The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

Istoriya studying koptyakovsky culture


D.N. Isaev

The history of allocation of koptyakovsky type of ceramics and development of views of formation of koptyakovsky archaeological culture of a bronze age of the Trans-Ural region are considered.

Bronze era, Trans-Ural region, Pritobolye, koptyakovsky culture, koptyakovsky type of ceramics.

One of significant in studying an era of bronze of the Average of the Trans-Ural region is the problem of an initial phase of culture genesis of this time, including identification in these processes of a role of autochthonic cultural formations, and in particular koptyakovsky culture.

The Koptyakovsky type of ceramics was allocated by K.V. Salnikov on the basis of the analysis of ceramic complexes of the settlement of Koptyaki 5, etc. (N.Ya. Ryzhnikov and O.E. Cler's excavation at the end of the 19th century) [Sealing glands, 1964. Page 7-10]. Documenting by authors of excavation actually it was not made. Further accumulation of material happened slowly and irregularly therefore the considered culture began to be perceived as the narrow local phenomenon limited to the small region of the mountain and forest Trans-Ural region. However works of the last years force to look at this cultural education in a new way.

After V.D. Viktorova and S.N. Panina's works on the monuments of the Tent 1-2 which gave materials on inhabited constructions and a funeral ceremony there was an opportunity to speak about allocation of koptyakovsky archaeological culture. Let's note that in a question of criteria of archaeological culture we adhere to the point of view of L.S. Klein according to which "it would be convenient to be the system consisting of a considerable number of the essential types connected by strong correlation and relating, at least, to several of the most important categories of archaeological material the basis for such concept (ceramics, a way of burial, the image of the dwelling and settlement, a set of tools, weapon and jewelry, etc." [1970. Page 51]. Further ideas of settlement constructions were expanded as a result of works on the settlements of Chepkul 5 and 20 in the territory of Tyumen Pritobolya [Zaha, Ivanov, 2006. Fig. 2; Skochina, 2007. Fig. 1, page 231-232]. The representative ceramic complexes causing certain associations with ceramics of koptyakovsky culture of the Urals and the Trans-Ural region were received. It is also necessary to pay attention to excavation of the unique monument Shaytansky Lake 2 which is the cult place [Serikov, etc., 2009]. In this regard the history of study and the current state of a problem of koptyakovsky culture are of interest.

The Koptyakovsky type of ware was for the first time characterized by K.V. Salnikov on materials of monuments Koptyaki 1, 3, 5. Ware has the flat-bottomed gorshkovidny form. Talc impurity in the test is characteristic. Very high slightly unbent neck is usual, on the place of a joint of a neck and trunk the accurate ostroreberny transition, a nimbus flattened is almost always designated. Vessels of a can form meet. In most cases the ornament was put almost only with comb prints. The shirokozuby comb, napominyushchy a caterpillar stamp was often used [Sealing glands, 1964. Fig. 2, page 7-10].

In figuration of koptyakovsky ceramics K.V. Salnikov noted presence of lines, on the one hand, of ayatsky ware, with another — andronovsky. He considered that emergence of koptyakovsky ceramics in the Trans-Ural region "does not need to be connected neither with penetration, nor with influence of andronovsky culture. It arose in the forest Trans-Ural region independently in development of local culture of the previous time" [In the same place. Page 10].

Defining a chronological position of koptyakovsky ceramics, K.V. Salnikov believed that she is more senior than cherkaskulsky ware. Besides, according to him, the territory of distribution of cultures does not coincide — for koptyakovsky monuments he allocated areas north of an area of cherkaskulsky culture. Therefore the scientist came to a conclusion that addition of koptyakovsky and cherkaskulsky cultures happened on different territories, approximately at the same time — in the middle of the II millennium BC. Subsequently, udrevniv cherkaskulsky culture, he did not raise the question of chronology of koptyakovsky monuments [Sealing glands, 1964].

L.P. Hlobystin considerably supported initial judgments of K.V. Salnikov of koptyakovsky ceramics. In particular, according to the researcher, in her is brighter, than in any other ware of a bronze age of the Trans-Ural region, the combination of lines of local edge ceramics of ayatsky type to signs of figuration of ware of alakulsky culture was shown. From wounds - not bronze autochthonic ware koptyakovsky inherited the extended proportions, thinly-stennost, impurity of talc and many receptions of a twiddle. Density and a narrow poyaskovost of an ornament, corbels from inclined and vertical prints of edge stamps, poles and angular vdavleniye concern the last. Corbels in which inclined prints of a comb with the smooth not decorated sites alternate are typical both for koptyakovsky ceramics, and for ayatsky. Same it was noted by it and for alternation of the zones decorated with rhombuses or zigzags with the corbels filled with edge prints. However, he noted, the same rhombuses and zigzags and also triangular tags are available also on alakulsky ware. With alakulsky ceramics cop-tyakovsky is made related by a ploskodonnost and ribbing, a line out of vessels. Emergence of not ornamented zone — pattern corbels about the bottom is unambiguously estimated as alakulsky influence. Meanders of different types, slanting triangles, large slanting crosses and also, perhaps, the expressed by steps,-shaped additions to a zigzag — also result of influence of alakulsky culture [Hlobystin, 1976].

Having summarized earlier being considered facts, L.P. Hlobystin comes to a conclusion that koptyakovsky ceramics — alloy of two traditions: the local, relying on achievements ayatsky culture and introduced alakulsky, i.e. it is hybrid. This conclusion gives the chance to determine the relative age of koptyakovsky ceramics time of emergence of early alakulsky ceramics and the final stage of development of ayatsky culture [In the same place].

In general, according to L.P. Hlobystin, the koptyakovsky ceramics is in many respects comparable to cherkaskulsky, is similar alakulsky and fedorovsky, but because of the influence of early bronze ceramics pronounced in a twiddle of koptyakovsky culture and poorly shown in an ornament of cherkaskulsky culture, the difference between these types of ceramics is more, than between alakulsky and fedorovsky. However koptyakovsky and cherkaskulsky vessels bring together, except andronoidny signs, such peculiar features as the angular vdavleniye, a fringe, frequent use of poles, a trellised ornament, corbels of inclined prints of an edge stamp alternating with empty space [In the same place].

Summing up the results, L.P. Hlobystin noted that koptyakovsky culture precedes cherkaskulsky in forest territories of the Trans-Ural region and it developed as a result of advance of early alakulets from the territory of northwest Kazakhstan to the forest and forest-steppe Trans-Ural region and their assimilatory impact on local ayatsky culture. The beginning of this process is the share of HU1-HU of centuries BC, and existence of koptyakovsky ware should be referred to HU-H1U of centuries BC. The late population of South Ural took part in addition of cherkaskulsky culture, the successor of koptyakovsky culture. Besides, the scientist noted that the ceramic complexes extremely close to koptyakovsky ceramics are found in the neighborhood of Tyumen [In the same place].

Having generalized earlier saved up material, M.F. Kosarev made an attempt to correct a chronological framework of the koptyakovsky stage allocated to them which it included in sa-mussko-seyminskuyu an era. According to him, a chronological framework of a stage is defined by genetic proximity of the koptyakovsky ceramics following ayatsky, on the one hand, and cherkaskulsky and fedorovsky with another, i.e. the typological place of koptyakovsky figuration in development of an andronovsky decorative complex.

Considering the dating of ayatsky monuments offered them earlier and that fact that none of researchers considered cherkaskulsky and andronovsky monuments ancient 13th century BC, a chronological framework of a koptyakovsky stage had to be determined by HU1-H1U or the 16-13th centuries BC. Specifying chronology, M.F. Kosarev noted that koptyakovsky antiquities have to be synchronous abashevsky (balanbashsky) [1981. Page 287]. In this regard he paid attention to a number of similar lines in koptyakovsky and balanbashsky ware: an ostrorebernost, presence at a twiddle of the zigzag edge strips and step figures, characteristic horizontal rhombic belts executed by an edge stamp, etc. Proceeding from interpretation of an ostrorebernost as chronological sign, it assumed that the early koptyakovsky ceramics can be synchronized from Petrovsky (early alakulsky) Northern Kazakhstan of which the ostroreberny form is rather characteristic [In the same place].

