222
expressed elements of the Neolith of Siberia
and Central Asia, so, becoming mixed culture
nature...» The conclusions are absolutely correct,
unless the possibility of chronological difference
of the complex is taken into account, since nearly
all types of items from Neolithic monuments of
North Kazakhstan (except trapezoids) were found
in Ust-Narym. When dating the monument the
really Late Meolithic (of Eneolithic complexes)
types were used by S. S. Chernikov, F. Korobkova
and A. P. Okladnikov (Окладников, 1950, p. 315).
When our materials were collated with
Karaganda XV, Zelenaya Balka 24 stop it turned
out that they were too similar technologically and
typologically. The same principle of insert use, a
great number of trapezoids and chisels occurred.
Arrowheads on plates similar to items from
Telmana I, X, Michurinskaya I were found.
A part of Karaganda XV collection is similar
to Late Neolithic and Eneolithic complexes of
North Kazakhstan. These are, for instance, double-
sided arrowheads with notch in the base and other
types (layer II according to M. N. Klapchuk
(Клапчук, 1965, p. 212).
The stops of North-East Kazakhstan
explored by L. A. Chaika are also similar to
many Mesolithic, Early Neolithic and Eneolithic
monuments. Petky I stop is similar to Telmana
I, X (except Mesolithic forms) (Чалая, 1971, p.
14). Karaturgay points are also synchronized from
Mesolith to Eneolith.
In Priaralye Agispe stop and a number of
tools of Saksaulsk I stop are most similar to Early
Neolithic monuments. Their early age (within
Neolith) was noted by A. P. Okladnikov, A. V.
Vinogradov (Виноградов, 1968, p. 135), A. A.
Formozov, who published these materials dated
them III millennium (Формозов, 1949, p. 49-58;
Формозов, 1950, p. 141-147).
Certain similarity occurs at comparing
Kostanay monuments located at the Tobol River
with the Ishim ones. The stops published by K.
V. Salnikov (Сальников, 1962, p. 16), A. A.
Formozov (Формозов, 1951, p. 3-18), V. N.
Logvin are of mixed nature. Several points, which
are rather uniform chronologically, are the most
interesting.
The fi rst monument is Amangeldy I stop
excavated by V. N. Logvin (Логвин , 1977, p.
270-275). The author of the excavations, and then
L. Y. Krizhevskaya (Крижевская, 1975, p. 161)
dated it IV-III millennium B.C. In our point of
view it should be dated the Early Neolith, since
all characteristics – raw material, technology of
cutting and a set of items - the collection is similar
to materials of Telmana X type.
Anther monument, Evgenievka I was
studied through collecting fi nds from the surface.
The collection is mixed. V. N. Logvin synchronized
the stop with Dzhebela Va layer and dates it within
IV millennium B.C. When viewing the collection
typically Mesolithic forms were observed.
So, the defi
ned periodization and
chronology on the materials of Priishimye refl ects
the regularities in the development of the material
culture of Neolithic population in general in the
major area of Kazakhstan. This, certainly, doesn’t
exclude certain chronological shifts, cultural
particularity of separate regions of the republic in
the Mesolith – Neolith period.
Let’s make some conclusions: till the 70s
the periodization of the Neolith of Kazakhstan
(including North Kazakhstan) was based on little
material and depended on the state of development
of this issue in surrounded areas of Central Asia,
West Siberia and the Ural.
Due to NKAE’s activity it became possible
to observe the regularity of the development of the
material culture in the Neolith, the initial stages of
which are dated no later than VI millennium B.C.,
and in III millennium the fi rst metal appears.
The periodization and chronology will be
further detailed on the basis of new materials of
different regions of Kazakhstan.
Objectively, the issue on cultural relation
of Neolithic monuments of Kazakhstan was not
raised in literature till the 60s and not touched upon
indirectly in the process of the polemics concerning
the relation of the Ural and Central Asian Neolith
(Чернецов,1947, p. 56). Meantime, Neolithic
materials, though received from the collections,
but rather numerous for general understanding of
the nature of industry in the region were known in
Kazakhstan (Археологическая карта Казахста-
на, 1960, p.223).
ATBASSR CULTURE
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
|