UDC 551 +903 - 03

V. S. Mosin ¹, V. Yu. Nikolsky ²

¹ Institute of History and Archeology of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, South Ural Branch

68 Kommuny St., Chelyabinsk, 454091, Russia

E-mail: sud_arh@csc.ac.ru; mvs54@mail.ru

² Chelyabinsk Scientific Center of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences

68 Kommuny St., Chelyabinsk, 454091, Russia

E-mail: sud_arh@csc.ac.ru; mvs54@mail.ru

For the first time in the history of the Stone Age in the Ural region, complex geological and archaeological studies have worked out the relationship between the locations of siliceous rocks and the geological structure of the Southern Urals. The siliceous rocks that were mainly used by the inhabitants of this territory in the Stone Age include phthanites, phthanitoids, jaspers, novaculites, as well as minerals such as quartz, opal, and chalcedony. The highest concentration of silicites is observed in the eugeosynclinal region of the Urals, mainly within the Magnitogorsk structural and formation zone. Their main outcrops are usually located on low ridges, hills and hills among Paleozoic volcanogenic rocks. Observations have established the distribution of silicite clastic material up to the eastern boundary of the continental-marine basement plain. A model of possible ways and means of developing the raw material base of the ancient population of the region is constructed.

Key words: phthanites, phthanitoids, jaspers, distribution of siliceous rocks, variants of material culture, adaptation.

Introduction

The Ural Mountains begin at the Kara Sea and extend in an almost continuous chain up to the sands of the Aral-Caspian lowland - from 69 to 47° N. For ease of study and description, the Ural Range is usually divided into four parts: the Polar Urals, the Northern, Middle and Southern. According to modern geographical zoning, the Southern Urals is located south of 55° 5' n. Its northern boundary is considered to be the valley of the Ufa River, its southern boundary is the latitudinal segment of the Sakmary River through Orsk and further east, south of the source of the Tobol River. In the Southern Urals, there are three landscape zones that differ from each other primarily in the amount of heat and moisture received: mountain-forest, forest-steppe, and steppe (Kirin, 1973; Makunina, 1974).

One of the key issues in the study of the Stone Age is the problem of determining the raw material base, since the presence or absence of high-quality material largely determined the direction and level of technology development. Traditionally, siliceous rocks and minerals were used that are suitable for making tools due to their physical properties, such as hardness, fine cleavage, etc. Studying the possibilities of obtaining raw materials, as well as the ways and means of its distribution in the region, allows us to determine the level of adaptation of human collectives to a certain natural environment in different archaeological epochs, the degree of their communication, etc., ultimately, the level of development of the social adaptation system. The Urals, including the Southern One, includes three large territories-the Pre-Urals, the central part, and the Trans-Urals. Determination of the sources of raw materials within these territories and the possibilities of their development by humans in different epochs of the Stone Age.

This work was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, project N07-06-96005.

This will help in a clearer understanding of the emergence of variants of material culture.

In the Ural region, systematic studies of the raw material base of the Stone Age were practically not carried out. Researchers have addressed this topic sporadically, in connection with the study of specific sites or epochs. In the Middle Urals, a fairly successful binding of Mesolithic tools to a flint processing workshop near Nizhny Tagil was carried out as a result of long and meticulous work by Yu.B. Serikov [1988]. Materials from the Isetskoye Pravoberezhnoye site were analyzed (Ivanov and Kerner, 1988). In the northern part of the Urals, such studies were carried out on Mesolithic and Neolithic sites of the Kama Region, the Kama-Vyatka interfluve, and the upper reaches of the Vychegda River (Starkov, 1960; Vereshchagin, 1985; Volokitin, Mayorova, and Tkachev, 2003). In the Southern Urals, G. N. Matyushin was interested in this topic [1977], but his certainly interesting book is a popular scientific publication.

A significant problem of the Ural Stone Age archeology is discrepancies in the names of siliceous rocks and minerals found during excavations of sites and settlements. Traditionally, most researchers define the raw materials of the Southern Urals generally-flint and South Ural jasper (with an indication of the color scheme - from white to black). More specific names are also used: "Tashbulatov jasper", "Kalkan jasper", "Aushkul jasper", etc. [Matyushin, 1976; Mesolithic..., 1989; Archeology: Neolithic..., 1996, p. 253]. Many other silicites found in artefacts are called jaspers. For example, a greenish-bluish siliceous rock near the lake. Kalkan, called "Kalkan", "kalkan-like" or "kalkan-like" jasper, is actually a siliceous thin-layered tuff-silt-sandstone; "Boborykin" jasper is a light gray to white siliceous rock often found in the Kurgan region - novakulite and subnovakulite.

The nomenclature of silicites was formed gradually as the regional material was studied and the characteristic types (jaspers, phthanites, etc.) were identified (Khvorova, 1983). Macroscopic determination of siliceous rocks of the Southern Urals according to the classification given in this work by I. V. Khvorova was accompanied by selective microscopic studies of sections performed by V. P. Savelyev, a geologist at Chelyabgeosmotki, and chemical analyses of individual artifacts and samples of silicites from sites in the Southern Urals, conducted at the Novosineglazovskaya Chemical Laboratory by I. P. Savoskina. Our proposed use of the names of siliceous rocks listed below will allow us to further unify descriptions of artefact collections and compare archaeological materials with data from the region's geology.

Siliceous rocks that were mainly used by the population of the Southern Urals in the Stone Age include phthanites, phthanitoids, jaspers, and novaculites.

Phthanites are dark, almost black rocks that archaeologists usually refer to as black flint or black jasper. The texture is either homogeneous or thinly layered [Atlas..., 1962, p. 5], "which is associated with an uneven distribution of mineral impurities and organic residues" [Khvorova, 1983, p.170]. A special feature of the chemical composition is the increased content of dispersed organic matter (carbonaceous and graphite particles). Organic remains (radiolarians and sponges) are absent in some layers, while in others they may be rock-forming.

Phthanitoids are less dark rocks, usually of a bluish, bluish, or greenish hue. Archaeologists call them jaspers of various colors-gray, gray-green, blue, etc. Phthanitoids are similar in texture to phthanites. A chemical feature is the high content of manganese. Organic residues are represented by radiolarians and sponges.

Jasper-breeds are most often red in color with various shades or variegated, red tones alternate with green, yellow, and purple. The texture is either uniform or layered, chaotically mottled or indistinctly layered. In terms of chemical composition, jaspers differ sharply from phthanites with a very high content of iron in the oxide form (hematite, goethite). Organic residues are represented by radiolarians and spicules of flint sponges.

Novaculites are a very dense milky-white rock with a uniform texture; the most highly siliceous-the silica content reaches 99 %. In addition to typical novaculite, subnovaculite is also distinguished, which is characterized by a less uniform structure and composition; siltstone admixture, pyrite and hematite inclusions are found. Organic residues (radiolarians or sponge spicules) are usually small [Ibid., pp. 170-171].

For archaeologists, who mostly identify rocks visually, the main differences between the presented varieties are color, depending on the chemical composition, and textural features.

With prolonged weathering, especially on peneplene, phthanites become discolored, acquiring a porcelain-like appearance (Romanization) [Ibid., p. 170]. In the Southern Urals, latinized siliceous rocks in most cases have a color ranging from reddish-brownish to white; the whiteness extends from the surface to the depth of the fragments by 1.5-2.0 cm or more, so that only a dark core sometimes remains of the primary rock.

In the Stone Age, minerals such as quartz, opal, and chalcedony were also used [Geologicheskiy slovar', 1973, vol. 1, p. 320; vol. 2, p. 33, 397].

Distribution of siliceous rocks in the Southern Urals

Geological and archaeological expedition studies conducted by us in 2002-2006 made it possible to link the description of the rock composition of finds (artifacts) to the distribution sites of siliceous rocks in the Southern Urals. These rocks in various manifestations are developed in different structural and formation zones and geomorphological areas.

According to the type of geological structures, the time and conditions of their formation, as well as the difference in the rocks composing them, there are two major regions in the Southern Urals "in the old classical sense" (Rapoport, 2006, p. 11): in the west - miogeosyncline, in the east - eugeosyncline, and in their composition a number of structural and formation zones (SPZ). These regions and zones extend to one degree or another continuously along the entire Southern Urals (see figure) and everywhere retain a certain position relative to the Southern Urals.-

Schematic map of structural and formation zones (SFZS), geomorphological areas, distribution of siliceous rocks, and location of Stone Age sites.

with respect to each other [Geologiya SSSR, 1969, p. 4]. 8 - 11, 38 - 39, 220; Sigov et al., 1968].

In the west, within the miogeosyncline, the following are distinguished (from west to east): the eastern part of the Russian platform, the Pre-Ural marginal trough, the West Ural outer Folding Zone, and the Central Ural Uplift. Pre-Paleozoic and Paleozoic sedimentary terrigenous and carbonate rocks and their metamorphic differences are developed here, among which siliceous formations in the form of nodules, nodules and thin lenticular interlayers are common. They are represented by phthanites, phthanitoids, novaculites, and subnovaculites. In the east, within the eugeosyncline, there are (from west to east): Magnitogorsk trough, East Ural Uplift, East Ural Trough, Trans-Ural uplift, Tyumen-Kustanai trough, Tobolsk-Kushmurun uplift. It is dominated by volcanogenic, volcanogenic-sedimentary, and to a lesser extent sedimentary terrigenous and carbonate rocks mainly of the Paleozoic and their metamorphic differences. Siliceous rocks of all varieties are represented in the form of thick layers and strata among volcanogenic rocks and low - thickness ones among sedimentary rocks. The main difference in the distribution of silicites in these two regions is that there are absolutely no red-colored and polychrome jaspers within the myogeosyncline.

The highest concentration of siliceous rocks is observed in the eugeosynclinal region of the Urals, mainly within the Magnitogorsk structural and formation zone (see figure). Their main outcrops are usually located on low ridges, hills and hills among Paleozoic volcanogenic rocks. Siliceous rocks of the Magnitogorsk trough are well diagnosed: they have characteristic features (color, structure, texture, gloss, fracture) that distinguish them from silicites of other structural and formation zones. Most of the South Ural siliceous rocks are represented here: phthanites, phthanitoids, brown, red, polychrome jaspers, including two-colored, so-called sealing wax-green ones, which are developed only within the Magnitogorsk SFZ.

The distribution of siliceous rocks over the territory of the region has two forms: areal and linear. Silicites located in the bedrock of the Magnitogorsk trough were destroyed by external factors in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic, their fragments moved from the peaks to the foothills, and then were transported further by water flows. Depending on the transport distance, the fragments acquired a different roundness and size and were deposited in almost all landforms developed within the Magnitogorsk trough. Here, the distribution of silicites can be considered areal: they occur in the bedrock on the peaks, fragments of siliceous rocks-on the slopes and foothills of positive landforms, as well as on vast leveled watersheds of the peneplain, in river valleys as part of deposits of terraces and riverbeds, in lake deposits.