D.N. Isaev

In the second half of the 80th the koptyakovsky problem received new sounding as as a result of S.N. Panina and V.D. Viktorova's excavation on average the ceramics complexes which are conditionally called predkoptyakovsky began to be allocated the Trans-Ural region. They are characterized by vessels of the closed can form with a long neck, the outlined edge in the middle of a vessel and probably the roundish or slightly flattened bottom. A nimbus flat or roundish with strongly allocated long, up to 1 cm, a bevel (flow from within). All vessel, including a nimbus and bevels is ornamented from within. Zonality of patterns horizontal, with leaving between them larger empty zones, than on ayatsky ware. An ornament edge graceful, crenulate, geometrical, in the form of small chains of rhombuses, triangles, zigzags, ranks of slanting lines, in combination with patching vdavleniye and corbels of the walking comb [Viktorova, 2001].

This type of ceramics, according to A.F. Shorin, on the one hand, is close ayatsky, but with another, in a form and a decor (edges, ranks of direct and inclined lines limited to corbels of subtriangular vdavleniye) — anticipates koptyakovsky ware. In the typological scheme of development of an ornamental complex of cultures of the forest Trans-Ural region this type of ware is intermediate between eneolitichesky ayatsky and koptyakovsky complexes. However there are no absolute dates specified complexes. Further A.F. Shorin, considering genesis of the Ural cultures of a bronze age, after all notes some foreign culture (in any case, not forest trans-Ural) influence. The Koptyakovsky ceramics was formed, unlike cherkaskulsky, not on the basis of an okruglodonny vessel, and other, close for Petrovsky and alakulsky, way. It is covered with graceful engobe, has accurately expressed edge in the middle of a vessel and a high neck, is frequent with a flat nimbus that also brings together it with Petrovsky and alakulsky forms. At the cop-tyakovsky ornamental scheme there are step figures, zigzag and edge corbels, horizontal edge chains of rhombuses, etc. that brings together this ware with oh-lanbashsky. Not numerous bronze products which come, most likely, from smoking-kovsky complexes have samussko-seyminsky parallels [Shorin, 1999].

All this allowed A.F. Shorin to date koptyakovsky complexes the end of the second quarter — the middle of the II millennium BC, within existing of monuments seyminsko-turbinsky Aba-shevsky and sintashtinsko-Petrovsky the chronological horizons, i.e., according to him, koptyakovsky complexes were created on average the Trans-Ural region a little earlier, than cherkaskulsky. In their addition, from the point of view of the scientist, besides a forest edge component, a certain role was played by the impulses connected with the active processes of culture genesis happening about II millennium BC in a yugolesny, forest-steppe and North steppe zone of Eurasia in the environment of sintash-tinsko-Petrovsky and abashevsky groups of the population. But eventually these impulses were not decisive for the historical fate of the population of the forest Trans-Ural region. The Koptyakovsky ornamental tradition did not gain further development here and, probably, was "quickly crushed" related, but nevertheless excellent cherkaskulsky which was also formed on the basis of development of eneolitichesky traditions of an edge geometrizm [In the same place].

On the basis of materials of excavation of settlements of the Tent 1 and 2 V.D. Viktorov divided complexes of koptyakovsky ceramics into two types. The ceramics of the second type of the settlement of the Tent 2 of which the drawn way of figuration is characteristic is most interesting. The narrow drawn lines performed functions of dividing zones, sometimes they put patterns on a trunk. Triangular corners are executed carelessly and sometimes replaced with roundish poles. New patterns are the oblique-angled triangles, rhombuses and a zigzag which are becoming complicated shoots, the meander is much more often used, the pattern of "waterfowl" is transformed to "ducks". Along with flat nimbuses are noted roundish. The ornament on vessel inside under a nimbus is absent. Considering that the specified group of ceramics is allocated stratigraphically, V.D. Viktorova draws a conclusion about later period of existence of this ceramic complex in relation to ceramics with classical koptyakovsky ornamental tradition of [1999].

Allocation of the considered type of koptyakovsky ware allows to attribute more reasonably ceramic complexes of the settlement of SAD 6 as koptyakovsky [Yurovskaya, 1973. Fig. 6]. Earlier, in view of small number of materials, noting koptyakovsky lines, V.I. Stefanov and O.N. Korochkova experienced difficulties in interpretation of data from this monument and suggested that SAD 6 monuments correspond to a stage any more not of contacts, but direct interaction of carriers of various cultural traditions as a result of which there is a formation of complexes of the mixed shape. According to them, any of

components of such complexes do not give in to cultural identification — partly because of small number and plainness of the available series, partly because the interacting components underwent the transformation which changed their initial shape. The origin of one of them (superlevel) is more or less clear it is possible to connect with the culture of andronovsky community, it is rather from alakulsky (being in that stage when in profiling of ware the ridge profile still remains), than with any other [Stefanov, Korochkova, 2000].

Thus, having summarized the above-stated facts, it is possible to allocate the following: first, the steady tendency to see sources of koptyakovsky culture in ayah-sky antiquities is observed; secondly, in addition of culture the participation of a certain southern element, either directly, or indirectly is noted; thirdly, it is considered what in the chronological relation the koptyakovsky monuments inherit postayatsky and precede fedorovsky, forming a basis of genesis of cherkaskulsky culture (?).

However as it was noted above, results of archaeological works of the last decade significantly changed views of monuments of koptyakovsky type. So, it is necessary to agree with opinion of the Ural scientists that the specified culture in the light of new discoveries acquires the status of the powerful education which developed on a local basis under the influence of seyminsko-turbinsky and Petrovsky alakulskikh populations [Serikov, etc., 2009].

At the same time to Tyumen Pritobolya forces to tell expansion of an area about the probability of formation of the complexes similar koptyakovsky, in this territory as he of the materials similar postayatsky, is not fixed here. It is also necessary to pay attention to the second type of koptyakovsky ceramics ornamented mainly in the drawn equipment. Its allocation allows to consider a ceramic complex of the settlement of SAD 6 as koptyakovskiya, similar ware was found also on the settlements of Chepkul 5 and 20 [Zaha, Ivanov, 2006; Zaha, Skochin, 2006; Skochina, 2007]. Thus, existence of the drawn element in a twiddle asks about possible participation in addition of the specified culture of carriers of tashkovsky ornamental tradition, especially considering the sinkretichny nature of the last recognized by many researchers.


Viktorova V.D. Koptyakovskaya culture in the mountain and forest Trans-Ural region//the III Bersovsky readings. Yekaterinburg: Bank of cultural information, 1999. C. 49-54.

V.D. Viktorova. Funeral complexes on the island Stone tents//Security archaeological researches on Central Ural Mountains. Yekaterinburg: Bank of cultural information, 2001. Issue 4. Page 95-107.

V.A. Zaha, S.N. Ivanov. A complex of an era of bronze of the multilayered settlement of Chepkul 20 in the north of the Andreevsky lake system//VAAE. 2006. No. 7. Page 12-21.

V.A. Zaha, S.N. Skochin. Excavation of the multilayered settlement of Chepkul 20//In the same place. Page 231-234.

Klein of L.S. Problem of determination of archaeological culture//SA. 1970. No. 2. Page 37-51.

M.F. Kosarev. Bronze age of Western Siberia. M.: Science, 1981. 287 pages

K.V. Salnikov. Some questions of history of the forest Trans-Ural region during a bronze era//WOW. 1964. Issue 6. Page 5-23.

Yu.B. Serikov, O.N. Korochkova, S.V. Kuzminykh, Stefanov of V.I. Shaytanskoye Lake 2: New plots in studying a bronze age of the Urals//Archeology, ethnography and anthropology of Eurasia. 2009. No. 2. Page 67-78.

S.N. Skochina. Results of excavation of the multilayered settlement of Chepkul 5 (preliminary message)//VAAE. 2007. No. 8. Page 231-234.

V.I. Stefanov, Korochkova of O.N. Andronovskiye of antiquity Tyumen Pritobolya. Yekaterinburg: Printer, 2000. Page 12-41.

L.P. Hlobystin. Settlement Lime Kurya. L.: Science, 1976. Page 65-70.

Shorin A.F. Eneolit of the Urals and adjacent territories: Culture genesis problems. Yekaterinburg: OURO RAHN, 1999. Page 97-101.

V.T. Yurovskaya. Classification and relative chronology of archeological sites of an era of bronze on the Andreevsky lake at Tyumen//WOW. 1973. Issue 12. Page 3-20.

Tyumen, IPOS Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Science

The article cites data on historiography of singling out the Koptyaky pottery type and evolution of the ideas regarding development of the Koptyaky archaeological culture of the Bronze Age in the High Urals basin.

Bronze Age, High Urals basin, Low Tobol basin, Koptyaky culture, Koptyaky pottery type.

Linda Emily
Other scientific works: