Деректер мен зерттеулер

218
The pottery items differ from the pottery 
of preceding groups by its higher quality. A 
pottery fragment is hard, of 0.6-0.9 cm thick, 
with admixture of large sand, sometimes grog and 
gravel. The ornament is in the form of geometric 
fi gures, horizontal bands of comb lines and pressed 
dimples. Along with comb technique, striding 
point pressing and pricking is used.
The monuments of Kurgalidzhin 
microregion are located in the lower stream of the 
Nura River in Kurgalidzhin district of Akmolinsk 
region. The stops and sites are located at the banks 
of the Nura, the height of which reaches 3-5 m, 
i.e. at the level of the 1st upper fl oodplain terrace. 
A number of stops were discovered in watershed 
plateaus beside springs fl owing in ancient times. 
A cultural layer at some monuments does not 
exceed 30-50 cm. There is no soil layer at them 
and the fi nds are concentrated on the surface. The 
area of the sites, as a rule, does not exceed several 
groups of ten of square meters. The area occupied 
by stops is about 50 square m. The major number 
of monuments is dated Neolith-Eneolith. There 
are several points of an earlier period (Mesolith 
- Paleolith).  Along with described microregions, 
with a great number of monuments, in North 
Kazakhstan a number of single stops and sites of 
the Stone Age has been discovered. Four sites have 
been found on the right bank of the Selety River 
of Tselinograd region. The objects are located 
at a high steep bank of the Selety, the height of 
which reaches 40-50 m (Bestyube I, Taskura I and 
others.). One stop, according to the materials may 
be dated Paleolith - Mesolith (Taskura II), the rest 
ones are typical Neolithic stops.
Chronology, the issues of cultural 
and historical relation of themonuments of 
Atbassar culture, their position in the Neolith 
of Kazakhstan. 
The solution of issues on 
periodization and chronology is a specifi c  stage 
for archeologists, at which the empirical stage of a 
source processing is completed and along with that 
it signifi es a qualitatively new level of historical 
interpretation (Захарук, 1969, p. 11-20; Захарук, 
1977, p. 35).
The study of the Late Stone Age in 
Kazakhstan has its history, though it’s not rich 
yet, but rather signifi cant that demonstrates the 
prospect for the study of the Stone Age in the 
republic (Акишев, 1978, p. 5-14; Алпысбаев, 
1970, p. 227-240). In this respect the information 
was provided by L. A. Chalaya (Чалая, 1970, 
p.309-327;  Чалая, 1970, p. 241-250; Чалая, 
1970, 79-86; Чалая, 1971, 24 p.), S. S. Cernikov 
(Черников, 1950, с. 63-70; Черников, 1970, 60 
p.;  Черников, 1972, p. 59-62), A. A. Formozov 
(Формозов, 1951, p.115-121), who dealt directly 
with the subject on Neolith of Kazakhstan in due 
course. All authors noted unsatisfactory condition 
of the study of the Late Stone Age in contrast with 
the Bronze Age and the Iron Age.
In spite of the fact that by the 60s over 500 
stops of the Stone Age of the Holocene period 
were put in archeological map of Kazakhstan, 
practically they were not excavated. When Neolith 
of Kazakhstan was mentioned in the literature, 
they spoke about one and the same monuments - 
Ust-Narym, Penky I, II, Karaganda XV, Zelenaya 
Balka, Agispe, Saksaulskaya that was too little for 
the vast area occupying over 4 thousand sq. km.
S. S. Chernikov on basis of the excavations 
of Ust-Narym settlement, as well as Malo-
Krasnoyarsk settlement for many years and 
collecting of fi nds from the surface at several 
points (Черников, 156, p. 43-60; Черников, 1957, 
p. 12-21) defi nes one period – the Late Neolith, 
and its chronological boundaries: III - beginning 
of II millenniums BC. Though, he supposedly 
defi nes an earlier stage (Malo-Krasnoyarsk) and a 
later (Ust-Narym) stage within this period (Чер-
ников, 1970, p. 41).
The reason for periodization and chronology 
were stratigraphic observations and synchronizing 
of tool types with the stock of Neolithic objects 
of surrounding regions – the Ural (Раушенбах, 
1956, p. 56; Збруева, 1946, p. 182-190; Черне-
цов, 1947, p. 79-91; Чернецов, 1953, p. 7-71; 
Сальников, 1962, p.16-58; Крижевская, 1968, p. 
132), Siberia (Окладников, 1950, p. 343), Central 
Asia (Виноградов, 1968, p.64-75; Толстов, 1948, 
p. 240).
The archeological material of Ust-Narym 
typologically is not homogenous and there are 
broad analogies in complexes of Kazakhstan and 
the surrounding areas from Mesolith to Eneolith 
(Чалая, 1971, p. 13).
ATBASSR CULTURE

219
The problem of periodization of Northeast 
and Central Kazakhstan is considered by L. A. 
Chalaya approximately in the same way. The 
main provisions of her thesis are specifi ed in a 
number of publications (Чалая, 1973, p. 188-
203). The author defi ned a number of local 
groups differing technically and typologically on 
the example of the collections of two excavated 
monuments (the rest fi nds were collected from 
the surface). Unfortunately, practically all points, 
except Karaturgay 5 sites, were related by L. A. 
Chalaya to III millennium and with some notes to 
IV millennium BC (Чалая, 1973, p. 188-203). 
In the beginning of the 60s about 60 stops 
of the Stone Age were discovered by M. N. 
Klapchuk in Karaganda basin and two of them 
were partly excavated. Those were Karaganda 
XV and Zelenaya Balka 4 stop. The results of 
the excavations were published in three articles, 
which were broadly used for archeological 
fi ndings by other researchers (Клапчук, 1965, p. 
212-216;  Клапчук, 1969, p. 108-118; Клапчук, 
1970, p. 153-160). Karaganda XV stop is the most 
interesting. This is a many-layered monument 
with the stratigraphy on the basis of which the 
periodization of Neolithic monuments of Central 
Kazakhstan was proposed by M. N. Klapchuk. M. 
N. Klapchuk defi ned three stages of the Neolith, 
which were not beyond the boundaries of III 
millennium BC. (Клапчук, 1969, p. 108-118).
Certain progress in the study of Holocene 
monuments of the Stone Age was achieved in 
South and West Kazakhstan. In the beginning of 
the 70s a number of caves containing archeological 
materials of the Post-Paleolithic period were 
examined in Karatau by H. A. Alpysbayev (Ал-
пысбаев, 1977, p. 93).
In Priaralye and Pricaspian region there 
are also well-known numerous points from which 
large collections were received, but unfortunately 
they were gathered from the surface (Мелентьев, 
1975, p. 113; Мелентьев, 1977, p. 101; Виногра-
дов, 1968, p.64-75; Формозов, 1972, p. 17-26; 
Формозов, 1959, p. 47-59; Формозов,1950, p. 
141-147). The use of the material collected from 
the surface only to solve the issue on periodization 
and cultural relation strengthens the subjective 
role of a researcher.
The materials from the territory of South-
West and West Kazakhstan, the study of which 
began in the 20s already are broadly known in 
literature (Синицын, 1951, p. 98).
In due course great attention to the region 
was paid by A. A. Formozov, who published a 
number of works dating them the Late Neolith and 
Eneolith (Формозов, 1959, p. 47-59; Формозов , 
1949, с. 49-58; Формозов, 1950, p. 65-75; Фор-
мозов, 1950, p. 141-147).
The new materials received from the 
excavated monument in the area for the last 10-
15 years allow making certain corrections to the 
interpretation of the periodization and chronology 
of Holocene objects of the Stone Age.
So, a number of stops with very peculiar fl int 
tools and pottery items were discovered and partly 
explored by V. P. Logvin in Kostanay and Turgay 
regions. These are Evgenievka, Amangeldy, 
Matrosovo and others stops at the Kaindy River 
(Логвин, 1977, p. 273; Логвин, 1976, p. 491-492).
Concluding the review of the state of the 
issues on Kazakhstan, which is of interest for us, 
it should be noted that in spite of insuffi ciency of 
stationary studies of Neolithic monuments, the 
researchers on that level of information objectively 
solved typological and taxonomic issues as a whole. 
The new material received mostly in the process 
of stationary studies of separate microregions of 
North Kazakhstan sometimes allow detailing, and 
as a whole shifting the periods back and defi ning 
separate stages in the periodization of the Neolith 
of the north part of Kazakhstan.
Before considering the periodization of 
the Neolith the region, it should be stressed once 
again that it has become possible to defi ne  the 
Mesolithic layer for the fi rst time on the example 
of the excavated stops й. In the second chapter it 
was mentioned that the Mesolithic complexes are 
represented in every microregion. Not considering 
the problems of Mesolithic periodization in 
details, it should be noted that typologically and 
technically two stages may be defi ned in Mesolith 
– the early (to X millennium BC) and the late 
(to VII millennium BC). This is the Mesolithic 
«foundation» on which the periodization of the 
Neolith followed by the Eneolith and the Early 
Bronze Age has been built. So, the periodization 
ATBASSR CULTURE

220
of the Middle and the Late Stone Age has been 
defi ned and the transition stages from the stone 
epoch to metal have been observed.
Three periods – the Early, Middle and Late 
Neolith were defi ned for the Late Stone Age of 
North Kazakhstan.
It became possible to defi ne the Early 
Neolith on the basis of stratigraphy, discovery 
of serial homogenous complexes, typological 
comparative characteristic with surrounding areas, 
where there absolute data is available.
It includes the following groups of 
monuments defi ned on a chronological basis for 
microregions: group II of Yavlenskiy microregion 
stops (Yavlenka VI, VII, Karluga III, Bogolyubovo 
III); group II of the monuments of  Vinogradovskiy 
microregion (Vinogradovka II (the upper layer), 
Vinogradovka XIV and others); group II of 
Telimanskiy microregion (Telmana I, X, XIV, 
VIIIb, Zhabay-Pokrovka I).
Stratigraphically, as was it has been noted 
already, these monuments are characterized by 
certain regularity. Particularly, fi rstly, the cultural 
layers are located at the foot of light humus loam 
or loam. They are overlaid by soils of a fl oodplain 
nature (refer to stratigraphy of the monuments of 
Vinogradovskiy and Telmanskiy microregions) 
that relates to the beginning of the Atlantic period.
The following types of fl int items are 
the most expressive: chisels (lateral, angular); 
symmetrical trapezoids, sometimes with notches 
on the upper base; plates with butt end notch; 
sweeps; arrowheads on plates with a retouched and 
straight part; scrapers on plates - with a cocked, 
straight,  fi gured or round blade. The knives on 
round lengthened splinters are peculiar. Javelin 
heads processed on both sides are represented by 
fragments, in section they are of a leaf-shaped 
form, the heads are up to 1.5 cm thick. There are 
also macroforms (edge planes, knives, hammers 
and etc.). All collections include pottery items. As 
a rule, the number of them is small. The bottom 
of the pottery items is thin, they are slightly 
burnt, the material contains admixture of gravel, 
large-granular sand or vegetable remainders and 
decorated with a «striding» comb pattern, slight 
pressed points, wavy drawing and prick lines.
The Early Paleolith complexes not only 
differ from the Late Mesolith in all properties 
specifi ed in the section of the methods of study, 
but also continue having signifi cant  receivership 
related to technology and typology.
In Mesolith various sorts of fl int,  jasper, 
quartzite and crystal served the raw material, in the 
Early Neolith the raw material becomes stabilized 
- mainly jasper-like qualitative quartzite of grey or 
tawny color is used. 
The plate industry in Neolith was further 
developing. The splinter industry was changing a 
little, so let’s consider the fi rst one.
In the Early Neolith compared to Mesolirth 
a set of tool types becomes much more rich, as well 
as secondary processing becomes varied. Double-
sided forms, hacking tools partially polished, and, 
fi nally, pottery items appear in the Neolith.
The stops related to the Neolith are: group 
III of stops of Yavlenskiy (Yavlenka IV, V, Karluga 
IV, Bogolyubovo II, Bulayevo I and others); group 
II of Vinogradovskiy (Vinogradovka X, XI), group 
III of Telimanskiy (Telmana XV, XVII, Zaimka I, 
Zhabay-Pokrovka III and others) microregions. 
The  fi nds on the monument are connected to 
the foot of humus loam and a black soil layer. 
Mesolithic traditions are gradually disappearing 
from the fl int industry at this stage. The set of 
tools is characterized by a combination of tools on 
plates and splinters with the forms processed on 
both sides. Arrowheads of a correct leaf-shaped 
form are broadly distributed amongst the last 
once. The knives with a hand made by retouching 
or chisel splintering or without it are peculiar. 
Sporadically there are arrowheads on plates, small 
high trapezoids and other types. Lateral chisels, 
plates with a blunted back side and a butt end, and 
with a butt end notch and other early (Mesolithic 
and Early Paleolithic) types have practically 
disappeared completely. The collections include 
macroforms – edge planes, knives, jack hammers, 
hammers and other products.
The pottery is unexpressive and fragmentary 
as before. It is an ovate form, thin-sided, burnt to 
average extent, with admixture of gravel, sand and 
sometimes vegetable remainders.
The Late Neolith. The stops related to 
it are: group IV stops of Yavlenskiy (Yavlenka 
III, Bishkul I, Karluga, Krasnogorka, Enbek 
and others), Telmanskiy (Telmana XI, XII, 
ATBASSR CULTURE

221
XIII, 1Xb and others) and a number of stops of 
Vinogradovskiy microregion studied only through 
exploring (Berlinovka I, Kuchkovka I, Kenetkul 
III and others.).
Cultural remainders are broadly distributed 
in the upper soil (humus fat layer) horizon; 
sometimes go out to the surface. The age of the 
upper sediments in the valleys and at steppe streams 
is dated about III millennium BC everywhere.
The complexes of the stone tools differ 
from the materials of the preceding stages in all 
properties. The raw material (rough quartzite) is 
characterized by roughness and poor quality; it 
was used fi rst of all for making tools on splinters 
and double-sided forms. Plate technology is not 
used; though the collections include the plates of 
that time, but nearly all of them are not secondary 
processed.
Concerning the pottery, the items with a 
round of sharp bottom, decorated with a comb 
prints in the form of polylines, pricks by a stick, 
drawn wavy lines prevail.
Considerable changes fi rst of all in the 
use of raw material for production of labor tools 
occur in the Eneolith epoch. The stone and bone 
is substituted by metal – by copper, and then by 
bronze. The signifi cance of that in ancient history 
of the society is well known. 
The proposed periodization, certainly, may 
not be considered a fi nal variant, but it refl ects the 
modern level of an origin basis in North Kazakhstan 
rather completely. But the situation with dating of 
every defi ned period is more diffi cult. At present, 
based on archeological material of the region, only 
the lower and the upper date of the Neolithic epoch 
have been defi ned rather correctly.
The data till C14 (10540 + 200 from A.D.), 
received from coal, extracted from a pit in the 
area of Telmana XIVa Mesolithic stop is at our 
disposal. It refl ects, probably, an initial stage of the 
Late Mesolith, the fi nal stage if which in Zauralye, 
Central Asia on a variety of series of radiocarbon 
dating is dated VII-VI millennium B.C. (Стар-
ков, 1980, p. 90-92; Виноградов, Мамедов, Су-
лержицкий, 1977, p. 267). Since technologically 
and typologically the Late Mesolithic and Early 
Paleolithic complexes are close, genetically 
connected, the time difference between them 
cannot be great. Considering available data the 
fi nal Mesolith is dated VII Millennium B.C. 
Consequently, the Early Neolith should be dated 
the end VII-VI millennium B.C. Chronological 
frameworks of the end of the Stone Age (including 
Eneolith) are defi ned rather exactly - beginning II 
millennium - XVIII centuries B.C. For instance, 
in Vishnevka I settlement several «import» vessels 
of Petrov-Alakaul type were found on the fl oor of 
a dwelling beside a hearth (Зайберт, 1973, p. 108) 
that coincides with time of the development of the 
Andronov cultural-historical society group.
Coming from these frameworks that 
determined the beginning and the end of the Late 
Stone Age in the considered area, the chronology 
of the Middle, the Late Neolith and Eneolith is 
within V - beginning II millennium B.C. To some 
extent this is similar to the chronological stages 
defi ned for surrounding areas (Коробкова, 1969, 
p. 178).
Let’s compare the monuments of the 
North Kazakhstan in respect of periodization 
with the most expressed Ust-Narym settlement 
in East Kazakhstan. The detailed typological and 
traceological analysis was made by F. Korobkov 
and provided in the specifi ed monograph of 
the scientist. We would like to express some 
disagreement with the author concerning the 
issues on particularities of the Ust-Narym complex 
ostensibly differing it from the monuments of 
Kazakhstan and Central Asia.
G. F. Korobkov notes the particularity 
of nucleuses’ forms - from wedge-shaped (the 
Kokorev) type to cone-shaped that were broadly 
distributed in the Neolith (Коробкова, 1969, p. 
125).
According to the analysis of North 
Kazakhstan objects, wedge-shaped and pencil-
shaped nucleuses are represented in Mesolithic 
monuments. On p. 166 of the monograph F. 
Korobkov notes the presence of insert microplates 
with a blunted by back side, which are also 
Mesolithic forms, on p. 158 he speaks of absence 
of polished tools (only partially polished ones 
were found). She explains that the reason of 
that were of technical, and probably, of cultural 
nature. And, fi nally, the summary of F. Korobkov 
says: «... The Ust-Natym culture united the most 
ATBASSR CULTURE

жүктеу/скачать 27,4 Mb.

Достарыңызбен бөлісу: