The first archaeoparasitological data on the Russian rural population in Western Siberia in the 18th–19th centuries

Abstract

The life of the long-established Russian inhabitants of Western Siberia has been well described. In fact, archaeological, ethnographic, and other information on its various aspects is abundant. Archaeoparasitological data, on the other hand, is lacking, particularly with regard to parasitosis incidence. In the present study, eggs of such fish parasites as Opisthorchis felineus and Diphyllobothrium spp. were identified in soil samples taken from the sacral surface of bodies that had been buried in the Gornopravdinskiy burial ground (on the Lower Irtysh River) in the 18th or 19th centuries. The study findings indicate that fish was a key component of the diet of the rural Russian population of that area. No statistically significant sex differences in fish consumption were identified. The parasitological spectrum of the population under consideration was narrow relative to the diversity of parasitoses in urban Russian populations. This fact probably reflects the lower-intensity population flows, their limited radii, and the different economic activities pursued by those people. Based on the archaeoparasitological data, the latter seem to have been closer to the economic activities practiced by the indigenous populations of Western Siberia.

Introduction

The first Russians appeared in Western Siberia at the end of the 16th century during the reign of Ivan IV (Ivan the Terrible). Ataman Yermak Timofeyevich’s military campaign had brought the Siberian khanate to an end, a development that initiated several waves of Russian migration resulting in numerous settlements—forts, wintering places, villages, and towns (Vershinin, 2018).

Before the arrival of the Russian population, the territory of Western Siberia, where the Gornopravdinskiy burial ground is located, was inhabited by an Ugric population, the Khanty, who were dependent on the Siberian khanate. However, after the Siberian khanate ceased to exist, the territories occupied by the Khanty began to be actively developed by Russian peasants and industrialists. The penetration of the Russians was relatively peaceful, which was reflected in the mixing of both the population itself and the cultural traditions.

Historians, ethnographers, archaeologists, and anthropologists have all provided a significant amount of information on those first Russian migrants and settlements; indeed, the existence and fortunes of both urban and rural Siberian Russian populations have been well described (Tataurova et al., 2014).

Some archaeoparasitological works have been done on the large settlements and towns of Western Siberian Russia. Analysis of soil samples taken from the sacral surface, toilet samples, those of occupation layers, and dog coprolites have enabled description of the parasitological spectra of the towns of Mangazeya (17th century) and Yeniseisk (18th century) in Western and Eastern Siberia, respectively (Slepchenko et al., 2020, 2021). The results of an archaeoparasitological study on Stadukhinsky Fort, located in the subarctic zone of Eastern Siberia and dating to the same general period, also have been published (Slepchenko et al., 2022).

All of these investigations have allowed us to supplement the available data on, and to a certain extent to reconstruct, the dietary habits, types of economic activity, and migratory flows, as well as the sanitary conditions of settlements and the health of urban populations in the region (Slepchenko et al., 2020, 2021, 2022). Nevertheless, the archaeoparasitological approach has not been widely applied to the study of Western Siberian Russians. Data on the parasitological spectra of rural settlements remain insufficient, but are necessary to complete the picture of Russian life in Western Siberia.

The present study, accordingly, undertook to determine the parasitological spectrum of the rural population responsible for establishing the Gornopravdinskiy burial ground, to reconstruct their dietary habits therefrom, and to compare the obtained data with information on urban Russian and indigenous population (Khanty) of Western Siberia. The differences and similarities were to be considered within the broad historical context.

Materials and Methods

Archaeological aspects

The Gornopravdinskiy burial ground is situated on the high right bank of the Lower Irtysh River at the Filinskaia Gora ecosite (Figure 1). It forms part of the village of Gornopravdinsk (Khanty-Mansiysk District, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug-Yugra).

Figure 1.

Map of Russian Federation showing the location of Gornopravdinsk and archaeological sites that were taken as comparative material for this study.

According to the historical data, this territory was part of Denshchikovskaia Volost of the Tobolsk District at the end of the 19th century, at which time the village of Filinskoe was its administrative center (Zaitseva et al., 2012). G. F. Miller noted that in 1740, “Filinskoe graveyard, on the east coast, [was] 10 versts from the village of Puzina. There [was] a Church of the Ascension of the Lord built for the Ostyaks and 14 postmen’s yards” (Elert, 1996).

The site was discovered in 2005 after the right high bank of the Irtysh River collapsed, revealing fragments of tree-trunk coffins. Nowadays, there are no signs on the surface; in fact, residential buildings of the village of Gornopravdinsk now occupy the burial ground (Zaitseva and Kenig, 2007). Over the course of four research seasons (2007, 2008, 2012, and 2015), 478 m² of the site were studied, and 60 burials were found (Zaitseva, 2009; Kenig and Zaitseva, 2012; Zaitseva and Kenig, 2014). The archaeological research and dendrochronological analysis carried out over those four years confirmed that the site had been a cemetery of the village of Filinskoe, which flourished from the mid-18^th century until the end of the 19th century (Zaitseva and Kenig, 2014; Barinov et al., 2016). The fact that there were many artifacts made of organic materials, such as tree-trunk coffins, plank coffins, leather shoes, and textile products, that were unearthed intact, is unique to sites with a permafrost occupation layer.

The use of the aforementioned tree-trunk and plank coffins along with baptismal crosses and church candles also discovered at the site, not to mention the specific orientation of the bodies, were all typical of the funeral rituals of Russian populations in Siberia. At the same time, beads, and seed bead ornaments found among the inventory in several burials suggest that the bodies may had been those of local indigenous people baptized and buried according to Orthodox rites.

In the cemetery, we excavated 21 grave pits to obtain samples suitable for determination of the spectrum of parasitic infection in the population responsible for establishing the Gornopravdinskiy burial ground. Among the grave pits, 12 were single burials, and 8 others were group burials (up to 4 people). Another grave pit was found in a riverbank cliff, but it proved impossible to establish the number of people buried therein. Burials could be differentiated also by coffin type: tree-trunk coffins (22 burials) and plank coffins (6 burials).

Human remains and samples

The bone material obtained during the excavations was very poorly preserved. Nevertheless, the identified material allowed us to conclude that the corpses in the burials had been arranged correctly from an anatomical point of view: the skeletons lay on their back, with extended legs, while the arms were bent at the elbow joints. In the children’s burials, the bone remains had practically vanished, except for teeth fragments. A certain pattern was established between the degree of preservation of tree-trunk coffins and skeletal remains: bones were poorly preserved in burials of well-preserved tree-trunk coffins, and conversely, burials with poorly preserved coffins contained better-preserved bone remains. As for the burial inventory, which overall was extremely scarce, the patterns of preservation were the reverse of those for bone: organic materials such as fabric, leather, and wool were better preserved in intact, tightly closed coffins. Such artifacts of material culture were generally of the same kind, and included baptismal crosses, leather shoes, buttons, small fragments of clothing, and headgear (shawls).

Sex determination of human remains was carried out using standard anthropological methods. For example, we studied the morphology of the supraorbital region and mandible and determined the development of the occipital crest and the upper edge of the eye sockets. The age of the subject was determined by cranial suture obliteration, dentofacial condition and tooth attrition (Buikstra and Ubelaker, 1994).

Twenty-three sediment samples taken by archaeologists directly from the sacral surface and sacral foramina during the archaeological excavations served as the material for the study (Figure 2). They were placed in zip-lock bags, labeled, and delivered to the laboratory at the Institute for the Problems of Northern Development (Tyumen Scientific Center, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences) along with related paleoanthropological material. The weight of soil sample ranged from 3.7 to 9.7 g (average, 6.3 g). Under laboratory conditions, the sacra were subjected to cleaning using brushes and ultrasound; this allowed additional soil samples from the sacra of eight individuals (burials no. 3, 35, 40А, 43B(1), 56A, 75, ‘Cliff 3,’ ‘Grave pit 30’) to be obtained (Filimonova and Slepchenko, 2021). With regard to the controls, in the field, samples were taken from the head area of the skeleton, and later, under laboratory conditions, from the skulls. In total, samples from 31 individuals were taken for archaeoparasitological examination: 16 men, 12 women, and 3 children.

Figure 2.

Skeletons from Burials No. 1, 56a (left), and 56b (right) at Gornopravdinsk were excavated and sampled. (a) The place of pelvis area, where the soil sample was collected for the archaeoparasitological study. (b) The place where the control soil sample was collected.

Parasitological examination

Under laboratory conditions, the sediment samples were rehydrated in 0.5% Na₃PO₄ aqueous solution for 10 days according to the method of Callen and Cameron (1960), described in detail elsewhere (Slepchenko et al., 2019a). Twenty microscope slides were prepared from each sample according to the standard methods (Araújo et al., 1998). Microscopic examination was carried out using a Zeiss Primo Star at 100× and 400× magnification. The samples were photographed with an Axiocam 105 color camera. Parasite eggs were measured using the ZEN 2.3 program. The incidence (Pr, %) of parasitosis in the population, and Sterne’s interval were calculated using Quantitative Parasitology 3.0 software (Reiczigel, 2003; Reiczigel et al., 2019).

Results and Discussion

The archaeoparasitological examination of soil samples taken from the sacral surface at the Gornopravdinskiy burial ground revealed two types of fish helminth eggs (Table 1). Those of the first type were oval and light brown (Figure 3a–c), ranging from 55.4 to 70 μm in length, and from 42.4 to 54.5 μm in width, with a small shell-like knob opposite the cap. This complex of morphological traits indicated that the eggs were those of tapeworms of the genus Diphyllobothrium (Ash and Orihel, 2007). The number of eggs of the genus Diphyllobothrium in the samples varied from 6 to 1000+. From all samples, 100 eggs were randomly selected and measured. The mean (± SD) length of the eggs was 62.5 ± 3.5 μm. The eggs of the second type, meanwhile, were smaller, oval and light-yellow, and ranged from 19.7 to 25 μm in length and from 10.7 to 13 μm in width; several of them showed a cap with a small shell-like knob opposite (Figure 3d–f). On the basis of these morphological traits, we attributed the eggs to the trematode Opisthorchis felineus (Ash and Orihel, 2007). The number of eggs of O. felineus in the samples varied from 9 to 1000+. From all samples, 100 eggs were randomly selected and measured. The mean (± SD) length of the eggs was 22.8 ± 1.6 μm.

Table 1. Archaeoparasitological results, sex, and age of the investigated population of the Gornopravdinsky burial ground

Burial no.	Weight of soil sample (g)	Sex	Age (years)	Discovered parasite	No. of eggs
3a	3.7	♂ (?)	Mature	Diphyllobothrium sp.	10
18	9.7	♀	25–35	Diphyllobothrium sp.	70
19	5.9 7.9	♀	30–40	Diphyllobothrium sp.	37
				Opisthorchis sp.	22
20	6.8 5.9	♂	20–35	Diphyllobothrium sp.	60
				Opisthorchis sp.	11
20A	5.8	♂	50+	Diphyllobothrium sp.	1000+
				Opisthorchis sp.	100+
20B	6.5	♂	25–30	—
35a	6.7	♀	20–30	—
38	6.9	♂	Mature	—
39A	5.8	♀	Senile	Diphyllobothrium sp.	123
39B	6.1	♂	Senile	Diphyllobothrium sp.	56
39B(1)	8.6	♂ (?)	Senile	—
40Aa	7.5	—	Juvenile	—
40B	7.1	♂	25–30	Diphyllobothrium sp.	12
				Opisthorchis sp.	45
43B	5.9	—	7–8	—
43B(1)a	5.2	♂ (?)	Juvenile	Diphyllobothrium sp.	1000+
45	7.5	♂ (?)	Mature	—
50	5.5	♀	35–45	Opisthorchis sp.	9
54	3.8	♀	Senile	Diphyllobothrium sp.	25
56	4.5	♀	Mature	—
56Аa	6.5	♂ (?)	Mature	—
56B	8.7	♀	25–30	Diphyllobothrium sp.	36
58A	7.7	—	11–12	—
58B	6.2	♀	25–35	—
59A	4.4	♀	Mature	—
60	5.6	♀	Senile	Diphyllobothrium sp.	61
61A	5.7	♂	30–40	Diphyllobothrium sp.	6
65	6.8	♂	Senile	Diphyllobothrium sp.	18
68	6.2	♂	Senile	Diphyllobothrium sp.	1000+
				Opisthorchis sp.	18
75a	5.8 8.9	♀ (?)	25–35	Diphyllobothrium sp.	1000+
				Opisthorchis sp.	1000+
Cliff 3a	3.7	♂	Juvenile	Diphyllobothrium sp.	15
				Opisthorchis sp.	39
Grave pit no. 30(C)a	4.4	♂	Mature	Diphyllobothrium sp.	10
Number of positive results				19

^a Burials in which the sacra were subjected to cleaning using brushes and ultrasound under laboratory conditions.

Figure 3.

(a–c) Eggs suggestive of Diphyllobothrium spp. (d–f) Opisthorchis felineus eggs.

Control samples collected from the heads of the skeletons taken during excavations at burials of the Gornopravdinskiy burial ground were free of eggs. Table 1 and Table 2 demonstrate the incidence rates of parasitoses, Sterne’s intervals in the population under consideration, and the difference in the incidence of parasitoses within the population.

Table 2. Difference in the incidence of parasitoses and Sterne’s intervals within the population of the Gornopravdinsky burial ground

N	Overall		Diphyllobothrium spp.		Opisthorchis spp.		Eggs of both types
	n	Pr, % (95% CI)	n	Pr, % (95% CI)	n	Pr, % (95% CI)	n	Pr, % (95% CI)
Overall	19	61.3% (43.5–77.3%)	18	58.1% (40.2–74.5%)	8	25.8% (12.6–43.5%)	7	22.6% (10.8–40.2%)
Men	11	68.8% (43.6–86.8%)	11	68.8% (43.6–86.8%)	5	31.3% (13.2–56.4%)	5	31.3% (13.2–56.4%)
Women	8	66.7% (37–87.7%)	7	58.3% (29.4–81.9%)	3	25% (7.2–54.3%)	2	16.7% (3.1–45.7%)

CI, confidence interval; N, overall number of studied burials; n, number of individuals infested with parasites; Pr, incidence.

Archaeoparasitological studies demonstrate that fish helminthiases caused by Diphyllobothrium and O. felineus have been widespread among the indigenous and Russian populations in Western Siberia from ancient times to the present. This fact is probably due to the widespread consumption of raw fish, one of the key requirements for survival in the North-western Siberia, especially in earlier times (Slepchenko et al., 2019a).

High incidences of fish parasitosis have been noted in several burial grounds of indigenous populations of Western Siberia that are chronologically close to the current study population (i.e. representative of the 18th through 19th centuries and into the 20th century). Among the Nenets, reindeer herders who built the burial grounds of Vesakoiakha II–IV for example, the incidence of diphyllobothriasis was 26.8%. In the population of the Northern Selkups (Kikki-Akki burial ground), who were fishermen, hunters, and gatherers, the incidence of diphyllobothriasis was 40.9%. The highest incidence of fish parasites (84.6%), not surprisingly, was registered among Nenets fishermen (Nyamboyto I burial ground) (Slepchenko et al., 2019b).

In a comparison of the aforementioned populations with the Russian population responsible for establishing the Gornopravdinskiy burial ground, there are statistically significant differences in terms of fish parasitosis incidence (χ² = 10.720, df = 3, P = 0.013). A pairwise comparison showed the largest difference to be between the studied population and the group of Nenets reindeer herders (χ² = 4.132, df = 1, P = 0.042). No statistically significant differences between the studied population and the Nenets fishermen (χ² = 2.297, df = 1, P = 0.130), on the one hand, or the Northern Selkups (χ² = 2.145, df = 1, P = 0.143), on the other hand, were identified. Notably in this regard, differences between the Northern Selkups and the Nenets fishermen have been identified (Slepchenko et al., 2019b).

It should be noted that the lowest incidence of fish parasitosis was observed in the Nenets reindeer herders, whose food intake included a significant share of fish, along with reindeer meat. The greatest incidence of fish parasitosis, meanwhile, was found to be typical of the Nenets fishermen, whose diet consisted mostly of fish. The Northern Selkups occupy an intermediate position. They predominantly ate fish, but it was not their only source of food. In turn, the Russian population currently under consideration occupies an intermediate position between the Northern Selkups and Nenets fishermen and tending towards the latter (based on a larger incidence of fish parasitosis). In the case of the Gornopravdinskiy burial ground, a high share of infestation with fish parasitoses was established by the fact that the eggs of both O. felineus and Diphyllobothrium sp. were identified in 22.6% of the buried.

As to the incidence of fish parasitoses in general (χ² = 0.014, df = 1, P = 0.907), and of diphyllobothriasis (χ² = 0.324, df = 1, P = 0.569) and opisthorchiasis (Fisher’s exact P = 1.000) in particular, the studied population did not reveal any significant statistical differences between men and women.

What came to our attention was the fact that the parasitological spectrum of the population responsible for establishing the Gornopravdinskiy burial ground turned out to be different from those of other Russian settlements in Western and Eastern Siberia. Eggs of such geohelminths as Ascaris lumbricoides and Trichuris trichiura have been found in large numbers in samples taken from the occupation layer of the town of Mangazeya, dating to the 17th century and located in an area where eggs cannot reach the invasive stage (Slepchenko et al., 2021). Eggs of human roundworms were found in samples taken from an 18th-century toilet discovered during excavations in the Russian town of Yeniseisk (Slepchenko et al., 2020). We suggest that, initially, all cases of geohelminthiases in North-western Siberia had been transferred from southern and western territories. The fact that no geohelminths were found in the population responsible for establishing the Gornopravdinskiy burial ground probably indicates that those people did not move to territories wherein they could be infected with geohelminthiases.

Furthermore, the samples from the Gornopravdinskiy burial ground did not contain any eggs of Taenia tapeworms, which have been found at many archaeological sites built by Russian populations of Siberia. For instance, eggs of helminths of this genus were found in large numbers in samples of the occupation layer and in fecal samples from toilets in the Russian towns of Mangazeya, Yeniseisk, and Stadukhinsky fort (Slepchenko et al., 2020, 2021, 2022). It is well known that consumption of infested beef and pork is the main cause of infection by this helminth. The inhabitants of these settlements ate these meats, and accordingly, this habit is reflected in their archaeoparasitological spectrum (Slepchenko et al., 2020, 2021, 2022). The fact that no eggs of Taenia cestodes were found at the Gornopravdinskiy burial ground may indicate that pork and beef played a secondary role in the diet of this population.

The parasitological spectrum in the population responsible for establishing the Gornopravdinskiy burial ground and its analysis in the context of the archaeoparasitological data obtained from previously studied Siberian sites demonstrate that the studied population, in terms of the parasitological spectrum, is closer to Khanty, indigenous populations than to the synchronous and earlier ethnic-Russian populations of Siberia. This conclusion does not contradict the results of earlier archaeological research, as those studies revealed burials wherein traditional elements of the material culture of the local (indigenous) population are found alongside common elements of the Orthodox funeral rites of the Russian populations of Siberia and the Russian European North. Overall, the present findings and their contextual interpretation confirm the literature on the intercultural interaction of the Russian and indigenous populations in the Lower Irtysh River area in the 18th–19th centuries.

Conclusion

As evidenced by the high incidence of fish parasites, fish was probably central to the diet of the rural Russian population responsible for establishing the Gornopravdinskiy burial ground. The fact that no statistically significant differences were found in fish-parasite incidence between men and women probably reflects the absence of sex differences in fish consumption.

The narrow parasitological spectrum in the study population relative to that in the urban Russian populations most likely is indicative of a lower intensity of population flows, their limited radii, and the different economic activities followed by those people. Based on the archaeoparasitological data, the latter were closer to the economic activities practiced by the indigenous populations of Western Siberia.

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to the reviewers and editors for taking the time and energy to help us improve the article. This work was supported by NSF (Russian Science Foundation) project no. 22-18-00624. This work also was partially supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the South Korean government (MSIP) (no. NRF-2019R1H1A2080094) and, project no. 121041600045-8 of Tyumen Scientific Center SB RAS.

References

•  Araújo  A.,  Reinhard  K.,  Bastos  O.M.,  Costa  L.C.,  Pirmez  C.,  Iñiguez  A.M.,  Vicente  A.C.,  Morel  C.M., and  Ferreira  L.F. (1998) Paleoparasitology: perspectives with new techniques. Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo, 40: 371–376. doi: 10.1590/s0036-46651998000600006
•  Ash  L.R. and  Orihel  T.C. (2007) Atlas of Human Parasitology. American Society for Clinical Pathology Press, Chicago, IL.
•  Barinov  V.V.,  Zharnikov  Z.Y.,  Zaitseva  E.A.,  Kenig  A.V.,  Myglan  V.S., and  Sidorova  M.O. (2016) Dendrokhronologicheskoye datirovaniye pamyatnikov istorii i kul’tury p. Gornopravdinsk. Vestnik ugrovedeniya, 2: 85–97 (article with no English title).
•  Buikstra  J. and  Ubelaker  D. (1994) Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series No. 44. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR.
•  Callen  E.O. and  Cameron  T.W.M. (1960) A prehistoric diet revealed in coprolites. New Scientist, 8: 35–40.
•  Elert  A.H. (1996) Sibir’ XVIII veka v putevykh opisaniyakh G.F. Millera. Istoriya Sibiri. Pervoistochniki. Vyp. VI. Izdatel’stvo Sibirskiy khronograf, Novosibirsk (book with no English title).
•  Filimonova  M.O. and  Slepchenko  S.M. (2021) Using sacrum stored in museums and anthropological depositories for archaeoparasitological research. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 39: 103173. doi: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103173
•  Kenig  A.V. and  Zaitseva  E.A. (2012) Rezul’taty arkheologicheskikh issledovaniy mogil’nika Gornopravdinskiy v 2012 godu. In: Derevjanko A.P. and Molodin V.I. (eds.), Problemy arkheologii, etnografii, antropologii Sibiri i sopredel’nykh territoriy: Materialy itogovoy sessii Instituta Arkheologii i etnografii SO RAN 2012 g. Izdatel’stvo Instituta arkheologii i etnografii SO RAN, Novosibirsk, T. XVIII, pp. 445–447 (book chapter with no English title).
•  Reiczigel  J. (2003) Confidence intervals for the binomial parameter: some new considerations. Statistics in Medicine, 22: 611–621. doi: 10.1002/sim.1320
•  Reiczigel  J.,  Marozzi  M.,  Fábián  I., and  Rózsa  L. (2019) Biostatistics for parasitologists—a primer to quantitative parasitology. Trends in Parasitology, 35: 277–281. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2019.01.003
•  Slepchenko  S.,  Kardash  O.,  Ivanov  S.,  Afonin  A.,  Shin  D.H., and  Hong  J.H. (2019a) The Buchta-Nakhodka 2 burial ground: results of archaeoparasitological and macro-remains investigations of samples from the burial grounds of the 6th–13th century CE on the Yamal peninsula in Russia. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 23: 791–799. doi: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2018.10.039
•  Slepchenko  S.M.,  Bugmyrin  S.V.,  Kozlov  A.I.,  Vershubskaya  G.G., and  Shin  D.H. (2019b) Comparison of helminth infection among the native populations of the arctic and subarctic areas in Western Siberia throughout history: parasitological researches on contemporary and the archaeological resources. Korean Journal of Parasitology, 57: 607–612. doi: 10.3347/kjp.2019.57.6.607
•  Slepchenko  S.M.,  Slavinsky  V.S.,  Ivanov  S.N.,  Rakultseva  D.S.,  Siben  A.N.,  Tsybankov  A.A.,  Lysenko  D.N., and  Galukhin  L.L. (2020) Pathoecology of the town of Yeniseisk in Western Siberia from the 17th and 18th centuries. Quaternary International, 545: 111–118. doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2019.12.005
•  Slepchenko  S.M.,  Lobanova  T.V.,  Vizgalov  G.P.,  Ivanov  S.N., and  Rakultseva  D.S. (2021) Archaeoparasitological data and pathoecology of the town of Mangazeya in Western Siberia in the 17th century. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 35: 102770. doi: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102770
•  Slepchenko  S.M.,  Lobanova  T.V.,  Vizgalov  G.P.,  Alyamkin  G.V., and  Ivanov  S.N. (2022) New contribution of archaeoparasitology in the Far North of Eastern Siberia: first data about the parasitological spectrum of Stadukhinsky Fort in the 17th–18th centuries. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 41: 103304. doi: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103304
•  Tataurova  L.V.,  Tataurov  S.F.,  Tikhomirov  K.N., and  Tikhonov  S.S. (2014) Adaptatsiya russkikh v Zapadnoy Sibiri v kontse XVI VIII v. (po materialam arkheologicheskikh issledovaniy). Izdatel’stvo Poligrafist, Omsk (article with no English title).
•  Vershinin  E.V. (2018) Russkaya kolonizatsiya Severo-Zapadnoy Sibiri v kontse XVI–XVII vv. Demidovskiy institute, Yekaterinburg (article with no English title).
•  Zaitseva  E.A. (2009) Protivoavariynyye arkheologicheskiye raskopki na mogil’nike Gornopravdinskiy v polevom sezone 2008 g. (predvaritel’nyye rezul’taty). In: Yakovlev Ya. A. (eds), Khanty-Mansiyskiy avtonomnyy okrug v zerkale proshlogo: sbornik statey. Tomskiy gosudarstvennyy universitet, Yekaterinburg, Khanty-Mansiysk, V. 7, pp. 302–307 (book chapter with no English title).
•  Zaitseva  E.A. and  Kenig  A.V. (2007) Arkheologicheskaya razvedka v Khanty-Mansiyskom rayone Khanty-Mansiyskogo avtonomnogo okruga—Yugry v 2005 godu. In: Yakovlev Ya. A. (ed.), Khanty-Mansiyskiy avtonomnyy okrug v zerkale proshlogo: sbornik statey. Tomskiy gosudarstvennyy universitet, Yekaterinburg, Khanty-Mansiysk, V. 4, pp. 167–177 (book chapter with no English title)
•  Zaitseva  E.A. and  Kenig  A.V. (2014) Pogrebal’naya obryadnost’ russkogo starozhil’cheskogo naseleniya nizhnego priirtysh’ya XVIII–XIX vv. (po materialam raskopok mogil’nika Gornopravdinskiy). In: Tataurova L.V. and Borzunova V.A. (eds.), Kul’tura russkikh v arkheologicheskikh issledovaniyakh: sbornik nauchnykh statey. Izdatel’stvo ‘Magellan,’ Omsk, Tyumen’, Yekaterinburg, Tom 1, pp. 23–27 (book chapter with no English title).
•  Zaitseva  E.A.,  Klyuyeva  V.P., and  Shcherbich  S.N. (2012) Istoriya naselennykh punktov Yugry: kratkiy nauchno-populyarnyy spravochnik. Izdatel’stvo Pero, Moskva (article with no English title).