The distribution of silicites to the east and west, beyond the Magnitogorsk trough, has a local areal and linear character (along river valleys). This was initiated by ancient rivers that developed Mesozoic structural-erosion depressions (linearly elongated depressions in the relief), which were later filled with ancient alluvium. Then the siliceous material was washed away and supplemented by Paleogene rivers, whose valleys essentially repeated the Mesozoic ones in the west. In the east, the rivers acquired sublatitudinal directions and their sediments were dissected at intersections with Mesozoic depressions. At the last stage (Pliocene-Quaternary), the river network of modern outlines was finally formed, inheriting ancient sub-regional valleys in the west or sub-latitudinal ones in the east. Rivers still moved the siliceous material prepared from ancient deposits and supplemented it with more modern ones. As a result of such complex and long-term processes, fragments of silicites of various roundness and dimensions spread over the hilly-rugged plain of the Trans-Ural peneplain and are observed in deposits of river terraces, floodplains, stream pebbles, as well as in the form of numerous mounds on the ancient eroded surfaces of watersheds, especially near river valleys and dens, along the shores of lakes, etc. Here only occasionally you can find indigenous outcrops of siliceous rocks in steep river banks, where the channel was cut to a great depth, up to the Paleozoic basement. Our observations have established the distribution of silicite clastic material up to the eastern boundary of the continental-marine basement plain (see figure). Further east, due to the general decrease, the Ural structures are covered by tens and hundreds of meters of Meso-Cenozoic continental and marine sediments and continue below them to the Tyumen-Kurgan line. In the valleys of the Iseti, Miass, Tobol and Uya beyond the Trans-Ural peneplain, traces of siliceous rocks, with rare exceptions, could not be found. In the Trans-Ural peneplain, east of the Magnitogorsk Trough, within the boundaries of the SPZS identified here, silicites are not widespread, but occur fragmentally throughout its entire length from north to south - from the Neiva River to the Neiva River. Ori on the border with Kazakhstan in the Eastern Orenburg region.

Studies have shown that the distribution of siliceous rocks in the Southern Urals under the influence of-

It is assigned to certain geomorphological positions. They're dating:

1) in the root occurrence on ridges, ridges and individual peaks in the form of rock, scallop outcrops and ruins of boulders, tiles, rubble, as well as at the base of basement terraces;

2) in deluvial or proluvial formations in the form of detrital material of various shapes and sizes, often cemented with clay material, moved to slopes under the influence of gravity and forming peculiar plumes around positive landforms;

3) in the form of debris displaced and deposited in lake basins and river valleys (lacustrine and alluvial).

The main highways along which the linear movement of siliceous rocks occurs in the Holocene are the main rivers of the Southern Urals: Belaya, Sakmara, Ural, Uy and Miass. In the ridge zone, siliceous raw materials are represented both by fragments of silicites from the Magnitogorsk Trough and by silicites distributed among rocks composing local SPZS. Phthanites and phthanitoids of the latter are found, in particular, in the pebbles of the Belaya River. For example, in the cultural layers of archaeological sites Kapova cave, Baislantash, Ignatievskaya, etc. there are artifacts from siliceous rocks of the Magnitogorsk trough and local SFZS. This combination can be observed throughout the entire ridge zone up to the border with the Urals, which begins from the turn of the Belaya River to the north.

The main rivers flowing through the Magnitogorsk Trough are the Ural and Sakmara Rivers with all their tributaries. High-quality pebble material, including phthanites, phthanitoids, and jaspers of all South Ural varieties, is represented on the coastal ples of the latitudinal segment of the Ural River. In the area of the latitudinal flow of the Sakmara River, horizons containing siliceous rocks were recorded in the lower sediments of the first above-flood terrace and reaches with pebbles of siliceous rocks of the Magnitogorsk trough.

The only river that crosses the Southern Urals from west to east, from the ridge zone to the West Siberian Lowland, is the Uy. Its sources form several small rivers between the Maly Irendyk and Kumach ranges. On the eastern slope of Irendyk, there are root outcrops of siliceous rocks. The modern riverbed inherits an ancient valley surrounded by low mountains. Highly rounded quartzite pebbles are recorded in the channel sediments, and less rounded ones-phthanites, phthanitoids, red jasper, green siliceous tufa-aleurolites, novaculites, i.e., the entire set of siliceous rocks of the Magnitogorsk trough occurring up to Troitsk. Further, the Ural structures are already covered with thick marine sediments, and they could not be found.

The distribution of siliceous rocks on the left tributaries of the Tobol river Toguzak, Ayate, and Sintashte, which originate in the East Ural Uplift, the watershed of the Ural and Tobolsk basins, is ambiguous. In some areas of this territory, the silicites of the Magnitogorsk Trough were received along the valleys of ancient rivers, however, there are also local manifestations of siliceous rocks, more often phthanites, which is recorded in the materials of sites.

The situation is more complicated on the lakes of the Southern Urals. Studies are not difficult only in the reservoirs of the southern part of the region (Chevarkul, Surtandy, Bannoe, Sabakty, Karabalykty, etc.), located 15-20 km west of Magnitogorsk. They are located within the Magnitogorsk trough, among hills composed of volcanogenic rocks with phthanites, phthanitoids and jaspers developed among them. High-quality silicites are presented here in all possible variants - in the bedrock, in fragments on slopes, in pebbles along the banks of rivers and lakes. They were easily accessible in ancient times, as evidenced by artifacts from sites of different periods of the Stone Age - from the Acheulean-Mousterian time (Mysovaya) to the Eneolithic (Surtandy VIII, etc.) [Matyushin, 1976, 1982]. The difference in the percentage of products made from different siliceous rocks at these locations depends only on which specific rocks are located closer to the site. So, on the monument of Yangelka, located on the lake. Chevarkul, phthanitoids predominate, less phthanites and very little red and two-colored jasper (see table). At the parking lot of Tashbulatovo I on the eastern bank of Lake Baikal. Karabalykts with the same predominance of phthanites and phthanitoids are significantly larger than red-colored jasper. This is due to the fact that there is a small ridge here, which is composed mainly of this rock, fixed in the main outcrops. The sites of Karabalykty VIII and IX, Mysovaya, and others located on the southwestern and western shores of the lake are dominated by phthanites and phthanitoids. This is due to the proximity to the slopes composed of these rocks, and the absence of jasper outcrops. Once again, I would like to draw attention to the fact that in different historical periods, priorities in the choice of raw materials for the manufacture of tools have not changed. At all times, the highest quality phthanites and phthanitoids have prevailed here. Therefore, the previously expressed and widespread opinion that" if in the Neolithic and Mesolithic jaspers of various colors and shades were more preferred, then in the Eneolithic dark flint rocks were more widely used " (Matyushin, 1982, p.30) should be considered erroneous.

The lakes of the northern part of the Southern Urals are located in different geological and geomorphological conditions-outside the main source of silicites,

Raw material composition of collections from the sites of the Southern Urals, %

* "Other" includes non-siliceous rocks, such as siltstones, siltstones and their volcanic varieties, as well as hard-to-define ones.

zones of the Magnitogorsk trough. Therefore, the archaeological realities here should be considered based on the fact that local rocks are only granitoids that make up the banks of reservoirs, and phthanites, phthanitoids and jaspers are absent. This indicates the unusual nature of siliceous raw materials and artifacts from these rocks at the sites known here.

The lakes are located in the form of a chain of sub-meridional direction within the residual mountains of the eastern slope of the Urals and the elevated Trans-Ural peneplain, 90-150 km west and northwest of Chelyabinsk. All of them are located in the zone of development of metamorphic rocks and granitoids of the East Ural uplift, among which veins, veins and nodules (nodules) of local chalcedony are common, as well as its fragments in loose sediments. However, this chalcedony is of poor quality, which is due to the significant cavernous nature and complex structure of the surface of the fragments. The situation with siliceous rocks at all lake sites of the Stone Age in the northern part of the Southern Urals is identical. Research of numerous monuments on the lake. Chebarkul (Chebarkul II, IV, X, XV, XVI, XVII and known from exploration Chebarkul XVIII-XX, as well as sites on all the islands of the lake) showed that in most cases the cultural layers were formed due to the overlap of the remains of short-term sites during the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Eneolithic periods [Krizhevskaya, 1968, 1977; Mosin, Besprozvanny, 1985]. This conclusion can be confirmed by the disordered location of various types of hearths, ceramics of different times, and accumulations of blanks and waste from the same raw material on the sites of monuments.

The presence of both local and non-present siliceous rocks on lake sites can be explained as follows. Groups of hunters and fishermen, visiting the lake, brought with them the necessary tools and blanks made of phthanites, phthanitoids and jaspers, which are not found in the vicinity of the lakes, as well as individual pebbles and tiles. If these preparations and raw materials were insufficient in the process of vital activity, less high-quality local chalcedony was used (see the table). When there was a shortage of raw materials, even the patinated part of the tiles brought was used. For example, at the Chebarkul II site, among the latinized rock artifacts, in addition to chipped nuclei and plates without retouching (43 copies), there was a carver (1 copy), scrapers on chips (5 copies), bilaterally processed tools (7 copies), and a knife (1 copy). It is probably due to the fact that some of the raw materials, billets and tools were brought with them, and the predominance of plas in many lake sites in the northern part of the Southern Urals is associated with-

thin billets and tools over flakes (Mosin and Besprozvanny, 1985). The situation described in the example of oz. Chebarkul, can be projected with a certain degree of confidence on any lake in the area.

Options for using siliceous raw materials

Products made of siliceous rocks in the vast majority of cases are the main category of finds during excavations of Stone Age sites in the Southern Urals. We reviewed collections from monuments of different epochs (Baislantash - Paleolithic; Yangelka, Andreevka III, Yuryuzanskaya I and Ilmurzino - Mesolithic; Dolgiy Yelnik and Kamenny Mys - Mesolithic-Neolithic; Chernikov brod I, Tashbulatovo I - Neolithic; Krasnokamenka and Chebarkul II-Neolithic-Eneolithic; Novokumakskaya I, Udarnik, Agapovka I - Eneolithic) and various natural and landscape zones (see table and figure). The movement of siliceous rocks from the Magnitogorsk trough zone is possible both due to natural processes and by human transport, and this could not but affect the raw material and technical and typological composition of the inventory of sites located in different geological and geographical conditions.

Let's consider several variants of Mesolithic material culture. Materials from the sites of Yangelka, Andreevka III, and Yuryuzanskaya I were analyzed (Matyushin, 1976; Mosin, 2000). Yangelka is located on the lake. Chebarkul, in the center of the Magnitogorsk trough, so it is not surprising that the bulk of the finds are phthanitoids (57 %) and phthanites (37.5%), with a small amount of jasper (2.7%). All other rocks and minerals are represented in insignificant amounts. The collection contains the entire typological set of tools of the South Ural sites: plates without processing (4,286 copies) and with retouching (225), geometric microliths (27), points (37) and incisors (68) on plates, carvers (10), scrapers on plates (139) and flakes (117), knives-scrapers (7) and scrapers (3) on flakes, a retoucher on flakes (1), flakes with retouching (14) and without processing (approx. 10 000), chippers (5). There are a lot of nuclei (191), pre-nuclei (92), chips from nuclei, etc.ch. costal (867). It is unlikely that such a large number of cores and blanks was necessary in one production cycle of a team of hunters. Most of the items may have been prepared for the future, either for the next visit to the parking lot, or to take with you when going to another natural landscape area. The freely available raw materials lying on the shores of the lake contributed to its unlimited use.

Another picture is on the site of Andreevka III, located in the eastern part of the Trans-Ural peneplain, on the bank of the Sintashty river. The area was practically isolated from the distribution of siliceous rocks from the Magnitogorsk trough. This inevitably affected the representativeness of raw materials in the collection of stone products. There is absolutely no jasper in the parking lot, only 14.5% of phthanitoid artifacts and 22.8 % of phthanites, and some of them are made of small pebbles of phthanite of local origin, which can still be found in the riverbed, they are not of such high quality as Magnitogorsk. But most of the flakes are from local opals (33.9 %), chalcedony (7.9%), yellowish-brown yangmoids (7.5%) and novaculites (6.5%), which are still often found on the surface of the slope of the left bank of Sintashta. This circumstance determined the technical and typological composition of the collection. It consists of 80% microplate inventory, the raw material for which was Magnitogorsk phthanites and phthanitoids, brought here from afar and extremely utilized. When they were not enough, they started using local breeds.

Another option is presented at the Yuryuzanskaya I site, located within the elevated mountain ranges of the Southern Urals. The collection of the monument is small (175 items), according to planigraphic and stratigraphic observations, one-time. The extremely microplate inventory is made mainly from phthanitoids and jaspers of the Magnitogorsk trough brought here, while some of the plates and flakes are made from subnovaculites found in these areas among carbonate rocks and their metamorphic differences.

Deliberate movement of siliceous rocks was also carried out during the economic activity of Neolithic-Eneolithic hunters and fishermen in the Southern Urals (Mosin and Nikolsky, 2006, pp. 129-130).

Thus, the percentage of artefacts from different rocks and minerals can be used not to judge cultural and chronological differences, but to assess the population's adaptation options to different situations in terms of the territorial distribution of siliceous raw materials. Most likely, there were several such variants in each epoch, since hunters and fishermen inevitably adapted to the specific geographical conditions of the Southern Urals in the conditions of the appropriating economy.

Conclusion

From the time of the initial settlement of the Southern Urals to the end of the Stone Age, people chose the highest quality siliceous rocks for making tools: phthanites, phthanitoids, jaspers, novaculites - traditional raw materials. The main pattern of distribution of finds from various silicites is manifested in the general trend: the further away from the Magnitogorsk trough the archaeological site is located.-

The more significant the proportion of tools made from "non-Magnitogorsky" (often lower-quality) siliceous rocks located in the immediate vicinity of the monument is in the inventory.

In the early Holocene, the peculiar landscape of the Southern Urals was finally formed, in which the Mesolithic-Eneolithic population adapted. The main area of the largest distribution of silicites traditionally used for the manufacture of tools is the Magnitogorsk trough. Siliceous raw materials are an integral part of the landscape, as well as vegetation, wildlife, hydrographic network, and all this, quite possibly, was identified by the ancient population as "their own".

Adapting to the environment, hunter-angler communities developed their own territory. The necessity of conducting a complex appropriating economy implied the periodic residence of a collective (community, family, production or target group) in some natural-geographical and simultaneously economic zone: in a hilly-steep forest-steppe, on a foothill lake, in the mountains. Not always this place was located where there was enough of the highest quality siliceous raw materials: phthanites, phthanitoids, jaspers (for example, in the eastern part of the peneplain, on the northern foothill lakes, etc.). Then each hunter took with him the necessary number of ready-made tools, blanks or raw material in the form of small tiles, pieces of rock or pebbles and brought to the parking lot. In this situation, the cost-effective traditional microplate technique of splitting and manufacturing insert tools was used. Thus, raw materials and products made from rocks not peculiar to this area were found within the developed territory. The lack was made up for by lower-quality or small-numbered local chalcedony, novaculite, siliceous shale, and other rocks and minerals. This movement of silicites took place over hundreds and thousands of years. In this regard, sometimes there is an erroneous impression that" special expeditions delivered " the siliceous rocks of the Magnitogorsk trough to the places of permanent residence of any collective in ancient times.

List of literature

Archeology: The Neolithic of Northern Eurasia, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1996, 379 p.

Atlas of textures and structures of sedimentary Rocks, Moscow: Gosgeoltekhizdat, 1962, Part 1, 578 p.

