Proto-Urban Establishments in Inner Asia: Surveys of an Iron Age Walled Site in Eastern Mongolia

Figures & data

Figure 1. Xiongnu habitation sites (white markers indicate permanent settlements; black markers indicate ephemeral habitation findings): 1) Kherlen-Bars; 2) Gua Dov; 3) Gün-Galuu; 4) Bürkh; 5) Terelj; 6) Zaan-khoshuu; 7) Kholtostyn-Khürem (Egiin Gol); 8) Bayan-Under; 9) Boroo; 10) Dureny; 11) Nijnii-Mangirtui; 12) Ivolga; 13) Khanui Gol; and 14) Baga Gazaryn Chuluu.

Figure 2. Kherlen-Bars area map showing the locations of four sites: KHB-1 (Khitan); KHB-2 (Xiongnu); KHB-3 (Mongol); KHB-4 (indeterminate).

Figure 3. KHB-2 sketch map showing the location of Perlee excavations (in gray dark). Features shown include: 1) the enclosure wall; 2) the East mound; 3) the West mound; and 4) the Small west mound. Redrawn from Perlee (2012 [1957]: 178).

Figure 4. KHB-2 West mound north-south cross section. Redrawn from Perlee (2012 [1957]: 180).

Figure 5. Xiongnu grey-ware sherd with white temper and scrape-polish decoration, from southwest exterior surface collection unit.

Table 1. Historical era findings of surface survey.

Collection unit (1 ha)	Findings	Period	Sherds/ha
Southwest quadrant	1 fine gray-ware base sherd, 5 fine gray-ware body sherds (1 with angular punctate decoration).	Khitan	2.1
Southeast quadrant	1 red/brown coarse sherd, 1 fine gray-ware body sherd, 1 fine gray-ware body sherd with red interior; 1 glazed stoneware narrow-body jar sherd.	Khitan Late Historical	1.4
Northeast quadrant	1 fine thin gray-ware shoulder sherd, 2 slag pieces.	Khitan	0.3
Northwest quadrant	1 coarse gray-ware body sherd with white temper; 1 fine gray-ware body sherd, 1 burnished fine gray-ware sherd with a ridge decoration.	Xiongnu? Khitan	1.0
Southwest exterior	1 coarse gray-ware sherd with white temper and scrape polish decoration; 1 fine gray-ware sherd.	Xiongnu Khitan	0.7
West exterior	1 burnished fine gray-ware with angular punctate decoration.	Khitan	0.3

Figure 6. A) The KHB-2 magnetics prospection map and B) details from that map including: 1) the enclosure wall; 2) the East mound; 3) the West mound; 4) the Small west mound; 5) the Northwest platform (KHB-201); 6–7) Northeast structures; 8–10) round pits (including KHB-202); and 11–23) shallow trenches (including KHB-203).

Figure 7. Comparative rectangular structures: A) Northwest house at Bayan-Under (Danilov 2011); B) House 9 and pit-houses 10 and 15 at Ivolga (Davydova 1995: fig. 24); C) small structures beneath feature 4 at KHB-2; and D) large structures 6 and 7 at KHB-2.

Figure 8. A) KHB-2 Digital Elevation Model showing: 1) the enclosure wall; 2) the East mound; 3) the West mound; 4) the Small west mound; 5) the Northwest platform; 6–7) Northeast structures; 24–25) the low wall; 26) the Central low mound; and 27–32) Southern low mounds. B) A subset of the northeastern corner of the KHB-3 DEM highlighting the low features.

Figure 9. KHB-201 test pit profile section.

Table 2. Radiocarbon dates calibrated using OxCal v4.2.3 Bronk Ramsey and Lee (2013) and IntCal13 atmospheric curve (Reimer et al. 2013).

Feature No.	Sample	^14C Age	Calibrated Age (age 2 σ)	Lab no.
KHB-201	Charcoal	5160 ± 35 b.p.	4045–3936 b.c.	Poz-82457
KHB-203	Bone ovis/caprid	1830 ± 30 b.p.	117–252 a.d.	Poz-82459
KHB-203	Bone procapra	1880 ± 30 b.p.	66–222 a.d.	Poz-82460
KHB-203	Bone ovis/caprid	1845 ± 30 b.p.	85–239 a.d.	Poz-82461

Figure 10. KHB-202 test pit profile section.

Figure 11. KHB-203 test pit profile section.

Figure 12. Comparison of measured and modeled magnetic anomalies. A) Shows the measured anomaly due to the ditch, with polygonal cross section shown in red; and B) shows how this measurement approximates the excavation results.

Table 3. Settings used for magnetic modeling.

Option	Setting
Inclination	67.7°
Declination	-7.5°
Magnetic induction of Earth magnetic field	58574 nT
Magnetometer	Vertical difference of vertical component, spacing 0.65 m
Azimuth of profile crossing the ditch	79.7°

Figure 13. Comparison of measured and modelled magnetic anomalies. A) Shows the location of the cross-sections of the anomalies (the red and green lines), and B shows how the modeled data compares to the measured data for each. C) Shows a 3D model of the prism with the modeled magnetic anomaly on the topography.

Perlee, K. 2012 [1957]. “Kherlen Bar gedeg evderkhii khotig maltan shinjilseen tukhai.” In Buteeliin chuulgan vol.3: Erdem shinjilgeenii övguulel (1942-1964), 157–190. Ulaanbaatar: BEMBI SAN.

 Google Scholar

Danilov, S. V. 2011. “Typology of Ancient Settlement Complexes of the Xiongnu in Mongolia and Transbaikalia.” In In Xiongnu Archaeology: Multidisciplinary Perspectives of the First Steppe Empire in Inner Asia, edited by U. Brosseder and B. K. Miller, 129–136. Bonn Contributions to Asian Archaeology 5. Bonn: VFGArch Press.

 Google Scholar

Davydova, A. V. 1995. Иволгинский археологический комплекс И. Иволгинское городище. Ivolginskii arkheologicheskii kompleks I. Ivolginskoe gorodishche. [Ivolga archaeological complex I: Ivolga fortress]. Archaeological Monuments of the Xiongnu 1. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University.

 Google Scholar

Bronk Ramsey, C., S. Lee. 2013. “Recent and Planned Deve­lopments of the Program OxCal.” Radiocarbon 55 (2–3): 720–730. doi: 10.1017/S0033822200057878

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Reimer, P.J., E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J. W. Beck, P. G. Blackwell, C. Bronk Ramsey, P. M. Grootes, et al. 2013. IntCal13 and Ma­rine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0-50,000 Years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55 (4): 1869–1887. doi: 10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16947

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar