212
Kazakhstan, we applied certain methods of fi eld
works taking into account landscape particularities
of the region. These particularities are connected
with the fact that the most steppe and semi-
desert areas of Kazakhstan are characterized by
erosion and soil denudation and defl ation. But
accumulation processes are very low. Due to this,
archeological monuments often located in high
valleys as well as at the banks of steppe rivers and
spring carry are of so-called «open nature», when
a there is no a cultural layer on the monument or it
is thin (Медоев, 1965, p. 85-88).
Till last time there was a broad practice of
collecting materials from the surface disregarding
planigraphy. The materials of the Stone Age
sometimes collected on in an enormous area
were considered by researchers as uniform ones
(Чалая, 1970, p. 79-86; Логвин, 1977, p.270-
275). Finally, quite often it turned out that those
collections were presented by the materials of
different chronological epochs.
Since the Stone Age of Kazakhstan
Priishimye had not been fully studied, from
the fi rst years of NKAE existence were had to
undertake mass exploratory examinations. The
banks of practically all rivers mentioned in the
geographical essay were examined by exploratory
groups. The focus was on shrub exploring in the
area of archeological objects concentration.
In the beginning the discovered objects were
fi xed in a map to defi ne the area of distribution and
the degree of concentration of monuments. Then a
detailed eye measured scheme or an instrumental
topographical plan of the micrioregion of the area
was designed. An approximate area of monuments
was marked in the scheme observing a scale. The
monument sites perspective for excavations were
divided into squares of 2x2 m, and only after that
the items were collected from the surface and
the sites were excavated. When there were mass
assemblages the fi nds were fi xed in the scheme
per quarter (1x1 m), or with absolute accuracy
in case there were single fi nds or typical tools
assemblages.
The utter examination of the vast region
and opening of signifi cant areas of a cultural
layer made it possible to understand the degree
of archeological objects concentration and their
functionality. Comprehensive study of a number
of monuments within the microregions had
allowed us using not only a traditional term such
as «a stop», when characterizing the objects,
but also apply such notions as «a settlement», «a
workshop», «a site» on a rather justifi ed basis.
A settlement is a monument including a
rather thick cultural layer on the area of 500 sq.
m. Two and more dwelling constructions are fi xed
in it. Item material within the cultural layer is
represented by mass fi nds.
A workshop is an archeological object
with a cultural layer consisting of mass wastes,
stockpile items, rock pieces that are concentrated
around working grounds. There are series of such
tools as hammers, retouching items, hammer-
stones, abrasive bars. The workshops, according
to our data, are divided into two types: a workshop
on primary cutting of raw material, stockpiling of
nucleuses and macroforms; a workshop on making
tools of mass use.
A stop is a short-term settlement not
exceeding the area of 500 sq. m. There are no
traces of dwelling constrictions or they are vague.
The number of items does not exceed 2000.
A site is a monument that does not contain
a cultural layer, the number of fi nds is small and
represented solely by the items collected from the
surface.
The settlements are connected to river
valleys, the fi rst or the second upper fl ood plain
terraces; the workshops - to watershed hills as well
as valleys; the stops - to valleys, watershed lakes,
springs; the sites - to all enumerated hypsometric
levels.
So, permanent settlements located in most
favorable valleys were peculiar production and
dwelling centers. Other types of monuments
should be considered as seasonal, temporary
points that were left in the process of economic and
production activity. Great volume of fi eld works
conducting taking into account modern methodical
requirements allowed stratigraphically defi ning
one-layered and many-layered monuments. The
discovery of one-layered objects (Telman I, X,
XII, XIII, VII) was most important. Particular
technical-typological standards for a certain
period of Neolith were received there that allowed
ATBASSR CULTURE
213
reinterpreting many mixed collections stored in
the museums and laboratories of Kazakhstan.
Great attention was paid by us to primary
processing of archeological material and, fi rst of
all, to fl int tools that were the most numerous in the
collections of the Stone Age (Mesolith-Neolith).
Having big complexes of fl int tools represented by
mainly plate items, it is impossible to be limited
by description only, when characterizing the
materials. It, as it is well known, is of particular
individual and emotional nature. Along with
that, the description is not always corresponds to
objective condition of the source. The process of
receiving the information from a source requires
certain experience, which should be checked and
available to a broad range of specialists (Каменец-
кий, Маршак, Шер, 1975, p.30).
The typological-statistical method was
designed and applied in domestic archeology of
the Stone Age for the fi rst time by V. A. Gorodtsov
and A. Bonch-Osmolovskiy (Городцов, 1927,
p. 6; Городцов, 1930, p. 16). The typological-
statistical method was developed in details by
French researcher F. Bordu. His typolist was
broadly recognized by the specialists in Paleolith
both abroad and in this country. However, this
method has some drawbacks, since this is a
«closed» taxonomic method that was repeatedly
emphasized by many researchers (Гвоздовер и др,
1974, p. 36; Любин, 1965, p. 23).
Currently one more method on typological
categorizations - «an open system» is being
actively developed (Медведев, 1975, p. 25; Ма-
тюшин, 1975, p. 12). The «main advantage of
opened systems is an opportunity for comparing
various sets of tools to one another, described
according to this systems, and defi ning the degree
of similarity on a quantitative basis. The types may
be defi ned on stable and verifi able basis and the
frequency of coincidence of separate properties...»
(Гвоздовер и др., 1974, p. 36).
Also, concrete schemes-tables for primary
processing of archeological material appeared in
literature (Матюшин, 1976, p. 224). Having used
the tables, which were published in the book of
N. Matyushin «Mezolith of South Ural», as a
basis, we checked the prospect of the open system
experimentally on the example of the materials of
North Kazakhstan. It seemed to us very important
to consider the archeological material of two
neighboring regions applying similar typological
criterions.
Let’s consider some provisions on
categorization by N. Matyushin, with which
the author of the present work doesn’t agree.
For instance, «plates with retouching» class is
determined within this categorization as inserts.
However, not all plates with retouching relate to
such ones. On the other hand, geometric microliths
are classical inserts, but in they are not so defi ned
in the table. The «sheath» notion is rather
technological notion, than a typological one, and
it is more logically not to use it. It is reasonable,
in our opinion, not to generalize classes 1-6 and
etc. verbally, but simply name them «plates with
retouching on an edge, geometric microliths,
scrapers on plates, edges» and others. In the table
«Categorization of edge scrapers, «a working
angle of tool and its parameters», which has been
applied by us without changes, is provided in a
vertical column. In a horizontal column, in our
opinion, various properties, which hierarchically
should be situated in different classifi cation levels,
are provided. Key lines 1-4 refl ect the corner of
retouching convergence, key lines 5-8 - a form of
blades that, really, is not adequate. When scrapers
were considered, indicators 1-4 «hadn’t worked».
We have changed some names of indicators5-8.
In particular, we name «irregular» - «fi gured»,
since we consider that «regular» and «irregular»
terms are broadly used, when characterizing
the plates retouched on a longitudinal edge. The
term «fi gured» implies the variety of blade key
line variants. Instead of «sharp-angled» we write
«made a little sharp», since no one item with an
ideal geometric sharp angle has been found.
Finally, the tables for primary processing of
tools, on which the material was classifi ed, have
become the following:
Table «General characteristic of material».
It corresponds to the levels of categories, groups
and classes. The columns: nucleuses and their
derived items splinters for processing, ribbed
plates), (fragments of nucleuses, plates) have been
put in place. They are subdivided into items with
secondary processing and without it. The fi rst
ATBASSR CULTURE
214
ones are subdivided into classes - scrapers, plates
with retouching, chisels and others, splinters. The
hierarchy principle is the same – subdivision into
secondary processed splinters and not secondary
processed splinters.
Table «Miscellaneous» includes the items
made of non-fl int stone rocks, bones, clays. The
table is required for further processing of the
material, for more detailed categorization and
continuous checking (annex 1-2).
Table «Plates». It is based on gradation
of plates, certain parts or segments - whole,
proximal, medial and distal ones. Each column is
subdivided into items with secondary processing
and without processing. In turn, the column
«without processing» includes the items with
traces of worn-out at work (at traceological
analysis) and without them. The plates with traces
of worn-out at work relate to the category of tools,
but this time on the basis of functional analysis. If
there are no traces of worn-out at work on plates,
they will relate to the category of stockpiling or
wastes. Since traceological analysis hasn’t been
made, all plates without secondary processing are
noted in the column «Totally». This table allows
us having comparatevly full information on plates
as stocking-up material, as well as on the degree
of tool availability and every source stocking-up
item (annex 3-4).
Table «Sizes of plates». When defi ning
the sizes of plates (the width and the length) we
used the parameters, which are most broadly used
in the literature on the Stone Age of the Ural,
Kazakhstan and Siberia: to 0.5 cm; 0.6-1 cm; 1.1
– 1.5 cm; 1.6 - 2 cm; 2.1 – 2.5 cm; 2.6 - 3 cm; 3.1
- 5 cm; 5.1 - 7 cm; 7.1 - 9 cm; over 9 cm. In the
table they are alike for the width and the length of
plates. The parameters for plate sizes are provided
in a horizontal column, and the source form of
stocking-up items and tools availability is shown
vertically.
Table «Scrapers on plates». The horizontal
column includes characteristics of a working
angle (perpendicular, steep, average, sloping, very
sloping). All characteristics include the nature
of retouching - convergent, divergent, marginal
on the following hierarchical step. Vertically, a
form of blades and source stocking-up items are
provided.
Table «Chisels». It refl
ects the main
properties of tools of Two types - angular and
lateral (middle type is not enclosed only because
such tools are not contained in the collection or
their number is too small). The types of chisels,
in turn including items with one working blade
(one-bladed) and several blades (many-bladed)
are indicated horizontally. Besides, variants of
additional tool processing on longitudinal edges
are taken into account. Source forms of stocking-
up items are indicated vertically. Moreover, a
retouched end form - concave, straight, cocked,
round is taken into account in lateral chisels
(annex 3-4).
Table «Trapezoids». The forms of trapezoids
- with a lateral notch, without a lateral notch
indicated in horizontal columns are considered to
be the source properties. In turn they are subdivided
into high, low, vague (fragments) trapezoids.
Below, the degree of additional processing of bases
– a lower, upper or both is taken into account. At
next stage the place of fi xing – on a front or back
side is taken into account. The following properties:
symmetric, asymmetric, vague (fragments) are
provided in vertical columns. As required, other,
more detailed indicators may be included in the
table (annex 3-4).
The whole work done on primary
categorization of the material has allowed taking
into account numerous properties within the
framework of compact tables, which may be
complemented without breaking the general
structure of hierarchy depending on the nature
of the material. Great attention was paid by us
to defi ning the source forms of stockpile items,
which were included in all tables.
The next stage of processing was collation
and correlation of properties on the basis of
quantitative indicators of the above-mentioned
tables. There is a real opportunity for matching
and comparing various properties and identifying
that or other dependency between them. The
data on typological categorization is of primary
importance at defi ning chronological as well
as cultural complexes, for identifi cation of the
particularity of the technology and typology of
certain complexes.
ATBASSR CULTURE
215
As a whole when defi ning the cultural
relation of the monuments, their periodization and
chronology, as well as when solving the issues on
functional particularity of archeological objects,
the combination of some properties: the topography
of monuments, the nature of geographical and
production planigraphy; the technology of making
fl int tools and pottery items; the typology of fl int
and stone tools; the morphological particularities
for defi ning tool types; the form and ornamentation
of pottery items was used by us.
Monuments. A - Yavlenskiy:
Sokolovka
I; Lebyazhye I; Zolotaya Osen I; Michurinskaya I;
Bishkul II; Novokamenka I; Karluga II; Karluga
III; Karluga IV; Karluga VI; Krasnogorka II;
Bogolyubovo I; Bogolyubovo III; Bogolyubovo
IV; Bogolyubovo VI; Novonikoliskoye II;
Novonikoliskoye V; Rassvet I; Yavlenka II;
Yavlenka III; Yavlenka IV; Yavlenka V; Yavlenka
VI; Yavlenka VII; Enbek I; Iliinka II; Zhargain
I; Urnek I; Berlik II; Berlik IV; Kupriyanovka
I; Bulayevo I; Medvezhka I; Berlik I; Berlik III;
Berlik V; Ivanovka I; Solonovka I; Kuchkova I.
The monuments of Yavlenskiy microregion
occupy the territory of Petropavlovsk Priishimye
(pic. 1). The major number of them is concentrate
in a broad (before 10-15 km) valley. As a rule, the
objects are grouped on the second upper fl oodplain
terrace, rarely on the fi rst terrace or ashore
watershed lakes.
At collation of all topography, planigraphy,
stratigraphy and typology data received in the
process of excavations or examination of objects
of Yavlenskiy microregion, several groups of
monuments are defi ned.
Group I (Yavlenka II, Michurinskaya I,
Bogolyubovo). The industry is characterized by
developed microlithic technology. Flint, jasper,
quartzite, stone rocks were used as raw material.
Chisel technology (angular, lateral and average
chisels), drills, items for piercing and carving,
plates with a blunt edge was broadly developed.
Scraper on splinters and plates are presented in a
small number.
Group II (Yavlenka VI, VII, Karluga III,
Bogolyubovo III). The technology is characterized
by gradual increase of the size of component parts
of insert tools and plates . Macroforms appear –
spearheads processed on both sides, large knives
and scrapers on splinters, edge planes on large
plates and splinters and single large symmetrical
trapezoids. The raw material is characterized by
homogeneity - tawny and gray jasper-like rock.
The pottery items are fragmentary, thin-sided,
with admixture of sand, gravel, ornamented with
comb prints.
Group III (Yavlenka IV, V, Karluga
IV, Bogolyubovo II, Bulayеvo I and others.).
Insert tradition is gradually disappearing from
technology. (pic. 35-29, 30 ), Whole or proximal
parts of plates of 5.7 cm long and to 2.5-3 cm
wide become oftener used as raw material items
for tools. Tools are dominated by plates with
retouching, scrapers on plates and splinters. The
number of chisel forms, compared to group II,
is relatively small. Arrowheads of a leaf-like and
willow-leaved form processed on both sides are
broadly distributed. The pottery items are also
fragmentary with comb prints in the form of «a
striding» element or horizontal lines.
Group IV (Yavlenka III, Michurinskoye
I (a complex of a later period), Novonikolskoye
V, Bogolyubovo I and others.). The collections
include mainly tools on splinters (scrapers, edge
planes, and arrowheads). Products on plates are
represented by tools with retouching, single edge
planes, piercers. Arrowhead types are of a stem-
like form, with a notch at the bottom, with a
straight or round pin.
The excavated monuments and a number of
examined points functionally are defi ned by us like
stops and sites. Workshops and settlements haven’t
been discovered here yet. However, a relatively
thick (toe 80 cm) cultural layer at a number of
points beside Bogolyubovo and Karluga villages
is indicative of appearance of such monuments,
since the ecological situation in the Holocene in a
broad valley of the Ishim River was favorable for
inhabitance of primitive people» groups and the
concentration of archeological objects there is the
evidence of that.
B - Vinogradovskiy:
Tyndyk IV; Berlinovka
I; Berlinovka II; Berlinovka III; Berlinovka IV;
Berlinovka V; Berlinovka VI; Berlinovka VII;
Berlinovka VIII; Berlinovka XI; Vinogradovka
I; Vinogradovka II; Vinogradovka III;
ATBASSR CULTURE
216
Vinogradovka IV; Vinogradovka V; Vinogradovka
VII; Vinogradovka VIII; Vinogradovka IX;
Vinogradovka XIV; Vinogradovka X; Vasilkovka;
Lineyevskoye I; Alekseyevka I; Sadovaya I;
Kenetkul I; Kenetkul II; Kenetkul III; Kenetkul
VI; Kenetkul VIII; Kenetkul IX; Troitskoye;
Vinogradovka VI; Krasniy Yar; Lineyevskoye II.
The considered objects are located at the
Chaglinka River in Kokchetav region. (pic. 1).
The major number of monuments is located in the
lower stream of the Chaglinka River northward of
Kokshetau city.
Coming from the stratigraphy and typology,
several chronological groups of monuments may
be defi ned in Vinogradovskiy microregion.
Group I (Vinogradovka II, the lower layer,
Vinogradovka XII). The cultural layer is located in
gray-brown loam and overlapped by sediments of
a later period (Vinogradovka II) or in the middle
loam under a thin humus layer (Vinogradovka
XII). Technically and typologically the materials
of these stop are dated the Mesolith period.
Group II (Vinogradovka II, the upper layer,
Vinogradovka XI). Mesolithic traditions remained
in the technology – making of inserts for component
tools. Mainly medial segments to 1-1.5 cm wide,
to 2 cm, rarely 3-5 cm were used as raw material.
The sets are represented by plates with retouching,
plates with a blunted end, angular chisels, cocked
edges, and single items with a blunted back side,
end and round scrapers, edge planes, plates with a
butt end notch and others.
Group III (Vinogradovka X, XII and others.).
The tools are characterized by varied set of micro-
and macroforms. Plates are used as inserts (table
60, I-II) and as separate tools - scrapers, knives,
edge planes and others. Products on splinters are
rather massive - edge planes, knives, scrapers.
There are many hard tools – hammer and ax-like
tools.
Group IV (Kenetkul VIII, Vinogradovka
VIII and others.) (Зайберт, Плешаков, 1978, p.
242-250). Plate industry is disappearing; there are
many scrapers and edge planes on splinters. The
plates are without retouching or with irregular
processed edges. Javelin arrowheads processed on
both sides are broadly distributed. These are stem-
like, «with drooping moustache», leaf-like with
an expressed stem or выемкой at the base. The
pottery items are ornamented using comb, point
and prick technique. The collection includes single
copper items.
The monuments of Akkan-Burluk
microregion are concentrated along the Akkan-
Burluk River and at the Ishim River in Kokchetav
region. One stop (Novomikhaylovskaya) is related
to the Paleolith, the rest ones - to Neolith.
Three stops are located on the right bank of
the Ishim, the rest (12 points) on both banks of the
Akkan-Burluk River.
Stationary studies haven’t been conducted
there yet. However, a number of perspective
monuments with stratigraphy and a good set
of items collected from the surface have been
discovered. These are the stops - Tendyk I, II,
Akkan-Burluk I-IV-and others (pic. 50-52).
It is interesting that the monuments are
grouped in the lower Akkan-Burluk stream and
the nearest areas of the Ishim River fl owing in a
narrow but divided valley.
C - Telmanskiy:
Magdalinovka I;
Magdalinovka II; Atbassar II; Timoshevka I;
Timoshevka II; Timoshevka III; Timoshevka IV;
Rodionovka I; Rodionovka II; Rodionovka III;
Kalinovka I; Telmana I; Telmana V; Telmana
IV; Telmana VII; Telmana VIII; Telmana IX;
Telmana X; Telmana XI; Telmana XIII; Telmana
XIV; Telmana XV; Telmana XVII; Telmana
XVIII; Vladimirovo-Borisovka I; Vladimirovo
-Borisovka II; Zhabay-Pokrovka I; Zhabay-
Pokrovka III; Poltavka I; Spasovka I; Vladimirovka
I; Novit Gorodok; Chaika; Novoselovka III;
Dobrovolskoye I; Krasnoselskoye; Krasnoselskoye
II; Krasnoselskoye III; Krasnoselskoye IV;
Krasnoselskoye V; Krasnoselskoye VI;
Krasnoselskoye VII; Kanyr I; Kanyr II; Kanyr
III; Kanyr IV; Kanyr V; Kanyr VI; Kanyr VIII;
Karagul; Ostrogorka; Ostrogorka II; Kapitonovka
I; Kapitonovka II; Ostrovka I; Ostrovka III;
Baksuk III; Novodonetskoye I; Novodonetskoye
II; Novodonetskoye III; Novodonetskoye IV;
Zhuravlevka I; Yaroslavka III; Yaroslavka;
Yaroslavka II; Ortyabr I; Pokrovka I; Petrovka
I; Petrovka II; Novokavkazka I; Novokubanka
I; Zhanaturmys I; Zhanaturmys II; Zhanaturmys
III; Sadubek I; Petropavlovka I; Bolshoy Maynak
ATBASSR CULTURE
|