Vereshchagin V. A. Geomorphology and petrography of archaeological stone finds in the Kirov region and Udmurt Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. Ustinov: Publishing House of the Udmurt State University, 1985, pp. 14-18.

Volokitin A.V., Mayorova T. P., Tkachev Yu. A. Mesolithic sites of Parch-1 and Parch-2 on Vychegda: Experience of reconstruction of natural environment and life activity. Syktyvkar: Komi Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2003, 64 p. (Scientific reports / Komi Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences; issue 457).

Geologicheskiy slovar ' [Geological Dictionary], Moscow: Nedra Publ., 1973, vol. 1, 486 p.; Vol. 2, 456 p.

Geologiya SSSR. - M.: Nedra, 1969. - Vol. 12, part 1, book 2. -304 p.

Ivanov O. K., Kerner V. F. The use of local stone rocks by the Neolithic population of the Trans-Urals (on the example of the village of St. Petersburg). Minerals in the material culture of the ancient Ural peoples. Sverdlovsk: UrORAN Publ., 1988, pp. 13-19.

Kirin F. Ya. Geografiya Cheliabinskaya oblasti [Geography of the Chelyabinsk region]. Chelyabinsk: South-Ural Publishing House, 1973, 120 p. (in Russian)

Krizhevskaya L. Ya. Neolith of the Southern Urals, Nauka Publ., 1968, 183 p. (MIA; N 141).

Krizhevskaya L. Ya. Early Bronze age in the Southern Trans-Urals. - L.: Publishing House of Leningrad State University, 1977. - 287 p.

Makunina A. A. Landscape of the Urals, Moscow: Moscow State University Press, 1974, 158 p.

Matyushin G. N. Mesolith of the Southern Urals, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1976, 368 p.

Matyushin G. N. The jasper Belt of the Urals, Moscow: Iskusstvo Publ., 1977, 176 p.

Matyushin G. N. Eneolite of the Southern Urals, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1982, 328 p.

Mesolithic of the Southern Trans-Urals //Archeology of the USSR: Mesolithic of the USSR. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1989, pp. 144-148.

Mosin V. S., Grigoriev S. A., Tairov A.D., Botalov S. G. Drevnyaya istoriya Yuzhnogo Zaural'ya [Ancient History of the Southern Trans - Urals]. The Bronze Age , pp. 21-240.

Mosin V. S., Besprozvannyy E. M. New materials from the sites of the Stone Age of Oz. Chebarkul // Eneolithic and Bronze Age of the Ural-Irtysh interfluve. Chelyabinsk: Bashkir State University, 1985. - P. 72-93.

Flint and jasper in the system of adaptation of a person of the Stone Age of the Southern Urals, Chelovek i prostranstvo v kul'turakh kamennogo veka Evrazii. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 2006, 184 p. (in Russian)

Rapoport, M. S., Geologicheskoe stroenie i razvitie Yuzhnogo Urala (v predelakh Cheliabinskaya oblasti) [Geological structure and development of the Southern Urals (within the Chelyabinsk Region)], Uralskiy geologicheskiy zhurnal, 2006, No. 3 (51), pp. 3-20.

Serikov Yu. B. Holokamenskaya workshop and its place in the Mesolithic of the Middle Trans-Urals / / SA. - 1988. - N 4. - pp. 203-209.

Sigov A. P., Shub V. S., Guzovsky A. A., Sigov V. A., Yakushev V. M. Integrated geological and geomorphological mapping of the Urals to search for hypergene minerals. - Saratov: Publishing House of Saratov State University, 1968. - 252 p.

Starkov N. P. Petrographic characteristics of stone tools of the Khutor site // Tr. of the Kama Archaeological expedition. Perm, 1960, issue 3, pp. 72-79.

Khvorova I. V. Kremnistye porody [Siliceous rocks] / / Handbook of Lithology, Moscow: Nedra, 1983, pp. 163-176.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 07.11.07.

Permanent link to this publication: