217
I; Zaimka I; Lugovoye II; Lugovoye I; Aktyube
I; Algabas I; Tavolzhanka I; Tavolzhanka
II; Novocherkasskoye I; Novocherkasskoye
II; Novoselovka II; Novodonetskoye VIII;
Novodonetskoye VI; Novodonetskoye IX;
Novodonetskoye X; Novodonetskoye VII;
Popovka I; Poltavka II; Prigorodnoye I; Sargary
IV; Sargary V; Sargary III; Telmana III; Noviy
Gorordok II.
Here, we have conditionally united a rather
great number of objects located in Atbassar
Priishimye. Mainly this is a latitude length of
the Ishim including the monuments located at
tributaries at the right bank of the Ishim - Zhabay,
Arshaly, Zhilandy, Aschily and left Koluton.
Stationary studies were produced mainly
near Telman village situated at 30 km southeastward
of Atbassar and beside Pokrovka village at the
Zhabay River at 40 km northeastward of Atbassar.
Telmanskiy mictoregion in contrast with
other microregions have been studied through
stationary excavations to fuller extent. The
monuments, as it is clear from topography,
planigraphy and typology characteristic, are
of different functionality and, accordingly,
chronology. Based on typological and statistical
processing of excavated objects, several groups of
monuments were also defi ned.
Group I (Telmana VII, VIIIa, IXa, XIVb).
Of which Telimana VIIIa according to its occupied
area and available constructions may be related to
the class of settlements. The rest monuments were
defi ned as stops. It should be noted that the tools
found at the stop are nearly similar. Particularly,
this concerns the nature of industry - insert plate
technology with combination of items of splinters
(high scrapers). The raw material is varied. The
form of nucleuses is prismatic, wedge-shaped
and cone-shaped. Their height rarely exceeds 6
cm. The main types of products are plates with a
blunted back side, micro chisels - angular, lateral,
average chisels, parallelograms, items for carving,
plates with a cocked edge and others.
Group II (Telmana I, VIIIb, X, XIV, Zhabay-
Pokrovka I). It is characterized by the following:
use of homogeneous raw material – jasper-like
rock of grey or tawny color. The technology is
characterized by remained insert nature, but in
contrast with the plates from the monument of
the fi rst group, the proportion of items used as
raw material is changing. As one can see from
the graphs, the inserts are close to square 1.5 x
1.5 or 1.5 x 2 cm. Along with that, there are large
proximal plates of 3 cm wide and more than 5
cm long. The set is characterized by the variety
of forms and types: lateral, angular chisels, items
for carving, edge planes, trapezoids, arrowheads
on plates, plates with notches and others. The most
numerous items are end scrapers on plates and
round scrapers on splinters.
The pottery items are fragmentary, but
rather expressive. They are of ovate form with an
open neck, the diameter is 16-20 cm. The pottery
is thin-sided (0.4-0.6 cm), a fragment is slightly
burnt» with admixture of large sand, gravel and
vegetation remainders.
Group III (Telmana XV, Zhabay-Pokrovka
III, Zaimka I, Magdalinovka I and others.).
Insert traditions in the technology are gradually
disappearing and the technology of double-sided
processing of plates and splinters is distributed.
The set includes knives on splinters, knives on
plates with an expressed hand, the points on
plates and splinters are processed on both sides,
spearheads processed with fl ow retouching. The
pottery items are thin-sided, ornamented with a
comb «striding» print, wave lines and prick points.
Group IV (Telmana IXb, XII, XIII and
others.). Plate technology gas been practically not
used. Items of forms and splinters processed on
both sides - arrowheads, javelin heads, spearheads,
knives, scrapers and edge planes are broadly
distributed. The raw material, of which the tools
are made, is represented by large-granular quartzite
of poor quality, rarely – by a jasper-like rock. The
pottery items with thick sides are ornamented with
comb prints and point pressing.
Telmana IXb monument is a workshop,
the rest ones are seasonal stops of fi shermen-
huntsmen.
Group V (Telmana XIVb, XVII and others.).
Flint products are presented by arrowheads of a
leaf-like, stem form with notch at the base. They
are processed on both sides by press retouching.
There are scrapers on splinters and macroforms
- axes, chisel-like tools, small hoes, small spin
items, sinkers and other stock.
ATBASSR CULTURE
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
|