Читать бесплатно онлайн книгу автора  Nomadic History of Ulytau. How Nomads Built a Medieval Civilization — and Why Ulytau Was Its Center

Muhtar Baqytuly

Contents

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful!

Whatever the circumstances, to revive the good names of our ancestors and renew historical remembrance of the deeds and words of past generations is a sign of sanctity.

Yet this blessed work is attainable only through the efforts of worthy and distinguished descendants, and of respected heirs under the guardianship of the Lord of the Worlds and with the approval of the Almighty.

(Rashid al-Din Fadlallah Hamadani)

Dedicated to the 30th Anniversary of the Independence of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Introduction

In this book we recount the history of the Ulytau region, drawing on the works of medieval chroniclers, researchers of the Imperial and Soviet periods, the results of archaeologists’ and anthropologists’ work, as well as studies by contemporary scholars.

Any attempt to adapt existing historiography to the everyday texture of events in a given period has a right to error and may be challenged by alternative lines of interpretation. For that reason, we do not compel anyone to treat what is written here as sacred scripture; we merely offer our own reading of these events.

Medieval chronicles are of particular importance for research like ours, because they were closer to the events we discuss. Gardizi, al-Biruni, al-Idrisi, Rashid al-Din, Abulgazi, and others left a treasure of historical information for modern inquiry. Their works open new horizons for the local study of the Ulytau region.

Imperial Russian historiography provides information through a Eurocentric lens, yet it also preserves a number of facts that — down to the smallest detail — shed light on various aspects of steppe life among the “Kirghiz.” The detailed study of Kazakhstan became a necessity under the colonization of Kazakh clan lands; therefore expeditions sent by Tsarist Russia sought to convey thorough information about the history, geography, and ethnography of local inhabitants.

The official historiography of the Soviet state, packing its voluminous publications with the pathos of propaganda, naively believed it was engaged in the “sacred task” of educating the rising new generation; in doing so it moved one-sidedly away from the very essence of presenting history, erasing facts inconvenient to ideology and sometimes crossing out entire periods of history. Yet even here Soviet academics and professors managed to conceal valuable — one might say encoded — information on various topics. If the authors of studies ran into the need to emphasize the significance of events as “feudal survivals” or “exploitative elements,” they had to glorify V. Lenin as an extraordinary historian and the founder of the Soviet school of historiography.

The ideological concealment of another side of history created a vacuum for revealing this unstudied side over the past thirty years. If, in Soviet historiography, opponents of the Soviets appeared to the reader as nothing but “rebels,” “bandits,” “Basmachi,” and “enemies of the people,” then after the fall of the Soviet Union research, on the contrary, often shifted into the mode of “condemning” everything associated with the Bolsheviks.

Local-history works on the history of Ulytau written during the years of independence can be counted on one’s fingers. Moreover, many of them were written not by professional historians or local enthusiasts, but by people hunting for a way to fill an empty niche in national history. Often these were philologists or journalists who could elegantly spin an invented plot, mythologizing the essence of the narrative, while lacking basic source-critical knowledge.

A lack of chronological order, deep study of chronicles and sources, the authors’ lack of courage to depart from traditional principles ingrained — again — by the same Soviet ideology, and, in general, a fear of “getting hit on the head” in debates with dilettante circles that are always ready to politicize any “extraordinary” research, have led to various errors. For example, the redoubt of a Siberian Cossack regiment was taken for a medieval fortified settlement and to this day is called Khan ordasy. Bolgan Ana is perceived as the daughter of Jochi Khan, and Dombaul has been “made younger” to the time of Chinggis Khan and is even named the father of Ketbuqa.

On the one hand, such mistakes are unforgivable for historiography; on the other, they create a field of work for us. Our task is to correct all these shortcomings, substantiating every correction in this book.

Our narrative is more informational than interpretive, because we are still at the stage of filling gaps in the historiography of the Ulytau region. The first encyclopedia in the region’s history — Ulytau. Ulytau audany. Encyclopedia, published under the editorship of S. S. Kozhakhmetov — was only an attempt to take a first step toward a detailed study of Ulytau’s history and to gather articles of an encyclopedic nature into a single volume. At the same time, it was a continuation of the scholarly research of the region by Alkey Margulan and Zhuman Smailov, and of the publicistic study by Kuanysh Akhmetov. The encyclopedia pursued the goal of collecting these details in short entries without deep scholarly analysis and without involving, in the editorial board, scholars who had studied these topics professionally.

The direction we have chosen for this book is a continuation, a synthesis, or perhaps even a conclusion of all the inquiries we have conducted in recent years while bringing the history of the Ulytau region to light. Event-based studies of Ulytau were often limited to the period of Chinggisid rule or the Kazakh Khanate, while in descriptions of architectural and archaeological monuments authors frequently explained their origins superficially — presenting the first convenient viewpoint without searching for alternative hypotheses.

In order to dedicate our work to a broader readership and taking into account society’s growing demand today for “historical nourishment,” we tried to reduce the academic dryness of our work. Of course, it is difficult to follow this approach strictly: if medieval chronicles give us fragmentary information, then nineteenth- and twentieth-century archives, by contrast, abound in detailed statistics.

Scholarly and chronicle-based attention to Ulytau runs through world historiography from Herodotus and Strabo to modern archaeological investigations. Ancient Greek historians left valuable information about the Saka-Issedones, whose royal burial mounds still adorn the western spurs of the Ulytau mountains near Kulmagan and the Erden mausoleum. In Soviet historiography, the Issedones are known under the ethnonym “Chud.” Muhammad al-Idrisi, Gardizi, and al-Biruni wrote about the Ulytau Oghuz.

At the same time, during the era of Chinggisid rule, Ulytau became a kind of forbidden or protected zone — a qoruk (khoruk) — a place for the burial of kings and khagans, to which outsiders were not admitted. We do not encounter any testimony about the life and customs of Ulytau as a horde or as the center of the Ulus of Jochi in the works of medieval travelers and Catholic missionaries such as William of Rubruck, John of Plano Carpini, and Marco Polo, although some modern researchers attempt to change or shift their geographical information onto the territory of Ulytau.

Only in the time of Emir Timur do Central Asian chroniclers begin to write about Ulytau. On the campaigns into the Kazakh steppe of Abdullah II and Timur, Shash and Samarkand chronicles reported. “Abu’l-Ghazi writes about Ulytau, ‘which is well known.’ We draw a detailed genealogy of the Jochids from Qadyrgali Zhalayiri.”

With the strengthening of the Muscovite state and the territorial expansion of the Romanov Empire, diplomatic missions and military expeditions began to arrive in Ulytau ever more frequently. They carefully studied the region’s geography, history, traditions, and the everyday life of the local population. Especially under Peter I, the collection of archaeological material from the “frontier lands” began, including from Kazakhia. This process unfolded against the backdrop of predatory excavations carried out by so-called “kurgan diggers,” who had nothing to do with archaeology. They pursued a single goal — to profit from gold artifacts. “As early as January 1716, a collection of gold objects was received from M. P. Gagarin: plaques depicting lions and other animals. In December, another batch of gold items arrived.” (Rudenko, 1962, p. 11).[1]

Rich material on Ulytau is also provided by the travel diary of Captain N. P. Rychkov, written during his journey in 1771. Rychkov was attached to punitive troops sent in pursuit of the Volga Torghuts. In Kazakhstan’s history this episode is known as the “Dusty Campaign.”

A work that is openly destructive for the historiographic tradition surrounding “Chinggisism” is Ya. P. Gaverdovsky’s Survey of the Kirghiz-Kaisak Steppe, published in 1804, where the role of Ulytau is presented in a completely different light in the interpretation of the history of Chinggis Khan’s empire. We devoted special attention to this work because in the research community it is recognized as a book providing encyclopedic information.

Information about monuments in the Karatorgay River valley and the Arganaty Mountains was left by A. Geins, whose article — devoted to the results of his expedition — was published in 1898. Descriptions of Ulytau’s archaeological sites were recorded by the engineer A. P. Shrenk, and in P. K. Uslor’s diary we find notes on kurgans located in the foothills of Ulytau and along the Kengir River.

A. I. Levshin’s historical topography, M. Krasovsky’s notes, and the materials of Sh. Ualikhanov are invaluable sources for researchers of the Ulytau region. Of particular importance for writing our book were the Materials on Kirghiz Land Use, which provide a detailed topographical and statistical description of the area we study.

The materials on historical monuments that K. I. Satbayev gives in his works became a guide to the direction of our work — not only for us, but for all researchers of our region. The multi-volume work of A. Kh. Margulan further enriched the source base on Ulytau, while the archaeological data of Zh. E. Smailov became foundational material in our work on the book.

This entire source base made it possible for us to radically revise interpretations of historical events across different periods. The reason is that studying the full range of material in no way allows one to remain within the framework of traditional historiography, which took shape under the diktat of Soviet ideology.

The Stalinist standardization of Kazakhs’ historical consciousness and the complete Sovietization of society begin in 1928. Religious upbringing was displaced by atheism; national spiritual and material values became hidden attributes of life; historical scholarship became an obedient servant of Bolshevik ideology; and many studies by Kazakh historians who presented a realistic picture of Kazakhstan’s past were declared pseudoscientific works with a “nationalist bias.”

The main goal of Stalinist historiography was to create prerequisites for uprooting the historical memory of the Turkic peoples and for a systemic erasure from self-awareness of the former greatness of nomadic civilization. This process proceeded on many fronts: through the forcible imposition of class struggle, persecution of “dissenting nationalists,” and the driving of the research community into rigid limits under ideological pressure.

The generations of the 1930s–40s still managed to inherit at least some values from the previous bearers of historical knowledge — those who miraculously survived the famines of the 1920s and 1930s, as well as the mass repressions carried out throughout the Stalinist tyranny. But the generation of the 1950s–60s ultimately absorbed Soviet ideology as a lens of spiritual development, and it is precisely they who, in the years of Independence, experience a painful process of modernizing historical consciousness. We hope to make a modest contribution to restoring what was lost during the period of ideological diktat — namely, the logic of our national historiography.

Through the prism of Kazakhstan’s historical heritage, in our view, Ulytau should be considered as a political center of Iron Age and medieval states. By separating the ruling headquarters — ordos/camps — from other historical and archaeological monuments of Ulytau into a distinct group of architectural and material values, we pursue the aim of highlighting the role of these monuments as a fundamental feature in interpreting historical processes in the region and their influence on the formation of medieval nomadic states and on the development of the region’s political, economic, and socio-cultural life.

The main ideas of our book took shape over many years through the study of the literature whose list we, in keeping with historiographic tradition, provide at the end. No historical work can do without references to the studies of scholars from different eras. In working on the book, we returned to the pages of these works in order to recall specific moments and to emphasize focused themes through citations.

To avoid misunderstandings in the interpretation of the context of individual studies, the excerpts we took from various works are placed in quotation marks and italicized. Moreover, in most cases we refrained from commenting on reports summarizing the archaeological work of A. Margulan and Zh. Smailov and considered it appropriate — by italicizing — to provide full descriptions of these works in the form in which those records are presented in their writings.

As L. N. Gumilev noted, “the problem of excessive information occupied the best minds of historians” thousands of years before us. A vast number of historical facts can fatigue the reader, so we considered it appropriate to concentrate attention on a specific classification of the region’s historical monuments, using a large number of footnotes — so as not to stray far from the topic and, at the same time, to provide complete information on the points under consideration.

In our view, local history studies have always played a leading role in the detailed exploration of a particular theme, which has consistently had a productive effect on research results. This is explained by the fact that studying a local territory does not scatter us across immense steppe spaces, but instead concretizes the historical fact through a clear understanding of all the characteristic features of the region being studied.

In our research we adhered to the principle of studying history strictly in accordance with reliable documentary facts, material evidence, archaeological data, and medieval chronicles. Relying on information about the results of archaeological excavations, one must keep in mind that the artifacts found — like the cultural layer, wall ruins, and so on — are residual materials of research. And medieval sources may have been written by chroniclers who pursued particular political or propaganda aims — for example, to glorify the ruler at whose court the author of the chronicle resided.

Therefore, the facts we propose are open to discussion and are not a final verdict in the study of any single problem. At the same time, one must not forget that, when disagreeing with a given position, it is necessary to present evidence for one’s refutation. This is because some opponents simply disagree for the reason that they lack sufficient information and a chain of logical reasoning on the topic.

The viewpoints of individual researchers cited in the book should be perceived only as a detonator for reflection on a given problem and not as grounds for a definitive conclusion. This also applies to the oral genealogical traditions — shezhire — on which researchers of various historiographic periods rely, and which play a significant role in assembling the mosaic picture of historical facts. Despite certain inaccuracies, etymological distortions, and mythologization, shezhire have every right to be used in historians’ works as a source.

We, for our part, seek to demonstrate that nomadism as a way of life functioned as an economic component within the economic systems of medieval steppe states, and that metallurgical settlements and major trade centers played an important role in their life — an inevitable coexistence under the political hegemony of medieval steppe peoples.

On the territory of Ulytau District — or, as the geographical name is often used, Western Saryarka — there is a whole series of ancient and medieval monuments covering the period from the Paleolithic to the modern era. However, the conventional boundaries of the Ulytau region diverge somewhat from today’s administrative-territorial borders. For example, the settlement of Olke lies within the administrative territory of Zhanaarka District, although it forms part of the complex of Ulytau’s unfortified towns of the Ak Orda period; and Tanbaly Nura — the principal rock-documentary “signature” of Ulytau as a symbol of steppe unity — is located in the territory of South Kazakhstan Region, only 20 km from the administrative border of Ulytau District.

The conditional historical-geographical boundaries of Ulytau were first proposed by Ya. P. Gaverdovsky by defining the natural characteristics of the Ulytau Mountains. The next regional features were described by the officer Krasovsky, and in 1897 the Chermak expedition determined the topographical boundaries of Atbasar Uyezd, thereby delineating the territory of the Ulytau region. In Soviet times all these data were supported by K. I. Satbayev. In 1935, in an article on this topic published in the newspaper Sotsialistík Qazaqstan, he defined the main boundaries of the region with an area of approximately 100,000 km².

In the 1990s, archaeologist Zhuman Smailov — who over 20 years conducted archaeological excavations and made a major contribution to the study of the region — proposed clear spatial parameters for considering Ulytau’s historical sites, based on fieldwork and large-scale excavations. In his view, the boundaries of the complex of Ulytau archaeological monuments run as follows: in the north — from the upper reaches of the Terysakkan and Karatorgay rivers; in the east — from the middle course of the Sarysu River and Mount Zheldyadyr; in the south — from the expanses of the Betpak-Dala desert; in the west — the Aral Karakums and the valleys of the Uly Zhylandsik and Karatorgay rivers. These spaces have since ancient times been inhabited by farmers, herders, miners, and metallurgists.

An enormous scholarly contribution to the study of the region was made by A. Margulan, K. Satbayev, N. Valukinsky, A. Kuznetsov, S. Zholdasbayev, Zh. Kurmankulov, Zh. Smailov, and others. The first comprehensive archaeological study of Ulytau’s historical and cultural heritage was carried out by Alkey Margulan, who, beginning in 1946, over nearly 30 years gradually discovered the region’s archaeological sites. The work he began as head of the Central Kazakhstan Archaeological Expedition (hereafter — CKAE) continues to this day.[2]

Relying on the material listed above, below we will speak about the formation, flourishing, and decline of nomadism in the specific Ulytau region. We hope that this work will make it possible to view the history of our land in a new — and more distinct — way.

 An artifact is an object made by humans; a product of human activity.

 CKAE — Central Kazakhstan Archaeological Expedition.

Chapter I. The Earliest Campsites, Metallurgical and Pastoral Settlements of Ulytau

When we speak of Ulytau, we refer to the entire low-mountain chain of Western Sary-Arka that connects three parts of the mountain cluster: the northern part — Arganaty; the central and highest part — Ulytau; and the southern part — Kishitau. Ulytau is the oldest mountain massif in Kazakhstan by geological age, occupying the western part of the Karaganda Region. The main mountain body consists of bare, rocky granite dissected by gorges, where runoff channels function predominantly in spring. On the slopes, rich in underground reservoirs of meltwater, birch and poplar groves are encountered. The north – south extent of Ulytau is approximately 200 km. The highest point is Mount Aulietau (Akmêshit), 1,131 m. Geographically, Ulytau stretches from the upper reaches of the Terysakkan River in the north to Lake Telikol in the south, and from the headwaters of the Uly Zhylandsik River in the west to the middle course of the Sarysu River in the east.

If Ulytau is geographically set apart within a territory defined by a mountain massif, then the historical and political significance of the Great Mountains extends across vast spaces of Eurasia. Ulytau embodies the significance of political power that nomads projected onto these expanses during the Iron Age and the Middle Ages. From here the mungul troops of Oghuz Khagan began their path of conquest. Here swept the hordes of the Huns, seeking their place in a steppe that was fading as a result of the Great Drought. Ulytau became a place of revival of the mungul state in the person of the Oghuz. From here the Kangar – Pechenegs departed for the Ukrainian steppes, pressed by the Oghuz. Ulytau became the political center of the Chinggisids. Here, in 1223, Chinggis Qaghan established the headquarters (stavka) of the largest ulus — the Ulus of Jochi.

The Ulytau region occupies a special place in historical scholarship in light of the study of events that unfolded over many centuries of human history. In the words of historians, Ulytau is renowned as a rich informational and material treasury of the mungul, Kangar – Pecheneg, Oghuz, Ak Orda, and Kazakh periods in the history of the Great Steppe. It was a place of consolidation of steppe power that controlled the transit of goods carried by merchants along the banks of rivers in the Sarysu basin.

Having examined the results of archaeological research over the last hundred years, we came to the conclusion that settlement of the Ulytau region occurred in the Middle Paleolithic (140,000–40,000 BCE), when the Great Flood of the Prophet Nuh (Noah) took place. With the sudden onset of the Ice Age 100,000 years ago, the waters receded, and the descendants of Nuh dispersed across the land. The lineage of his eldest son, Japheth, began to master the expanses of what is now Kazakhstan.

Approximately in the 13th millennium BCE, the glacier that had covered much of the Northern Hemisphere began to melt. Thus the Ice Age came to an end. The period of melting of ice up to 2,000 meters thick corresponds to the appearance of the first campsites on the territory of the Ulytau region.

Such an assumption may well correspond to the Qur’anic and Biblical narratives of those events to which Rashid al-Din, Qadyrgali Zhalayiri, and Abu’l-Ghazi refer in their genealogical chronicles. According to the above-mentioned chronicle and genealogical traditions, as a result of that flood only those who were in the Ark survived; and according to Abu’l-Ghazi, after the Ark moored “to a mountain named Judi,” “all the people who disembarked from the ship fell ill. The Prophet Nuh, his three sons, and his three daughters-in-law recovered; all the other people died.”[1]

After this, the Prophet Nuh sends his sons to different parts of the world — to develop uninhabited spaces and to multiply the human lineage. He sent the eldest son, Japheth, to the north; Ham — to the land of Hindustan; and Shem — to the land of Iran. Japheth settled in the interfluve of the Itil and the Yaik. He had numerous descendants from eight sons — Türk, Khazar, Saqlab, Rus, Ming, Chin, Kemeri, and Tauarikh.

In the Jāmi{{ʿ}} al-Tawārīkh, Rashid al-Din links the time of Japheth’s life activity with the formation of nomadism as the principal economic way of life of his state. At the same time, the chronicler characterizes Japheth as a ruler who established a form of governance based on the foundations of Sharia.

Naturally, the reader may object: How can that be? Islam arose in the 7th century, whereas the events under discussion took place long before that. Yes, that is so. But Islam as a religion was formalized after the final, definitive message came from the Almighty. Before that, He sent down to earth more than 120,000 prophets who explained to their peoples the words of the Lord of the Worlds.

n 1967, M. N. Klapchuk discovered the site Obalysai-1, located 4 km southwest of the former village of Zhetykonyr. During excavations, stone artifacts were found — pebbles, cores, and choppings. Klapchuk attributed Obalysai-1 to the end of the Lower and the beginning of the Middle Pleistocene, that is, to around 400,000 years ago.[2][3][4]

In the early 2000s, archaeological research on Ulytau’s Stone Age sites resumed. As a result of the CKAE’s work from 2001 to 2012, in the very first year O. A. Artyukhova, D. S. Baygunakov, and G. T. Bekseitov discovered 11 monuments in the Taldysai microdistrict dating from the Paleolithic to the Eneolithic. These include the sites of Toktagul, Ulken Zhezdy, Taldysai-3, Ayakbulak, Taldybulak-1,2,3, Tasbulak, and Sarybulak-1,2,3.

Research at the Ulken Zhezdy site made it possible to conclude that the Taldysai microdistrict was inhabited in the Late Paleolithic, approximately in the 13th millennium BCE, precisely with the onset of glacial melting. Radiocarbon dating of Toktagul established human activity at the site on the boundary of the 7th–3rd millennia BCE.

The first settlers engaged in hunting and gathering. This is evidenced by artifacts recovered from the microdistrict’s cultural layer. Excavations revealed bone remains of kulan, argali, aurochs, saiga, as well as single bones of elk and horse. This was facilitated by favorable climatic conditions of that time, which correspond to the Atlantic period of the Holocene, characterized by dense vegetation, humid air, and abundant precipitation.[5]

In the 3rd millennium BCE, climate aridization begins, leading to soil erosion and a reduction in precipitation. Accordingly, this results in a decline in wild animal populations, increased risk for farming, and growth in the number of domestic animals. This is indicated by the fact that in all Eneolithic layers — alongside the bones of kulan, goitered gazelle, saiga, and argali — bones of domestic animals were found: horse, cattle, and small ruminants.[6]

Across all Taldysai settlements, archaeologists uncovered tens of thousands of blades, inserts for composite tools, scrapers made from flakes and blades, and artifacts in siliceous siltstones and argillites. In the upper part of the Eneolithic layer at Toktagul, fragments of ceramics, pieces of ore, and slag were found, indicating the beginning of metallurgy in the region.[7][8]

One of the unique objects for archaeological study within the Baskamyr complex is the settlement of ancient metallurgists at Taldysai, located in the northern part of the complex at the confluence of the small Taldysai stream with the Ulken Zhezdy River. The metallurgical settlement of Taldysai is a place where a large and complex smelting center was concentrated. Particularly intense activity at the site is traced in the 2nd millennium BCE, as established by radiocarbon studies at the University of Cambridge.

Archaeological excavations conducted since 1992 by specialists of the CKAE affiliated with the A. Kh. Margulan Institute of Archaeology — with the participation of students from the History Faculty of O. Baikonurov Zhezkazgan University — have yielded a vast quantity of artifacts. Their study led to the conclusion that Taldysai was one of the important points for processing and smelting Zhezkazgan ores.

The site was included among the objects studied under the “Mädeni Mūra” (Cultural Heritage) program, and in accordance with this program substantial funding was allocated in 2004–2006, making it possible to carry out major excavations.

As a result of this work, numerous casting molds were discovered, indicating that — besides beneficiating copper ore — metalworking was carried out at the settlement through smithing. Taldysai craftsmen produced tools, various ornaments, needles, and knives, as evidenced by the smiths’ tools found, as well as chisels.

In addition, archaeologists discovered many copper ingots. This indicates that finished metallurgical products were produced here and that trade developed with peoples of Central Asia, Southern Siberia, and Western Siberia.

The Taldysai settlement was investigated through three excavation areas. Of particular interest was Excavation No. 1, an Early Andronovo workshop-dwelling of the first half of the 2nd millennium BCE. The excavation area was conventionally divided into western and eastern sectors, where two residential-industrial complexes were uncovered.

A distinctive feature of this excavation is the presence of the rim of a semi-subterranean dwelling pit characteristic of Andronovo culture, as well as a stepped form in the northern wall. A shaft-type metallurgical furnace was found here, connected by a well and adjoining a production area with a system of hearths and a semi-above-ground pit. Nearby, numerous small hollows, pits, and grooves were recorded.

Study of the technological process led researchers to conclude that Taldysai metallurgists used a complex production cycle and continually improved methods of metal production. This is indicated by the presence of closed-socket casting and handle-fittings, produced in above-ground furnaces. These furnaces resemble those of the Urals and Donetsk regions.

In addition, a characteristic feature of Taldysai is the presence of deep shaft furnaces, sunk 2 to 2.5 m, and semi-shaft (transitional) furnaces with a complex air-duct system. The physical and technological processes of furnace operation were determined by the method of slag analysis.

Within the residential-industrial complexes of Taldysai, traces of sacrifices were found, having the character of mythologizing the metallurgical cycle. As sacrifices, the Andronovo people chose horses and wild animals driven in both from arid areas and from well-watered expanses of the steppe.

The sacrificed animal carcasses were laid in flue channels. Notably — and mysteriously — human skeletons were also found in these flues. Moreover, human skulls were found above the furnaces. This is directly connected to the Andronovo funerary rite and to burials in the southern part of the Baskamyr complex, where the ashes of the deceased were placed in a ceramic vessel and, after burial, the group of graves was enclosed by a fence of flat stones.

Foreign scholars also participated in the study of Taldysai. South Korean researchers examined more than 200 ingot and slag samples using metallography to clarify smithing processes. In the United States, the ceramics were analyzed to determine the type of food stored in them.

A distinctive feature of Taldysai is the use by metallurgists of small furnaces for smelting Zhezkazgan oxidized copper ore, which is notable for occurring mainly in low-power clayey sandstones and consisting of azurite, malachite, and chrysocolla.

A characteristic feature of Zhezkazgan ore is its difficult processability. For example, during construction of the USSR’s first flotation concentrator at the Karsakbay copper smelter, English experience in beneficiating Zhezkazgan oxidized ore was applied. During Industrialization, samples of Zhezkazgan copper were tested in the United States, in the state of Arkansas, because their ore properties were identical to those of Zhezkazgan.[9][10]

The abundance of water in the pool at the bend of the Ulken Zhezdy River allowed Taldysai craftsmen to smelt metal year-round. In winter, wells were used and ice was cut on the pool. Unfortunately, the excavation area is washed out annually by spring floods, destroying the exposed southeastern part of the settlement. Yet the study of Taldysai continues, and it cannot be ruled out that even after the publication of our book, science will obtain new results from further research on this monument.

The earliest metallurgical settlements of the Late Neolithic appeared in the Zhezkazgansai tract, as indicated by the identification of the cultural layer based on excavations conducted by Valukinsky and Kuznetsov. The settlements of Myilykudyk (Elyukudyk), Sorkudyk, and Aynakol have the lowest cultural layer dating to the Late Neolithic.

The Zhezkazgan settlements differ in age. They functioned for many millennia — from the Late Neolithic to the 17th century. Their cultural layers show signs of interruptions in habitation. This is associated with political changes occurring as a result of geographic cataclysms. Approximately every six centuries, a century-long drought came to the steppe, affecting the life of nomads.

The main and largest of these historical monuments of Zhezkazgan is Myilykudyk, or — as the local population called it at that time — Elyukudyk, meaning “fifty wells,” due to the numerous remains of copper-smelting furnaces in the form of well-like pits. The settlement area and traces of production activity exceeded 10 hectares, consisting of traces of semi-subterranean dwellings, household and storage premises, as well as workshops producing tools and metal goods. The production process at Myilykudyk continued until the Late Middle Ages.

This is also attested by Abu’l-Ghazi, who, describing the territory of the Oghuz state, writes: “To the east, the yurts of the Oghuz el extended to Issyk-Kul and Almalyk; to the south — to Sayram and the mountains Qazyghurt-tag and Karajyk-tag; to the north — to the mountains Ulyg-tag and Kichik-tag, where copper is mined.” Considering that Abu’l-Ghazi wrote the Genealogy of the Turkmen in the 17th century, one can confidently assign to this source the role of documentary testimony of copper mining in Zhezkazgan in that period, since the chronicler speaks of copper mining in the present tense.[11]

Next in significance is the settlement of Aynakol, located 5 km east of the Kresto-Center mine, near the Nikolsky section. The settlement area is about 2 hectares. The lowest cultural layer reflects the Late Neolithic period. Here, remains of eight semi-subterranean dwellings were identified in the form of rectangular pits; similar remains of water-collection pits, storage pits, stone-lined wells, places of ore extraction and beneficiation, and copper-smelting furnaces were identified — as at Myilykudyk.

No less significant after Myilykudyk is the settlement of Sorkudyk, located 15 km north of Zhezkazgan and first investigated by A. V. Kuznetsov and N. V. Valukinsky in 1945. Across a wide area lie monuments from the Bronze Age and the medieval period, testifying to the existence of metallurgy here up to the cessation of the Great Silk Road’s functioning. The settlement is characterized by a complex water-intake system with channels and a dam, vestibule-like dwellings with massive stone walls of a later period. One and a half kilometers from Sorkudyk, another site of ancient metallurgists — Taskudyk — was discovered.

Zhezkazgan’s metallurgical settlements have certain distinctive features compared with monuments of Central Kazakhstan. Huge workings here reached 750 meters in length, 25 meters in width, and 5–7 meters in depth, indicating many centuries of copper ore extraction. The settlements were marked by a complex industrial cycle of copper processing and smelting.

According to approximate calculations by the English geologist Ball, over the entire period from the Late Neolithic to the 17th century, Zhezkazgan miners extracted about one million tons of ore, and metallurgists smelted around 100,000 tons of metal. However, if one takes into account extraction of the richest ore lying in the upper layers of deposits, it can be assumed that the volume of smelted metal could have been much greater. This can be judged from the production experience of the Karsakbay copper smelter, which — before the flotation plant was launched — smelted rich ore with 35% metal content. This ore was mined from 17 English shafts opened by the English geologist West. Therefore, considering the characteristic stratification of deposits, we may assume that processing of native metal nodules occurred at the initial stage, from which the workings began. This increases the estimated volume of metal smelted by ancient metallurgists — compared with Ball’s figures — to 350,000–500,000 tons of metal.

In addition, historical sources speak of large quantities of gold and silver possessed by Oghuz rulers of Zhezkazgan. This gives grounds to argue that medieval Zhezkazgan metallurgists were able to separate precious metals from copper ore — that is, they knew copper-smelting methods later refined at the Karsakbay smelter in the 20th century. At the same time, ancient inhabitants knew the patterns of occurrence of gold veins in quartz deposits around the Ulytau Mountains — that is, they possessed geological methods used in modern science.

Officers Krasovsky in the 1860s wrote that ancient workings were carried out by inhabitants possessing certain geological and production skills, which in no way corresponds to “Kirgiz who have not the slightest desire to engage” in mining and smelting.

At the same time, the Zhezkazgan settlements have much in common with other districts of Sary-Arka. They are characterized by features such as massive stone walls of semi-subterranean dwellings, large burial fields, deep shafts of impressive diameter, workings and quarries, spoil-heaps and dumps, and a great number of copper-smelting furnaces — forming, in Valukinsky’s view, an entire medieval plant at Myilykudyk. In addition, the CKAE uncovered accumulations of slag and tools of miners, smelters, and craftsmen at these settlements.

Zhezkazgan settlements are also characterized by fragments of numerous household and irrigation structures and water-storage dams forming artificial reservoirs — progenitors of today’s Kumolinsky, Kengir, and Zhezdy reservoirs. Within the complex of Zhezkazgan metallurgical settlements, archaeologists identified a large number of storage pits and water-bearing wells.

One unique feature of Zhezkazgan metallurgical settlements is the presence of a heating system within workshops and semi-subterranean dwellings. In these structures, channels ran along the sufa (raised platform), into which heat penetrated from the copper-smelting furnaces. Thus, in winter, the families of miners and metallurgists were provided with warmth, making it possible to pursue metallurgy and crafts year-round.

Upon arriving in Zhezkazgan, Alkey Khakanovich discovered that settlements such as Kresto and Zlatoust had been completely covered by new construction. The point is that before World War II, neither the English nor the Bolsheviks, when planning residential construction, cared about the problem of preserving archaeological monuments.

Nevertheless, in order to study the volume of copper deposits, even before the Revolution a trench was laid at Myilykudyk, where a dump of processed ore and mining tools were found. To determine the volume of beneficiated ore at Myilykudyk, broad and deep trenches were laid in 1939 on the initiative of K. I. Satbayev. During construction of the railway between the present-day settlement of Vesovaya and ChKM, cultural layers of this settlement were revealed. (Margulan, 2011, p. 57).

Metallurgical settlements were dominant actors in the region’s economy and were the main factor in trade relations between local polities and others. They were a principal support in replenishing the state treasury. Therefore, the production of copper and its trade were an important object of attention in the region.

 “Genealogy of the Turkmens,” a work by Abu’l-Ghazi, Khan of Khiva. Moscow: Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1958. (In Russian.)

 Historical and Cultural Heritage of Sary-Arka. Collection of scholarly articles. Karaganda, 2007, p. 5. (In Russian.)

 A nucleus (core) is a stone from which flakes are struck during knapping; in lithic analysis it may also be treated as production waste.

 Archaeological Heritage of Central Kazakhstan: Study and Preservation. Vol. II. Almaty, 2017, p. 25. (In Russian.)

 The Holocene is the current geological epoch of the Quaternary period, which replaced the Pleistocene about 12,000 years ago and continues to the present day.

 Aridization is an increase in aridity: reduced precipitation and a decline in average air temperature.

 Aleurite is a loose fine-grained clastic sedimentary rock (silt).

 Argillite is a hard rock formed by compaction and recrystallization of clay.

 Flotation is a method of separating valuable ore minerals from unwanted gangue and other impurities.

 Seitjanov, M. The Briton of Karsakbay. Yekaterinburg: “Izdatelskie resheniya” (Ridero), 2018, p. 104. (In Russian.)

 “Genealogy of the Turkmens,” a work by Abu’l-Ghazi, Khan of Khiva. Moscow: Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1958. (In Russian.)