The Semiozernoe II settlement is located at the centre of the northern Turgay Valley which lies between Turan Plain and West Siberian Plain, Kazakhstan. Since 1973 it has been frequently mentioned by researchers of Sintashta culture and Petrovka culture. Since published material of the site was fragmented and limited, it is difficult to have a precise notion of its material culture. As a result, the settlement is defined as Sintashta in one part and as Petrovka in another part of the same scientific study [Vinogradov, 2011, p. 27, 97]. Meanwhile, the Semiozernoe II settlement is the only studied site of these cultures without artifacts of other epoch in Kazakhstan thus far. Therefore the main aim of this study is to describe information gathered during settlement excavation as completely as possible. But due to the aim and limitations of volume interpretative statements turned out to be very brief. Later the authors will publish a more detailed work, and possibly readers may consider this paper as food for reflection. At the settlement there were excavated 1545 m² of occupation layer and remains of six constructions. Apparently the settlement was established by metallurgists. Only the construction 1 can be recognized as dwelling. Many everyday non-metalworking artifacts were discovered there. The construction 3 was used mainly for copper smelting. There is a big metallurgical furnace there, but no small furnaces. The constructions 2, 4, 5 were used for subsequent metalwork operations based on small furnaces, many hearths, chisel mould and other findings. When comparing pottery from the Semiozernoe II settlement and the Arkaim settlement, it is ascertained that main pottery types of these sites are the same [Malutina, Zdanovich, 2004]. This represents the settlements as part of one culture tradition at the same time. Small size of the Semiozernoe II, small density of occupation layer, functional specialization of constructions indicates at short duration of the settlement. Similarity of the pottery from the Semiozernoe II and the Arkaim enables us to consider poorness of occupation layer at the Arkaim as a result of its short duration too. The above-mentioned leads to the conclusion that the attempt to split the Arkaim collection into Sintashta and later Petrovka is apparently unsuccessful [Vinogradov, 2011, p. 96]. In broad terms, it is necessary to return to the problem of correlation between Sintashta and Petrovka antiquities.

Key words: Semiozernoe II, metallurgy, Sintashta, Petrovka, Bronze Age.

DOI: 10.20874/2071-0437-2016-33-2-030-040

30.05.2016

V.V. Evdokimov

Karaganda state University named after academician E.A. Buketov, Universitetskaya st., 28, Karaganda, 100028, Republic of Kazakhstan

E-mail: v241242@yandex.ru

A.V. Logvin

Kostanai State University A. Baitursynov, A. Baytursynov st., 47, Kostanai, 110000, Republic of Kazakhstan

E-mail: logvin_a@mail.ru

A.A. Tkachev

Institute of problems of development of the North SB RAS, Malygin st., 86, Tyumen, 625026, Russian Federation

E-mail: sever626@mail.ru