Metal Products of the Alekseyevka-Sargary Culture From the Middle and Upper Tobol Areas

Abstract

The article describes morphological and typological characteristics of non-ferrous metal, determines the for-mulae of alloys, as well as identifies techniques used for the production of tools by the Alekseyevka-Sargary cul-ture from the South Trans-Urals (15th/14th and 12th/11th BC). We carried out the morphological and typological study of the non-ferrous metal along with the X-ray fluorescence (Institute of Archaeology RAS, Institute of Mine-ralogy UB RAS; X-MET3000TX analysers from Oxford Instruments Analytical, M1 Mistral from Bruker Nano GmbH) and metallographic (Tyumen Scientific Centre SB RAS; Zeiss Axio Observer D1m microscope) analyses. A total of 19 tools exhibiting morphology inherent to the tool collections of the Alekseyevka-Sargary culture were selected for the study. These tools comprised random finds and items from the settlements of the Chelyabinsk and Kurgan regions of Russia, as well as from the Kostanay Region of Kazakhstan: daggers, а spearhead, sick-les, socketed chisels, a spear end cap and single-blade knives. A group of tools and weapons characteristic of all Eurasian cordoned-ware cultures was distinguished — daggers with handguards and socketed grooved chisels. In addition, weapons characteristic of the sites attributed to the Alekseyevka-Sargary culture (Saryarka, Altai, and Semirechye) were identified within the weapon complex of the South Trans-Urals. These weapons included bush hooks of the Sosnovaya Maza type, knives having marked handles, spearheads with holes and socketed straight-blade chisels. The metal of the South Trans-Urals is distinguished by the marked heterogeneity of its chemical composition with the predominance of low-alloyed bronzes Cu–Sn, Cu–Sn–As and Cu–As (66.7 %). There are 4 pure copper items, as well as products from the complex alloy Cu–Sn–As–Ni–Co and products with elevated iron concentrations (up to 2.68 %). These data indicate that the population experimented in the course of metal-lurgical processing of raw materials; they transitioned to smelting metal from sulphide ores or to the smelting of copper with sulphide or silicate nickel ores of the Ufaley Massif (deposits in the Chelyabinsk Region). South Ural craftsmen produced bronze and copper primarily using technologies for casting tools in one-sided (with flat cov-ers) and two-sided moulds. The casting was followed by refining operations using the cold forming technology with the intervals of low-temperature forging modes. This choice of temperature is justified in the procession of low-alloyed bronze. Clearly, the centre for metal production of the Alekseyevka-Sargary culture in the South Trans-Urals was a metallurgical one, with the development of both oxidised and sulphide deposits in the South Urals. Innovative technologies of smelting copper with chalcopyrite, arsenopyrite, and nickel-containing ores were introduced. The complex of tools attributed to the Alekseyevka-Sargary tribes from the Tobol area is generally identical to the bronze inventory from Saryarka, Altai and Kyrgyzstan. Local craftsmen employed the traditional technologies of processing copper and bronze commonly used in the centres for metal production throughout the area of the Alekseyevka-Sargary culture, working primarily with bronzes low-alloyed by tin. As in previous eras, tin ingots and products were delivered from Central Kazakhstan and Ore Altai, but in much smaller quantities. The small number of products and the data of an analytical study indicate the relocation of the main centres for metal production of the Alekseyevka-Sargary culture from the Urals region (as compared to the big centres of Petrovka and Alakul cultures) to Central and Eastern Kazakhstan, up to Xinjiang in China.

Technological Features and Chronology of Metal Sickles of the Volga Region of the Late Bronze Age

“…On two sickles (Chebarkul and Starokumlyakskoe settlements), the remains of sprues were found at the point from the back side. On three sickles, traces of post-casting processing were revealed: forging and grinding of the edge [9]; in two sickles, the As a result of radiocarbon dating, only one date was obtained for a cow bone from dwelling 4 of the Alekseevskoe settlement (Table 2), since collagen was not preserved in the sheep bone sample.…”

“…The Ivanovo culture, to which the Sosnovo-Mazinsky hoard is attributed, was directly connected with the eastern zone of common culture of roller ceramics [7]. The Alekseev-Sargarinskaya culture occupied the Asian steppe and the south of the foreststeppe zone from the Urals to Altai and the foothills of the Tien Shan [9]. This culture also includes Alekseevskoe settlement in northern Kazakhstan, in dwelling 4 of which a sickle of the Sosnovo-Mazinsky type was found.…”

“…Probably, metallurgists of the cultures of roller ceramics, united by a common metallurgical tradition, could develop the same ore sources, first located in the southern Trans-Urals, and then in central Kazakhstan and Altai. This led to the emergence of groups of products made of copper, low-alloyed with tin and arsenic [9].…”

“…Such sickles were found in settlements and in hoards and are mainly distributed in the Volga region and east of the Volga [7]. The chronology of sickles and the hoard itself was based on the chronology of the cultures at the end of the Bronze Age of a wide geographical area, the steppe zone of northern Eurasia from the Balkan-Carpathian region to Kazakhstan, the Minusinsk depression, and the foothills of the Tien Shan [8,2,3,9]. The hoard itself was attributed to the Srubnaya culture [8], as well as the Ivanovo culture [7], the Khvalynsk culture of roll ceramics [4], and the sickles close in type, to the Alekseev-Sargarinsky culture [9].…”

“…The chronology of sickles and the hoard itself was based on the chronology of the cultures at the end of the Bronze Age of a wide geographical area, the steppe zone of northern Eurasia from the Balkan-Carpathian region to Kazakhstan, the Minusinsk depression, and the foothills of the Tien Shan [8,2,3,9]. The hoard itself was attributed to the Srubnaya culture [8], as well as the Ivanovo culture [7], the Khvalynsk culture of roll ceramics [4], and the sickles close in type, to the Alekseev-Sargarinsky culture [9]. Thus, based on the general chronology of these cultures, with almost complete absence of 14 C data for the end of the Bronze Age in the eastern part of the Eurasian steppe area, the hoard was dated in a fairly wide interval: 1500-1200 BC and even later [8] (Table 1).…”