227
in the Neolith mainly grey or reddish jasper-like
rock was used. However, no signifi cant changes
occurred in the technology of cutting. In the
Neolith nucleuses were prismatic, cone-shaped
and pencil-shaped, except wedge-shaped ones,
which were broadly distributed in the Mesolith.
Receivership also occurred in the nature of the
use of stockpile items. A set of tools of Neolithic
collections also refl ects the relationship with the
preceding Mesolithic epoch and appearance of
new forms due to economic requirements in a
new historical stage. In Neolith the technology
of chisel splintering and marginal retouching
of plates became anew developed. The Early
Neolithic tools were represented by lateral, angular
chisels originated from the Upper Paleolith, plates
with notch at a butt end, arrowheads on plates,
trapezoids, sweeps, edge planes and other items.
The technology of double-sided press
retouching based on bifacial technology of
beating over used in the Paleolith and Mesolith
was new. The Central to building This line of the
development of fl int industry from the Mesolith
to the Eneolith was designed based on fi eld
stratigraphic observations by the author.
Our observations and conclusions of soil-
science specialists are fully in line with the Scale
designed for Eurasia (Нейштадт, 1969, p. 5-12).
So, we may speak about the formed
Atbassar Neolithic culture of North Kazakhstan
on local Mesolithic basis. It should be noted that
in this case the term «local» means not only North
Kazakhstan, but also the nearest areas of Zauralye,
the West Siberia and Kazakhstan with similar
landscape and climatic conditions.
Experience in traceological analysis of
artifacts.
In the last quarter of the past millennium
the archeological science was signifi ed by
enormous accumulation of material fi nds and
scientifi c knowledge. Thousands of archeological
objects related to various periods of ancient
history have been discovered on the territory
of Kazakhstan and hundreds of them have been
studied for the last decades.
Archeological works in North Kazakhstan
have shown the prospect of studies and great
scientifi c value of excavations of ancient fi nds in
the area. The successful study of the Stone Age
of North Kazakhstan has allowed V.F.Zaibert
developing the periodization and chronology of
Mesolith and Neolith monuments of the Tobol-
Irtysh interfl uvial area, and stationary works on
Botay Settlement and other Eneolithic objects have
raised an issue on the appearance of integrated
production economy based on horse-breeding in
the partially wooded steppe zone.
When solving the issues of chronological
and typological-statistical nature of the Stone
Age, the issues of economic nature appeared on
the agenda. It is impossible to solve this aspect
of the general historical problem of the primitive
epoch without attraction the data of natural science
subjects including the experimental-traceological
method of artifact study.
The author of the work put the task on
solution the issues on economy of ancient tribes
of North Kazakhstan in the Mesolith and the
Neolith. The subject of study was the materials
of excavation of Atbassar culture monuments.
The archeological works were conducted and the
excavation materials were processed under the
direction or participation of the author practically
on all objects.
The territory of the microregion under
study occupies a partially wooded steppe area,
which was favorable both during appropriation
economy and during formation and development
of production economy forms. The animals,
particularly, large ungulate, in wild nature and
later in domestication conditions successfully used
vertical zone conditions of Kazakhstan upland and
partially wooded landscape with birch and aspen
clumps of woods that secured vegetable biomass
for animals all the year round.
The river network of the Ishim basin and
numerous former riverbed and watershed lakes
with rich fi sh stock allowed replenishing the food
ration of ancient population. On the territory of
North Kazakhstan there was suffi cient fresh water
stock for people and animals as well as to meet any
domestic and economic needs.
The material accumulated from the
monuments of the Stone Age of North Kazakhstan
represents a set of labor tools and production
wastes, mainly of Kazakhstan jasper-quartzite
rock, schist, sandstone and granite. All collections
ATBASSR CULTURE
228
(several thousand units), including labor tool
production wastes, were traceologically analyzed
to clarify the functions of separate tools and
reconstruct separate production and economy of
ancient population as a whole.
As a result of traceological studies of
artifacts the original functionality of labor tools
was identifi ed. This data was used to defi ne
economic complexes and separate production
activities on the stops. The subdivision of objects
into long-term, base settlement, temporary and
seasonal stops as well as workshop stops to process
material and make labor tools was confi rmed.
General characteristic of economic activity
of the ancient population of Mesolith and Neolith
was defi ned by means of functional analysis. It was
interesting to observe that within the framework of
hunting and fi shing activity pattern of production
prevalence of hunting or fi shing was identifi ed
at separate stops. So, specialization of economic
functions of separate human groups inhabiting
that or other stops began developing in the Early
Holocene already.
The results of functional analysis of
labor tools were checked in the conditions of
archeological expedition through the method of
modeling of separate operations and production
activities; similar jasper-quartzite rock was used
for that. The materials of monuments related to
complexes of different Neolith and Mesolith stages
(Vinogradovka II, Telmana XII, XIV, Yavlenka II,
Zhabay-Pokrovka I) were taken as a basis. The
results of traceological study of the collection of
Botay Settlement, conducted by G.F.Korobkova
were used for summarizing the material.
As a result of studies the new data
on economic activity of the tribes of North
Kazakhstan of the Mesolith and the Neolith period
is introduced into scientifi c use. The main activity
areas and fi ndings of the work were presented at the
meetings at experimental-traceological laboratory
of Saint Petersburg Institute of History of Material
Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
at reporting meetings at the Ural branch of the
Institute Archeology of the Russian Academy of
Sciences, at regional and international conferences
in Orenburg, Petropavlovsk, Chelyabinsk, at
reporting meetings at the Institute of Archeology
ATBASSR CULTURE
of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of
Kazakhstan and refl ected in published articles and
notes of the author.
Conclusion.
More than 300 objects of the
Stone Age, the major number of which relates to
the Neolith have been discovered by the employees
of North-Kazakhstan and Kokshetau archeological
expedition under the leadership of V.F. Zaibert
within North-Kazakhstan and Akmolinsk
regions in the period of 1967-2011. A practically
unexplored region of North Kazakhstan has
become one of the most studied in Eurasia owing to
archeologists-specialists from Petropavlovsk and
Kokshetau. Multifunction of objects (settlements,
workshops, stops and sites) has been defi ned based
on broad stationary excavations of monuments.
The collation of stratigraphy, planigraphy and
typology data in the studied microregions has
allowed developing periodization and determining
the chronology of the Neolith of North Kazakhstan
within the framework of Atbassar culture. Three
periods – the Early, the Middle and the Late
Neolith have been defi ned. The beginning pertains
to VI millennium, the end - to III millennium BC.
The studied area of North Kazakhstan
may be virtually included into a conditional
mictolithic cultural zone of Eurasia (according
to A. A. Formozov) as North-Kazakhstan ethnic
and cultural area. The Atbassat culture and its two
variants - Telman and Yavlen have been defi ned
within it. The Botay culture, which is in our point
of view one of the horse breeding cultures of that
time and the basis of preandronov substrata on the
territory of Eurasia, was formed on the basis on
this culture in the Late Neolith –Eneolith.
The authors consider that North-
Kazakhstan’s Neolith was formed on local
Mesolithic basis that, really, does not exclude
certain mutual contacts of the population and
innovations coming from the surrounding areas
during the Late Mesolith and Early Neolith.
It should be emphasized that the issues
raised during the work and solved to certain extent
have been actual and of interest for many years.
The problems directly connected with
reconstruction of cultural genesis, social structure
and world outlook of ancient population of the
steppe area of Kazakhstan are on the agenda.
229
ATBASSR CULTURE
At the present stage the study of North
Kazakhstan, considering the nature of studied
monuments (their compact location within narrow
microregions, functional signifi cance of objects
and a variety of stone tools) allows defi ning a high
role of technologies in activation of life support
system production and changing of personal and
social-public psychology of archeological culture
carriers.
So, for instance, judging by the topography
of the monuments, the Neolithic population of
North Kazakhstan located in the Ishim River basin
characterized by certain microclimate in contrast
with the surrounding steppe. A settled way of life
was typical of settlement areas in river valleys.
Depending on the season of the year and production
needs, the population moved from one region
to another. They moved mainly in the meridian
direction owing to extensive natural resources
use economy. The nature of material remainders
and studied objects are indicative of production
integration within primitive groups (according to
the results of trassological studies). Particularly, it
is demonstrated on the example of the workshops.
The last ones were seasonal, visited by ancient
craftsmen. Serial occurrence of various tool stocks
(scrapers, knives, edge planes and arrow heads)
are indicative not only of fabrication of tools, but
also of intensive labor activity related to primary
processing of hunting and fi shing products.
A varied set of tools and instruments
occurs at the settlements. This is a great number
of scrapers, knifes, cutters, sweeps, edge planes
and insert details of tools. For instance, more
than 700 scrapers on plates, moreover of different
blade confi guration - from round to fi gured forms,
have been found at Telman X settlement. Serial
occurrence of certain tool types is indicative of a
variety of production operations. Supposedly, that
was preconditioned also by the need in tanning
of a great number of animal hides, moreover
comparatively regularly supplied. It has been
also confi rmed by trassological analysis of tools.
In this connection the facts of animal bone fi nds
in the cultural layer of Neolithic monuments are
of interest. Their bad condition and fragmentary
nature of thgem does not allow providing more
detailed morphological characteristic.
The specifi ed facts, obviously, refl ect an
initial stage of animal domestication in the form
of taming that turned to classical domestication
and organization of the activity on selection of
certain animal breeds, whether the horse, cattle or
sheep. We consider that this issue has been raised
in due time, since serial occurrence of tool stocks
for processing of stock-breeding products and an
extended area of the settlements indicative of a
settled way of life may be explained in the light
of this hypothesis. Stratigraphic and planigraphic
observations at Botay settlement allow speaking
about interconnection of Botay settlers in the
Neolith and the Eneolith. Genetically, such
connection or cultural relationship will be defi ned
in future studies.
So, we may consider that during several
millenniums the Neolithic population of partially
wooded steppe Eurasia was not only adapting to
the environment (we may see that on the example
of extensive fi shing and hunting development
due to regional-meridian migration), but also
active interaction of the society and the nature is
observed. As a result of that a producing economy
was formed and ethnic and social structure of the
society had changed.
230
В пределах Северо-Казахстанской, Ак-
молинской областей в 1967–2011 гг. сотрудни-
ками Северо-Казахстанской и Кокшетауской
археологических экспедиций под руковод-
ством В.Ф. Зайберта в разные годы открыто
и исследовано более 300 объектов каменного
века, бо́льшая часть которых относится к не-
олиту. Благодаря археологам-специалистам
Петропавловска и Кокшетау практически неиз-
ученный регион Северного Казахстана превра-
тился в один их самых исследованных в Евра-
зии. На базе широких стационарных раскопок
памятников выявлена полифункциональность
объектов (поселения, мастерские, стоянки,
местонахождения). Сопоставление данных
стратиграфии, планиграфии и типологии в из-
ученных микрорайонах позволило разработать
периодизацию и наметить хронологию неоли-
та Северного Казахстана в рамках атбасарской
культуры. Выделено три периода – ранний,
средний, поздний неолит. Начало относится к
VI тыс., финал – к III тыс. до н.э.
Исследованная территория Северного
Казахстана может быть виртуально включена в
условную микролитическую культурную зону
Евразии (по А.А. Формозову) как Северо-Ка-
захстанская этнокультурная область. Внутри
нее выделена атбасарская культура и ее два
варианта – тельманский и явленский. На осно-
ве этой культуры в позднем неолите – энеоли-
те происходит сложение ботайской культуры,
представляющей, на наш взгляд, одну из коне-
водческих культур этого времени на террито-
рии Евразии и явившейся основой предандро-
новского субстрата.
Авторы считают, что североказахстан-
ский неолит складывается на местной мезо-
литической основе, что, естественно, не ис-
ключает определенных взаимных контактов
населения и инноваций с сопредельных терри-
торий на протяжении позднего мезолита и ран-
него неолита.
Следует подчеркнуть, что поставленные
в работе и в определенной степени решенные
вопросы на протяжении многих лет исследо-
ваний были актуальными и востребованными.
На повестку дня ставятся проблемы, непо-
ЗАКЛЮЧЕНИЕ
средственно связанные с реконструкцией куль-
турогенеза, социальной структурой и миро-
воззрением древнего населения степной зоны
Казахстана.
На настоящем этапе исследования Се-
верного Казахстана, учитывая характер изучен-
ных памятников (их компактное расположение
в пределах узких микрорайонов, функциональ-
ная направленность объектов, разнообразие ка-
менного инвентаря), можно говорить о важной
роли технологий в активизации производства
систем жизнеобеспечения и изменении лич-
ностной и социально-общественной психоло-
гии носителей археологических культур. Так,
судя по топографии памятников, неолитиче-
ское население Северного Казахстана обитало
в основном в бассейне Ишима, где создавался
определенный микроклимат, более благопри-
ятный по сравнению с окружающей степью. В
неолите наблюдалась значительная оседлость в
пределах конкретных зон обитаний, которыми
являлись долины рек. В зависимости от вре-
мени года и производственной необходимости
население переходило из одного района в дру-
гой. Подвижка происходила преимущественно
в меридиональном направлении, что объясня-
ется экстенсивностью присваивающего хозяй-
ства. Характер материальных остатков и самих
исследованных объектов свидетельствует о
производственной интеграции внутри перво-
бытных коллективов (результаты трасологи-
ческих исследований). Особенно наглядно это
видно на примерах мастерских, которые были
сезонными, в них работали древние мастера.
Серийность различного инвентаря (скребки,
ножи, скобели, наконечники стрел) свидетель-
ствует не только об изготовлении орудий, но и
об активной трудовой деятельности, связанной
с первичной обработкой продуктов охоты и ры-
боловства.
На поселениях обнаружен разнообраз-
ный набор орудий и инструментов. Это боль-
шое количество скребков, ножей, резцов,
разверток, скобелей, деталей вкладышевых ин-
струментов. Например, на поселении Тельмана
X найдено более 700 скребков на пластинах,
причем с различной конфигурацией лезвий –
231
от округлого до фигурного. Серийность опре-
деленных типов орудий косвенно указывает
на разнообразие производственных операций.
И можно предполагать, что это обусловлено
также необходимостью обработки больших
партий шкур животных, причем поступаю-
щих довольно стабильно. Это подтверждается
и трасологическим анализом орудий. В этой
связи интересны находки в культурном слое
неолитических памятников костей животных.
Их плохая сохранность и фрагментарность за-
трудняют более подробную морфологическую
характеристику.
Указанные факты отражают, видимо,
начальный этап одомашнивания животных в
форме приручения, переросшего в классиче-
скую доместикацию и организацию деятель-
ности по формированию определенных пород
животных, будь то лошадь, крупно- или мел-
корогатый скот. Думается, что постановка этой
проблемы вполне своевременна, ибо в разрезе
данной гипотезы находит объяснение серий-
ность инвентаря для обработки продуктов жи-
вотноводства, внушительная площадь самих
поселений, свидетельствующих об оседлости.
Имеются стратиграфические и планиграфиче-
ские наблюдения на поселении Ботай, дока-
зывающие взаимосвязь ботайского населения
в эпоху неолита и энеолита. Генетическая ли
это связь или культурная – будет определяться
в будущих исследованиях.
Таким образом, можно утверждать, что
на протяжении нескольких тысячелетий у не-
олитического населения лесостепной Евразии
происходила не только адаптация к окружаю-
щей среде (это мы видим на примере экстен-
сивного развития рыболовства и охоты за счет
регионально-меридиональных миграций), но и
активное взаимодействие человеческой среды
и природы, в результате которого появляется
производящая экономика и изменяется этносо-
циальная структура самого общества.
ЗАКЛЮЧЕНИЕ
232
ПОДРИСУНОЧНЫЕ ПОДПИСИ
СУРЕТТЕРГЕ ТҮСІНІКТЕМЕ
IMAGE RELATED TEXTS
1. А – Явленский; Б – Виноградовский; В –Тельманский; Г
– Акканский; Д – Кургальджинский микрорайоны. I – рас-
копанные; II – обследованные памятники
А – Явленка; Б – Виноградовка; В –Тельман; Г – Аққан;
Д – Қорғалжын ауданы. I –қазылған; II – зерттелген
ескерткіштер
А – Yavlenka; Б – Vinogradovka; В –Telman; Г – Akkan;
Д – Кurgalzhin micro-regions. I – excavated; II – examined
monuments
2, 3. Общий вид долины р. Ишим у с. Явленка
Есіл өзенінің Явленка а. жаныңдағы жалпы көрінісі
General view of the Ishim Rivervalley
4. Северо-восточная окраина с. Явленка. Вид на памят-
ники
Солтүстік шығыстағы Явленка а. шет аймағы.
Ескерткіштерге көрініс
Northeast outskirts of Yavlenka village. View of the monuments
5. Долина р. Ишим
Есіл өзенінің алқабы
The Ishim River valley
6–15. Общий вид долины р. Ишим у с. Явленка
Явленка а. Есіл өзені алқабының жалпы көрінісі
The General view of the IshimRiver valley at Yavlenkavil
16–19. Памятники в окрестности с. Бишкуль
Бишкуль а. аймағының ескерткіштері
Monuments in outskirts of Bishkulvil
20–24. Долина р. Ишим у с. Подгорное
Подгорное а. маныңдағы Есіл өзені алқабы
The Ishim River valley at Podgornoyevil
25, 26. Долина р. Ишим у с. Боголюбово
Боголюбова а. маныңдағы Есіл өзені алқабы
The Ishim River valley at.Bogolyubovovil
27. Долина р. Ишим у с. Красногорка
Красногорка а. маныңдағы Есіл өзені алқабы
The Ishim River valley at Krasnogorka vil
28, 29. Долина р. Ишим у с. Семипалатное
Семипалатное а. маныңдағы Есіл өзені алқабы
The Ishim River valley atSemipalatnoye vil
30. Общий план стоянок у с. Явленка: 1 – обрыв; 2 – рас-
копы; 3 – лесопосадки; 4 – район распространений на-
ходок; 5 – дорога; 6 – шоссе. I – пос. Явленка I; II – пос.
Явленка II; III – Явленка III; IV – Явленка IV; V – Явленка
V; VI – Явленка VI; VII – Явленка VII
Явленка а. маныңдағы тұрақтардың жалпы жоспары: 1
– жартас; 2 – жер қазу жұмыстары; 3 – егпе ағаштар;
4 – ескеркіштердің таралу аймағы; 5 – жол; 6 – тас жол.
I – Явленка; II – Явленка II, III – Явленка III; IV – Явленка
IV; V – Явленка V; VI – Явленка VI; VII – Явленка VII
General plan of sites near Yavlenka vil. 1 – cliff; 2 –
excavations; 3 – forest plantations; 4 – district of fi ndings
location; 5 – road; 6 – highway; I –Yavlenka vil.; II –Yavlenka
II vil., III – Yavlenka III vil., IV – Yavlenka IV vil., V – Yavlenka
V, VI – Yavlenka VI vil.; VII – Yavlenka VII vil
31. Момент раскопок стоянки Явленка VI
Явленка VI тұрағында қазба жұмыстары
The moment of site excavation Yavlenka VI
32. Стратиграфия памятников у с. Явленка: 1 – Явленка
III; 2 – Явленка IV; 3 – Явленка V: а – гумус; б – серый
гумусированный суглинок; в – темный гумусированный
суглинок; г – материк; д – супесь; 4 – Явленка VII
Явленка а. маныңдағы ескерткіштердің стратиграфия-
сы: 1 – Явленка III; 2 – Явленка IV; 3 – Явленка V; а – гу-
мус; б – сұр түсті балшықты жер; в – қарашірікті сазды
топырақ; г – құрлық; д – құмды қыртыс; 4 – Явленка VII
Stratigraphy of monuments near Yavlenka vil.: 1 – Yavlenka
III; 2 – Yavlenka IV; 3 – Yavlenka V; a – humus; б – grey
humus loam; б – dark humus loam; г – subsoil; д – sandy
loam; 4 – Yavlenka VII
33. Кремневые изделия: 1–5 – Явленка III; 6, 7 – Рассвет
I; 8, 9 – Бирлик II; 10–12 – Карлуга III
Шақпақ тастан жасалған бұйымдар: 1–5 – Явленка III;
6, 7 – Рассвет I; 8, 9 – Бірлік II; 10–12 – Карлуга III
Pottery: 1–5 – Yavlenka III; 6, 7 – Rassvet I; 8, 9 – Birlik II;
10–12 – Karluga III
34. Стоянка Явленка IV
Явленка IV тұрағы
Yavlenka IV site
35. Кремневые изделия памятников: 1, 3, 4 – Карлуга III; 2
– Боголюбово VI; 5–12 – Ильинка II; 13–16 – Куприяновка
I; 17, 18 – Боголюбово II; 19, 20 –Енбек I; 21–30 –Явленка
V
Шақпақ тастан жасалған бұйымдар; 1, 3, 4 – Карлуга
III; 2 – Боголюбово VI; 5–12 – Илинка II; 13–16 – Купри-
яновка; 17, 18 – Боголюбово II; 19, 20 – Еңбек I; 21–30
– Явленка V
Flint itemsat the monuments: 1, 3, 4, – Karluga III; 2 –
Bogolyubovo VI; 5–12 – Ilinka II; 13–16 – Kupriyanovka; 17,
18 – Bogolyubovo II; 19, 20 – Enbek I; 21–30 – Yavlenka V
36. Стоянка Явленка VI. План раскопа: I –гумусирован-
ный суглинок; 2 – гумус
Явленка VI тұрағы. Қазба жұмыстарының жоспары: I –
қарашірікті сазды топырақ; 2 – гумус
Yavlenka site VI. Plan of excavation: I – humused loam soil;
2 – humus
|