Megalithic structures are probably the most impressive prehistoric sites. Different types of megalithic structures are known from the Mediterranean, Northern and Atlantic Europe (Map of Europe). They include individual menhirs (standing-stones), alleys of menhirs (menhir alignments), dolmens, gallery graves, rock-cut tombs, etc. Until recently, only the dolmens of the Western Caucasus represented these types of sites in Eastern Europe. During the last years, relatively small alleys of menhirs are also found in the Urals, but the size of these sites and the labor inputs for their construction are not striking. Therefore, their designation as megalithic structures must be viewed with some reservation. However, field studies conducted during the last three years resulted in the discovery of a new type of archaeological site in the Urals, which may be considered true megalithic structures.

Research History

Vera Island is situated in Turgoyak Lake to the north of the City Miass in the Chelyabinsk area (Fig. 1, 2). This area of the Southern Transurals is probably the most beautiful in the Urals. It consists of a forest landscape with small mountains and hundreds lakes. Turgoyak Lake is one of the largest of these lakes. Vera Island was formerly a peninsula, but it is now detached from the shore by a narrow channel.

The derivation of the name Vera Island is significant. Usually “Vera” is a female name, but in Russian it also means “the faith” and “the belief”. In the 19^th century AD, a small community of Old Believers lived on the island. Their believes resulted in a kind of schism in the Russian Church between AD 17^th to the 20^th century. There is a legend that the settlement of the Old Believers was established by the nun Vera, who with the help of a local fisherman built the megalithic structures, which forms the subject of this report. However, in reality the settlement of the Old Believers was bigger and consisted of several pit-dwellings, suggesting a relatively large community. (One of their dwellings was excavated last summer.)

The architect N. Filyanskii visited the island in the early 20^th century AD and described the remains of the Old Believers’ settlement. He found the remains of a stone chapel with fragments of a wooden roof, dwellings, a cemetery, an “open-door” altar with a cross, and “caves,” where the hermits had lived. Filyanskii made the first drawings of these “caves” at the time, when they were used by fishermen (Fig. 3, 4) (Filyanskii, 1909, 1909a).

In 2001, V. L. Korolyov, a connoisseur of the Ural history and the manager of cultural heritage, visited the island, inspected the “caves” and concluded that they could not be constructed by the Old Believers. In 2002 he invited the archaeologist Dr. S. A. Grigoriev to inspect these structures. The archaeologist confirmed this conclusion. In 2003, Korolyov organized an expedition with the participation of the archaeologists S. A. Grigoriev, N. M. Menshenin and the photographer S. M. Arkanov, who investigated the site and described it (Grigoriev and Menshenin 2004). In 2004, the excavation of one of the megalithic structures was undertaken by the authors of this article. The geologist of the Chelyabinsk Scientific Center, V. Yu. Nikolsky, also participated in this research, describing the geology of the island, including tectonic cracks and soil characteristics. The expedition was supported by the Government of the Chelyabinsk region.

Megalithic Structure 1

Structure 1 is a rather complex megalithic construction (Fig. 5, 6). It is erected along the ridge of a hill, where it is cut into the bedrock. A turf layer covers the capstones. The stones, visible on the surface, look like natural rock outcrops (Fig. 6). If the structure had not been reused by the Old Believers, it would have been extremely difficult to identify it.

In the south side of the construction, small openings are visible. In front of them there are depressions on the modern surface. These are the remains of two chambers destroyed in antiquity (Fig. 7, 8).

The overall length of the structure is about 18 m. The width (including the thickness of the stone walls) is ca. 6 m (Fig. 5). The present access into the structure is situated in the west (Fig. 5, 6). However, it was probably made by the Old Believers, because there is a long corridor-shaped passage in the north-east. The passage is oriented west – east, sloping down into the central part of the structure. This ramp-like architecture has steps in several places (Fig. 9).

Several chambers are situated in the inner part of the structure; each is connected with the others by a kind of corridor (Fig. 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15). The western chamber is shallow. Before excavations its height reached a maximum of 1.5 m. The central chamber is up to 2 m high (Fig. 14). Further more, the bottom of the structure is covered by a 20-100 cm thick layer left by the AD 19^th century inhabitants (i.e. the Old Believers). Therefore, it was originally possible stand erect in the central chamber, but one needs to stoop in the western one.

The outer walls of Structure 1 are faced with 30-50 cm large stone blocks (Fig. 7, 8, 9, 10). The individual chambers are excavated below ground and lined by stone walls forming partitions (Fig. 13, 16). The original masonry is of drywall constriction, i.e. no mortar is used, but in some places traces of later Old Believers’ plastering is identifiable.

The construction is covered by massive stone slabs (capstones). The covering of the megalith is a complicated multi-layer construction, which creates a dynamic balance of slabs. The capstone length varies between 1.5 and 3.5 m, depending upon the width of the covered area. The width of the slabs is 0.75-1.3 m. The central chamber exhibits the largest capstone, reaching 2 m in length. We estimate the weight of this slab as 15-17 tons (Fig. 14). The slabs are covered by the mound made of sand.

The thickness of the walls is 0.75 m, reaching 1.2 m in the upper part. Their height is 0.5 m in the corridor and more than 2 m in the central chamber.

In the eastern part, to the south of the entrance, Structure 1 is destroyed (Fig. 7). Here the slabs fell down and are covered by turf. In the eastern periphery, several slabs of the outer wall are visible above the turf, but to the south, they are completely turf-covered. Here the architecture may be reconstructed, based on a rather amorphous depression and remains of the walls. This part is not connected with the main complex by a passages. In our opinion, it consists of two chambers with a possible entrance in the south-west. This contrasts with the drawing by N. Filyanskii (Fig. 3),which suggests only one rectangular chamber with an entrance in the north, near the entrance to the main complex. However, all his drawings are oversimplified.

Megalithic Structure 2

The second megalithic structure is situated 65 m to the west of Structure 1 (Fig. 17). It is smaller (8.5 m by 2.5-4 m) and, according to the drawing by Filyanskii (Fig. 4), consists of two isolated chambers with entrances in the west (Filyanskii, 1909, 49). At present, the central part of the structure is destroyed by a path, which is situated between two chambers (Fig. 18). Typologically, this construction can be described as a dolmen with a gallery grave (Fig. 17), especially since the entrance to the northern chamber in the west, as drawn by N. Filyanskii (Fig. 4), is virtually absent. Solid walls made of large boulders are present (Fig. 19).

Structure 2 is situated on the slope, which descends to the west. Therefore, the upper part (in the east) reaches the same elevation as the slope, into which the construction had been cut. The western part of the structure is a stone construction probably made after the termination of the structures original use. The whole western wall was once covered by turf. It was later partly cleared by the Old Believers. Therefore, the original structure had been covered by a mound.

The larger southern chamber (dolmen) has a rectangular form, measuring 3´4 m (Fig. 17, 20). In the west, a very clear entrance, 60-70 cm in height, has been identified. This entrance (portal) is formed of two projecting portal walls made of flat stone slabs (Fig. 20). A large flat stone in front of it probably sealed the entrance, since its size corresponds to the that of the entrance.

The entrance is covered by a small capstone formed by a stone slab. Probably, several stones were initially placed on top of this slab, but with the exception of one of them, they were later taken out (Fig. 20). In total, this chamber is covered by four capstones, three of which are oriented along the north-south line. The widest slab is 1.1 m wide. In the north wall of this chamber there is a passage to the northern chamber, which has the appearance of a gallery-grave.

The gallery-grave measures 3.5´2.25 m (Fig. 17, 19). Its southern part is destroyed (Fig. 18) and one of the capstone slab has fallen into the chamber. Its northern wall is made of a single vertical stone slab (end stone). The longitudinal walls are also made of the massive boulders, generally exceeding 1 m. Nonetheless, in the northern corner of the western wall a vertical slab is placed in the lower part of the wall. There are also small stone blocks in its upper part. Thus, various techniques of masonry construction are applied. Two large stone slabs cover the gallery-grave in the southern area. One of them measures 1.3´1.3 m.

Excavations and Results

During the 2004 campaign, we excavated the northern chamber and a part of the mound on the southern slope of the Structure 1. In the northern chamber the thickness of cultural levels is 0.2-0.4 m. Unfortunately, the original layer had been destroyed by the reused of the structure. Thus we have materials of the late period on the bottom together with materials from the Neolithic (flakes, a flint blade, bladelets, a grinding stone) and a pottery sherd of the Gamayun culture of the Early Iron Age. A shallow pit, cut in the rock, has been found on the bottom in the northern part of the chamber (Fig. 21). Its size is 0.6´0.9´0.2 m. The pit was covered by a large slab that was slightly removed by people who reused the construction.

Four long stones are lying by the west wall of the western chamber, where the capstones are absent, (Fig. 22). Originally, they had been placed obliquely, closing an opening between the wall and the roof. We have observed that during the autumnal equinox the setting sun penetrates this opening, shines into Structure 1, lights up the western chamber and corridor, and reaches the eastern wall of the central chamber. This alignment is seems to be part of the original design, because direction tectonic cracks in the bedrock, which facilitated the construction of Structure 1 is slightly different from the structure’s orientation (Fig. 23), Unfortunately, one cannot exclude the fact that the celestial alignment may be fortuitous.

The excavation of the mound has been conducted on the southern slope (Fig. 24). The thickness of the mound under the capstones is 20 cm (Fig. 25). The capstones rest on the sidewalls. The stones of the walls and stones of the mound were covered with the sandy mound fill. On the surface of the sand under the slabs a sherd of the Lipchinka culture of the Copper Age (Eneolithic) and a flint arrowhead was found there (Fig. 26.2-9). In addition, flakes, blades and one core were found among the stones of the mound. The lithics were made of flint and jasper. Three sherds, similar to those of the Gamayun culture of the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, have also been found in the lower part of the mound (Fig. 26.1).

Three long stones were lying on the border of the mound, in the southern part. It is unclear if they were in in situ, or were standing-stones (steles) placed around the mound (Fig. 27). Stones of one more walls were uncovered in the eastern part of this area, confirmed our assumption, that two chambers were destroyed in antiquity.

In the corridor leading to the northern chamber, we discovered preserved cultural layers. Four thin humus levels (from the time the megalithic structure was in use) show three levels of repose (Fig. 28). These consist of fine particles of granite-diorite, which crumbled from the slabs of the capstones and walls. The uppermost level has been formed by tourist of the last decades. The second contains a forged nail, which may be dated to the 19^th century AD. The third layer contains no finds, but in the earliest layer we have found a sherd and two bladelets. This demonstrates that the construction had been erected in the Copper Age, and reused in the Early Iron Age as well as the 19^th century AD.

Construction Technique and Stone Sources

The building of the megalithic structure starts with a trench into dug into the bedrock of the slope. The exact construction process is not clear, but the trench is associated with the tectonic cracks and traces of the fire exist on the ancient surface. Most probably, the material obtained during the construction of the trench were used for the manufacture of the stone blocks for the walls’ facing and the partitions.

Problems of Cultural Identification and Dating

Dating the construction of the megalithic structures on Vera Island is difficult. They may date to historic times, the Copper Age, or the Neolithic. The likelihood of these options are evaluated below.

The traditional notion that the megalithic structures were built by the Old Believers in the 19^th century AD is questionable. The reuse of the megalithic structure with clear traces of rebuilding for the purpose of adapting it for the needs the Old Believers argues against the traditional explanation. It is, perhaps, even more important that the Old Believers and the Russian people as a whole do not have a tradition of megalithic architecture.

In historic times, timber structures are the usual architecture in the area and plenty of timber is available on the island. Furthermore, the effort required to transport the stone slab capstones weighing 5-17 tons seems to negate the notion, since timbers are the more convenient material for roof construction. Nonetheless, in towns cellars faced with stones do exist in old Russian houses. There are also pit-dwellings of the Old Believers on Vera Island, where stone blocks are placed in one row, lining the walls. As a rule, these pit-dwelling consist of two rectangular parts. The first contains the entrance and the stove, the second functions as the living room. However, pit-dwellings are roofed with timbers, not megalithic capstones.

As a rule, the historical pit-dwellings are situated in natural depressions. This saves labor by reducing the volume of soil that has to be extracted. This contrasts with the megalithic structures, which are situated on the ridge of the hill and are completely built of stone. The megalithic architecture , especially for the building of Structure 1, requires far greater expenditure of labor.

In the Urals, where the winter temperatures reach -40°C and more, megalithic architecture cannot be used as dwellings, because of their poor heat-insulating quality. They could only be used in the warm seasons. This is why N. Filyanskii supposed that Structure 1 was used as a refectory.

For these reasons, the megalithic structures are undoubtedly more ancient. This is confirmed by ancient artifacts from stratigraphically regular levels. These include artifacts from the Lipchinka culture of the Copper age and earlier ones from the Neolithic. The Lipchinka culture belongs to the earliest part of the Copper Age (i.e. the Early Eneolithic). According to the traditional system of the Ural chronology, this period is dated to the first half of the third millennium bc (cal. fourth millennium BC).

Neolithic artifacts may imply an even earlier building period for the megalithic structures. Of course, it is possible that the materials of the Neolithic were contained in the sand accidentally taken from a Neolithic site used for quarrying mound fill that covers the megalithic structure. The sand and artifacts could eventually have fallen into the chambers. However, this idea has been examined during our excavations and can be discarded, because the corridor into the northern chamber is covered quite well, thus excluding this possibility there. In addition, geologist Nikolsky compared sand from different places on the island. All Neolithic sites are situated below the elevation of the megalithic structures, on the bank of the lake. The sand there has other granulometric characteristics. The sand from the megalithic structures comes from the immediate surroundings of the site and from the same elevation (8-10 m above the water) of the island. This makes evidence would suggest a construction period prior to the cal. fourth millennium BC. However, there is no known megalithic architecture within reasonable proximity of the Urals during this time, to justify such an early date.

The closest analogy to the megalithic structures of Vera Island is with the megalithic tombs of Western Europe (Müller-Karpe 1974, Baldia, 2004). In addition to general similarities, such as the use of stone blocks for walls and the use of stone slabs as capstones, the adduced existence of a mound over the megalithic structure allow a comparison with gallery-graves from that region.[3] The comparison with the megalithic tombs of Europe (based on Baldia, 2004) allows the tentative conclusion that the megalithic structures on Vera Island date to around 2700-2500 bc (or cal. 3400-3200 BC). This is supported by the presence of the Copper Age artifacts, dated to the third millennium bc (cal. fourth millennium BC). However, the nature and reason of the appearance of megalithic structures on Vera Island remain unclear.

Conclusion

It is possible to speak of the discovery of a new type of archaeological site in the Urals, probably dating to fourth millennium BC. It is also possible to stipulate a sacral nature for these sites. We suspect that there will be further discoveries of such sites in the future, because any cultural phenomenon never exists in isolation and archaeological surveys in this region are still insufficient. In fact, areas away form the lake and riverbanks have not yet been surveyed. Furthermore, it is very difficult to discover these megalithic structures, because they may be covered by turf and look like individual stones on the surface. Therefore, we are sure that future investigations will increase the number of these sites.

__________________________________________________________________

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Mr. Sergei Arkanov who made some photos for this article, as well as to Mr. Vladimir Korolyov, who organized the first visit of the island two years ago.

__________________________________________________________________

Bibliography

Baldia, M. O.

2004 A Spatial Analysis of Megalithic Tombs. Vol. 1-2. Ph.D. Dissertation. Southern Methodist University. The Comparative Archaeology WEB©. 2004. http://www.comp-archaeology.org/010_Intro_Dis_SPATIAL_ANALYSIS_MEGT.htm

Filyanskii, N.

1909 ‘Ostrov otshelnikov’. Tserkov. 2. 47-50. (‘The Island of the hermits’. Church).

1909a ‘Ostrov otshelnikov’. Tserkov. 4. 128-133. (‘The Island of the hermits’. Church).

Grigoriev, S. A. and Menshenin, N. M.

2004 The megalithic constructions on the Vera Island of the Turgoyak Lake in the Southern Transurals. Proceedings of the Chelyabinsk Scientific Center. 1. 208-213.

Müller-Karpe, H.

1974 Handbuch der Vorgeschichte. Bd. III/3. Kupferzeit. München.

__________________________________________________________________

List of Figures

Map of Europe

Figure 1: Map of Turgoyak Lake and Vera Island

Figure 2: Vera Island (link to Fig02.jpg)

Figure 3: Plan of Megalithic Structure 1 by N. Filyanskii

Figure 4: Plan of the Megalithic Structure 2 by N. Filyanskii

Figure 5: Plan of Megalithic Structure 1 by Grigoriev and Menshenin

Figure 6: Megalithic Structure 1. The modern entrance

Figure 7: Corridor in the southwestern part of Megalithic Structure 1 and destroyed chambers

Figure 8: Megalithic Structure 1

Figure 9: Corridor in the Megalithic Structure 1

Figure 10: Megalithic 1. The window openings

Figure 11: Corridor in the Megalithic Structure 1

Figure 12: Corridor to the central chamber of the Megalithic Structure 1

Figure 13: Central chamber in the Megalithic Structure 1 and the corridor to the west

Figure 14: Capstone the central chamber of the Megalithic Structure 1

Figure 15: Corridor to the northern chamber of the Megalithic Structure 1

Figure 16: Southern wall in the central chamber of the Megalithic Structure 1

Figure 17: Plan of Megalithic Structure 2 by Grigoriev and Menshenin

Figure 18: Megalithic 2 and the path that had partly destroyed it

Figure 19: Northern chamber of Megalithic Structure 2

Figure 20: Southern chamber of Megalithic Structure 2

Figure 21: Pit in the northern chamber of the Megalithic Structure 1

Figure 22: Stones in the western part of the Megalithic Structure 1

Figure 23: Tectonic cracks

Figure 24: Excavations of the mound of the Megalithic Structure 1

Figure 25: Capstones of the Megalithic Structure 1

Figure 26: Finds from the Megalithic Structure 1

Figure 27: Mound and steles of the Megalithic Structure 1

Figure 28: Different layers in the corridor to the northern chamber of the Megalithic Structure 1

Please send comments or questions to Max Baldia.

[1] Institute of History and Archaeology, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Chelyabinsk, Russia.

[2] South-Ural University, Chelyabinsk, Russia.

[3] Mound construction probably followed termination of use, i.e. a certain cycle of the megalithic construction’s function. Perhaps at this time the use of vertical stone slabs, sealing the entrance, and slabs covering the portal were installed.

Table of Contents

Introduction

Research History

Megalithic Structure 1

Megalithic Structure 2

Excavations and Results

Construction Technique and Stone Sources

Problems of Cultural Identification and Dating

Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Bibliography

List of Figures