Деректер мен зерттеулер

223
 In spite of certain similarity of Kazakhstan 
materials to Ural fi nds, A. P. Okladnikov limited 
its east borders by Lower Priobye, when defi ning 
the East-Ural culture in 1941. In the opinion of A. 
P. Okladnikov, steppe cultures were distributed 
in the Neolith in the partially wooded steppe of 
Zauralye and Kazakhstan (Окладников, 1941, p. 
7) , that was confi rmed by studies of the author and 
some other specialists.
Other authors had another point of view, 
when analyzing the Ural and Kazakhstan Neolith. 
Following S. P. Tolstov and A. V. Zbruev (Тол-
стов, 1941, p. 214; Толстов, 1948, p. 243; Збру-
ева, 1946, p. 182), who noted the similarity 
of Kelteminar and Middle-Ural Neolithic 
monuments, V. N. Chernetsov defi ned a certain 
Ural-Central Asia ethnic and cultural group.
In the light of the concept of scientists S. P. 
Tolstov, V. N. Chernetsov, A. V. Zbrueva, later the 
issues of the relation of the Ural and Central Asia 
in the Neolith were considered by O. N. Bader 
(Бадер,1970, p. 158; Халиков, 1969, p. 252).
A. A. Formozov (Формозов, 1950, p. 65) 
had a different point of view concerning the issue 
of cultural relation of the steppe and semi-desert 
monuments of Kazakhstan. In 1949 already he 
defi nes the West-Kazakhstan variant of Keltemir 
culture for Priaralye and limits it by the infl uence 
of the Horesm Neolith (Формозов, 1949, p. 50).
In 10 years he published a work that, in 
principal, was different from the works of the 
supporters of Ural-Asia ethnic similarity (Фор-
мозов, 1959, p. 162). In our opinion A. A. 
Formozov was absolutely right, when showing 
that the monuments with very similar microlithic 
industry, based on specialized plate technology 
of cutting nucleuses and use of plates as inserts 
were distributed in vast areas of Eurasia in the 
steppe and semi-desert zones. This is the result of 
convergence of cultural-economic types in similar 
ecological conditions.
In the beginning of the 60s the Ural-
Kazakhstan group was defi ned on the basis of 
South-Ural and partly Kostanay materials by K. 
V. Salinikov (Сальников, 1962, p. 17). At the end 
of the 60s L. Y. Krizhevskaya detailed it through 
defi ning the South-Ural-Kazakhstan ethnic and 
cultural area (Крижевская, 1968, p. 123).
However, it would be more logical to name 
the ethnic and cultural area defi ned by her by 
its proper name and strictly outline its territory, 
since L. Y. Krizhevskaya includes in it the areas 
of Kazakhstan, which have not been studied yet 
(Крижевская, 1975, p. 162).
Speaking about vast ethnic and cultural 
areas, L. Y. Krizhevskaya is absolutely right, 
when admitting that more fractional structures - 
archeological cultures and variants existed there 
that was confi rmed in the process of current studies 
in South Ural and in North Kazakhstan».
In the beginning of the 50s three territorial 
groups of Neolithic monuments: South-Ural, 
Priaral and Semipalatinsk in Kazakhstan were 
defi ned by A. A. Formozov (Формозов, 1951, p. 
117). He has objected by V. N. Chernetsov, who 
defended his point of view on the similarity of 
Neolithic complexes in the vast area of Zauralye 
and Kazakhstan (Чернецов, 1947, p. 80). S. S. 
Chernikov also considered that there was no 
great difference between the materials of the 
specifi ed area, but when Ust-Narym settlement 
was discovered, he changed his point of view and 
raised an issue on defi ning a specifi c Ust-Narym 
culture (Черников, 1957, p. 13).
In 1970, in his doctoral thesis S. S. 
Charnikov defi ned six local groups of Neolithic 
monuments on the territory of Kazakhstan within 
the framework of one cultural-historical group 
dated by him the end IV - beginning II millennium 
B.C. (Черников, 1970, p. 54). Those were East 
Kazakhstan, North-West Kazakhstan, Priaralye 
and South-West and North Kazakhstan, North 
Pribalhashye and Betpak-Dala and the north band 
of Central Kazakhstan.
In his opinion the specifi ed groups differ 
in a «set of tools, particularity of fabrication 
technology, pottery and the nature of economic 
activity». He also expected the existence of 
Semirechensk, South-Kazakhstan and Ustyurt-
Mangyshlak groups (Черников, 1972, p. 60).
In our point of view, they were defi ned 
realistically only on the basis of one criterion 
– geographical criterion, but this property is not 
diagnostic since practically the whole area was 
settled by Neolithic population.
ATBASSR CULTURE

224
L. A. Chalaya followed «the way of 
defi ning local groups in the Neolith of Central and 
North-East Kazakhstan”. Denying the existence of 
Semipalatinsk, Priaralye and South-Ural groups 
(according to A. A. Formozov) and considering 
the issue of cultural-historical group of the 
Neolith of Kazakhstan to be unsolved (Чалая, 
1970, p. 79-86), she defi nes four populated areas: 
Zhelezinskiy, Ust-Narym, Karaturgay-Pribalhash 
and Karaganda (Чалая, 1969, p. 192-195). One 
may agree with L. A. Chalaya considering that the 
areas defi ned by are rather specifi c and may really 
exist. The scientist considers broad contacts of the 
population of Kazakhstan, the Ural, the Western 
Siberia, Pribaykalye and Central Asia to be the 
reasons of particularity.
L. A. Chalaya considers the survival of 
Mesolithic traditions tending southward of the 
country, and the pottery occurring with such fl int 
that, on the contrary, is similar to South-Ural and 
West Siberian fi nds, to be one of the particularities 
of Kazakhstan material (Черников, 1959, p. 99). 
The researcher considers this fact to be a regularity.
However, follows the conclusion from 
aforesaid that to match two territory on fl int only 
or pottery it is impossible, ибо get lost the internal 
causal relationship, existed no time beside carriers 
that or other archeological cultures.
So, by the end of the 70s the points of view of 
S. S. Chernikov, L. A. Chalaya, L. Y. Krizhevskaya 
and K. V. Salinikov concerning cultural relation of 
Neolithic monuments of Kazakhstan had not been 
acknowledged in literature. There was only one 
reason for that- a vast territory and little study.
The modern data on the Neolith of North 
Kazakhstan confi rms that the territory of the 
republic in the Neolith was within a microlithic 
zone, and its more fractional hierarchical structure 
is being defi ned. Our materials allow extending the 
borders of this zone defi ned by A. A. Formozov for 
the fi rst time (Формозов, 1959, p. 48), including 
north areas of Kazakhstan and a part of partially 
wooded steppe of Zauralye and the West Siberia 
into it.
At present, the North Kazakhstan ethnic and 
cultural area is being rather clearly defi ned in the 
Asian microlithic cultural zone. It occupies the 
territory of the Tobolo-Irtysh interfl uvial area from 
ATBASSR CULTURE
Tyumen Priishimye in the north to Karaganda 
basin in the south. The Priishimye areas have been 
studied most of all and rather broadly represented 
in the archeological map. The ethnic and cultural 
area defi ned by us covers a broad chronological 
range from the Mesolith to the Neolith. The 
integrated analysis of numerous collections 
from different microregions of the studied area 
has allowed raising an issue on defi nition of the 
culture. It may be called the Atbassar culture, since 
expressive complexes of the culture have been 
received in Telimanskiy microregion near Atbassar 
city. It covers the period of the End Mesolith and 
the Middle Neolith. Its local variants - Telmanskiy 
(the area of the upper stream of the Ishim River 
and the lower stream of the Nura River) and 
Yavlenskiy (the Chaglinka River and the middle 
stream of the Ishim) may be defi ned.
Genesis of Yavlenskiy variant and 
disappearing of Telmansliy variant occurs in the 
Muddle Neolith due to their active interaction.
In the Late Neolith-Eneolith a qualitatively 
new culture within the Botay ethnic and cultural 
area was developing.
In the Early Neolithic period the monuments 
of Atbassar culture (both variants) were distributed 
within the defi ned North Kazakhstan ethnic and 
cultural area and in a number of cases beyond 
its boundaries. The northeast stronghold is the 
monuments of Priirtyshye: Penky (Черников, 
1959, p. 99) and Omsk stop (Чалая, 1972, p. 163-
171; Матющенко, 1966, p. 79). 
The northwest border of the distribution of 
Atbassar culture is Pritobolye, and the west and 
southwest borders are the Turgay hollow.
Of monuments excavated in the areas 
Amangeldy stop is the most similar to Telimanskiy 
variant. In the Neolith Pritobolye and the Turgay 
hollow was a contact zone between Kazakhstan, 
South-Ural and South-Zautalye population that 
was fully refl ected in the material culture. Such 
similarity occurs, according to our data, only in the 
contact zone of Pritobolye and Turgay hollow. The 
south border of the distribution of Atbassar culture 
is preliminary extending to Karaganda basin, 
where two stops Karaganda XV (Клапчук, 1970, 
p. 153) and Zelenaya Balka 4 were excavated 
(Клапчук, 1965, p. 212-216).

225
Zhanbobek 4 spring stop in the south of 
Tselinograd region was studied by V. N. Voloshin 
(Волошин,  Мазниченко, 1978, p. 511-512). 
Pottery and fl int items similar to Telmana X 
settlement were found in a cultural layer of up to 
50 cm thick.
The materials received as a result of collecting 
fi nds from the surface only are known westward, 
eastward and southward of Karaganda monuments 
(Маргулан, Агеева, 1948, p. 129). Typologically 
the collections are heterogeneous, so, it is diffi cult 
to speak about certain things. However, in the 
process of study of Central and South-West 
Kazakhstan the Early Neolithic complexes may be 
discovered. Moreover, Neolithic complexes dated 
on radiocarbon, which chronologically may be 
compared with the monuments of Atbassar culture 
have been discovered on the territory of Central 
Asia that is more remote from North Kazakhstan. 
This is Uchaschy 131 stop, which provided a series 
of «horned trapezoids»  and Beshbulak 15 similar 
stop (Черников, 1956, p. 43-60). In relation to 
other aspects these complexes are rather peculiar.
Finally, Oyukly monument located in 
the southeast Pricaspian region is known on the 
territory of Central Asia (Марков, 1961, p. 68).
In the 70s the stops that provided a series of 
trapezoids with notch, chisels and other types were 
discovered by E. Bizhanov in Ustyurt (Бижанов, 
1973, p. 210-211; Бижанов, 1978, p. 18).
In South Ural, which is rather well studied, 
also no monuments, which could allow having the 
material similar to the sets of items of the Early 
Neolithic Atbassar culture, have been known so 
far. 
At the late stage of Atbassar culture and in 
the Middle Neolith the cultural environment was 
somewhat different. The culture defi ned by us had 
changed, Yavlenskiy variant prevailed.
It’s diffi cult to explain the changes observed 
in the fl int stock at the point by one reason only. 
But, obviously, the internal reasons - development 
of production forces of the society dominated the 
process.
The particularity of the late stage of Atbassar 
culture is occurrence of archaic types of fl int items 
in some monuments (Vinogradovka X village) - 
plates with a blunted back side and a retouched 
butt end most typical of the Late Mesolith of 
North Kazakhstan. The proportion of osteological 
material and products of animal bones in the 
collections of the Middle Neolith had considerably 
increased.
The number of pottery items represented 
in the described complexes, is small and they are 
unexpressive as before, thin-sided with admixture 
of gravel, vegetable remainders and sand. They are 
of a round bottom or ovate form, the ornament is 
poor - «a striding comb pattern», a comb zigzag, 
pressed lines or pressed points.
The monuments of that time located within 
North Kazakhstan ethnic and cultural area are 
rather peculiar, like Early Paleolithic monuments, 
on the background of surrounding areas. Though, 
some similarity in raw material, typology of tools 
and pottery between the areas of North Kazakhstan 
and the West Siberia is observed. The most 
interesting monument, which was excavated in 
Tyumen Priishimye is Kokuy I stop.  The authors 
of the excavations connect it to Yekaterinin and 
Omsk stops’ pottery. The pottery occurs in a 
complex with fl int tool; the authors supposed 
that the origin of the pottery as well as the fl int 
items was southwards of Tyumen Priishimye. Our 
materials confi rm the suggestions of V. F. Gering, 
L. Y. Krizhevskaya, R. D. Goldina, who dated 
the monuments of Kokuy I type the end of V-IV 
millennium B.C.
The tools of Kokuy I stop are similar to 
the materials of Yavlenka IV, V, Vinogradovka X, 
Zhabay-Pokrovka III and other monuments in all 
main characteristics – the raw material, technology 
of cutting, typology and morphology.
The similarity of tool items and close 
location of the areas, where the objects were 
discovered, allow raising an issue on cultural 
unity of monuments at the early stage of Middle 
-Irtysh culture and the late stage of Atbassar 
culture. Such similarity may be explained by two 
reasons: I) active interaction (cultural and ethnic) 
of the population of two regions located in a 
common river valley, which made it easier to have 
relations all round year; 2) the result of meridian 
migration of the population of North Kazakhstan 
along main watercourses of steppe and partially 
wooded steppe areas of Kazakhstan to the north 
ATBASSR CULTURE

226
edge of the partially wooded steppe of the West 
Siberia. In the fi rst case the monuments should be 
considered to be multicultural monuments from 
the archeological point of view, in the second 
case – monoculture monuments. We would like to 
consider the seconds reason, since the relationship 
of the population that left Kokuy monuments, with 
aboriginal Tobol-Isset basin archeologically is less 
expressed than that of the Ishim basin.
In the west of North Kazakhstan ethnic 
and cultural area the materials of the monuments 
of Yavlensk variant are not similar to complexes, 
compared to Tyumen Priishimye area.
At present, a great number of monuments 
studied through excavations are known in South 
Ural verging on Pritobolye in the east. These 
are Chebarkul 1-y, Uchalinskaya I, Sabakty 6, 
Surtandy 6 and other stops (Крижевская, 1968,  p. 
69); Матюшин, 1962, p. 95).
We collated them on the source forms of 
stockpile items, the size and a set of monuments 
of Yavlenskiy type of Atbassar culture and South-
Ural stops explored by L. Y. Krizhevskaya and 
published in her monographs «Neolith of South 
Ural».
The South-Ural Middle Neolithic 
monuments represent a specifi c cultural group 
with expressed plate industry having a number of 
general properties similar to Kazakhstan Neolith. 
Probably, the similarity concerns not the level of 
south-Ural-Kazakhstan group, but the notion of 
the common cultural zone.
At present, the similarity between the 
monuments of Central-Kazakhstan and East-
Kazakhstan is poorly expressed; it’s diffi cult  to 
compare the complexes, since there are no well 
excavated one-layered monuments.
So, summarizing the results of the collation 
of the Middle-Neolithic monuments of Atbassar 
culture with the surrounding areas of the republic, it 
should be noted that the collations is of conditional 
nature.
When comparing with the areas of the 
West Siberia and Ural signifi cant particularity of 
Kazakhstan and Ural monuments corresponding 
to the level of archeological culture occurs. The 
issue on the relation of the Neolith of Kazakhstan 
and Central Asia is the most complicated and 
undeveloped. At present, there is some Data, 
which is diffi cult to explain from any certain point 
of view (autochthonic or migrational).
In the Late Neolith-Eneolith area 
production means were further developing on 
the basis of Yavlenskiy variant within the North 
Kazakhstan ethnic and cultural. The process of 
active introduction the technology of double-
sided processing of stone and polishing occurred 
at that time. Also, it is characterized by changing 
of raw material - qualitative jasper-like rocks 
were substituted by large-granular quartzite. The 
plate technology remained, but it didn’t play that 
the key role as in previous epochs. The available 
archeological material shows its homogeneity 
on the country territory under study. Two clear 
variants of Atbassar culture are observed in the 
Early Neolith, the Late Neolith is characterized 
by lack of these variants and homogeneity of 
technology and the set in the vast area beyond the 
boundaries of the Tobol-Irtysh interfl uvial area.
Judging by archeological literature, such 
a trend in changing of labor tools and pottery 
occurred in the vast partially wooded steppe and 
semi-desert areas of Asia including the North 
Kazakhstan ethnic and cultural area. Within the 
boundaries of the vast microlithic cultural zone 
of the Eurasian partially wooded steppe in the 
Late Mesolith and the Early Neolith it was only 
a background for forming of local ethnic groups, 
in the Late Neolith and particularly in Eneolith we 
may speak about large cultural-historical groups, 
formed in the area, that, probably, were united not 
only by similar economic platform (development 
of production economy), but also by ethnic and 
social relations.
It became possible to raise an issue on the 
origin of the Neolith of North Kazakhstan only 
after Mesolithic monuments had been discovered 
and studied in the region and surrounding areas of 
Zauralye and the West Siberia (Петров, 1973, p. 
11).
Main differences and receivership in the 
industry of Mesolithic and Neolithic epochs. In 
the Eearly Neolith in contrast with the Mesolith 
the nature of raw material becomes stable. In 
Mesolith monuments varied raw material - from 
fl int to milk-colored quartzite occurred, in the 
ATBASSR CULTURE

жүктеу/скачать 27,4 Mb.

Достарыңызбен бөлісу: