies of
Cambridge University Press 2007. Central Eurasia from the third to the irst Millennium
430
B.C. – regional speciics in light of global models. Volume
I. Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series 45.
Washington: Institute for the Study of Man 2002, 121–147.
Zdanovich/Batanina 2007
G. B. Zdanovich/I. M. Batanina, Arkaim – Strana Gorodov:
Prostransvo I Obrazy. Chelyabinsk: Izd-vo Krokus – Yuzh-
no-Ural’skovo Knizhnoye Izdatel’stvo 2007.
Zdanovich/Zdanovich 2002
G. B. Zdanovich/D. G. Zdanovich, The ‘Country of Towns’
of Southern Trans-Urals and some aspects of Steppe as-
similation in the Bronze Age. In: K. Boyle/C. Renfrew/M.
Levine (eds.), Ancient interactions, East and West in Eura-
sia. Cambridge: McDonald Institute 2002, 249–263.