SUPPORT US. Covid-19 has significantly affected our fundraising. Please help!
Log InRegister
Home PageAbout MindatThe Mindat ManualHistory of MindatCopyright StatusWho We AreContact UsAdvertise on Mindat
Donate to MindatCorporate SponsorshipSponsor a PageSponsored PagesMindat AdvertisersAdvertise on Mindat
Learning CenterWhat is a mineral?The most common minerals on earthInformation for EducatorsMindat ArticlesThe ElementsBooks & Magazines
Minerals by PropertiesMinerals by ChemistryAdvanced Locality SearchRandom MineralRandom LocalitySearch by minIDLocalities Near MeSearch ArticlesSearch GlossaryMore Search Options
Search For:
Mineral Name:
Locality Name:
The Mindat ManualAdd a New PhotoRate PhotosLocality Edit ReportCoordinate Completion ReportAdd Glossary Item
Mining CompaniesStatisticsUsersMineral MuseumsMineral Shows & EventsThe Mindat DirectoryDevice SettingsThe Mineral Quiz
Photo SearchPhoto GalleriesSearch by ColorNew Photos TodayNew Photos YesterdayMembers' Photo GalleriesPast Photo of the Day GalleryMineral Photography

Improving Mindat.orgDzhezkazgan Mine, Kazahkstan

3rd Jun 2017 02:59 UTCPeter K. Szarka

47° 47' 60'' North , 67° 23' 60'' East is given as coordinates. Something wrong with these numbers as the 60 seconds would actually equate to another minute of both longitude and latitude. Google Earth these coordinates and you can see a mine site nearby (47.8317, 67.3861). This mine is quite large but does not encompass the given coordinates.

Secondly, apparently there is no such thing as a Dzhezkazgan Mine. Dzhezkazgan is a sub-district or orefield much the same as Kalahari manganese field, Sudbury Basin, etc.

The mine that many of the azurite specimens attribute to Dzhezkazgan Mine are probably from the Karashoshak Mine. This assertion was made by a mineral dealer from whom I've purchased quite a number of Azurites lately. I questioned him specifically about the location. I originally asked him why there was a Karashoshak Mine in the Mindat database, yet no Azurites, or even minerals were listed for the location. It's then when he explained the misattribution of Karashoshak Mine Azurite pieces as Dzhezkazgan Mine.

He has also forwarded this photo of the mine itself.

Further, I've googled Dzhezkazgan Mine as well. Foremost entries are all Mindat references. A more detailed look into mines of, copper mines of Kazahkstan, of Karaganda Oblast, etc. make no mention of a mine called Dzhezkazgan. The USGS On-Line Spatial Data returns no entry either. It does yield info for Karashoshak but it's coordinates are 48.188, 67.61 and are quite a distance from Mindat's coords.

It's my suggestion that anything labelled as Dzhezkazgan Mine should be relabelled as Dzhezkazgan Sub-District until someone comes up with a definitive name for the mine at Mindat's cords, if that indeed, is the location for their Azurite specimens.

3rd Jun 2017 20:24 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager

Some time ago this 100 Km2 area was changed to a mine. Perhaps the various numbered shafts in this area are some of the nearby mines? Perhaps those more familiar might chime in?

4th Jun 2017 14:55 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

Should then (which includes the Karashoshak mine) be a sublocality of the general district / ore-field?

Is there a map in the following ref.?

Voloshin, A. V., Pakhomovskiy, Ya. A., Stepanov, V. I., Bulgak, L. V. and Men-shikov, Yu. P. (1988): Gerhardtite, likasite, and spertiniite from the oxidation zone of Dzhezkazgan chalcosite ores; first finds in the USSR. Novye Dannye o Mineralakh SSSR, 35, 40-47. (in Russian)

6th Jun 2017 00:25 UTCPeter K. Szarka


I don't think so. In the sub-basin are 3 deposit groups, the Zhilandy being one of the three, the Dzhezkazgan and Zhaman-Aibat deposits being the other two. The following geological map shows a clear separation of the 3 ore deposits. Zhilandy specimens should be kept separate, especially as we know the Itauz Mine as a separate and very specific location.

From © 2012 Society of Economic Geologists, Inc.

Special Publication 16, pp. 303–328

My point is that specimens labelled as Dzhezkazgan Mine should be revisited and Mine be replaced with either Orebody or Sub-District. Specimens should not be attributed to a mine that clearly does not exist. It's unfortunate that the specimen locations coming from Russia are often obscured for fear of governmental involvement and strict laws regarding exports. It's the same situation we face with the Chinese specimens or Pakistani pieces. There's a huge amount of misattribution occurring and and I'm simply trying to correct one that I can.

8th Jul 2017 19:37 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

Now changed to

Dzhezkazgan mining district (Dzhezkazgan deposit; "Dzhezkazgan Mine"; "Zhezqazghan Mine")

(+ description modified).

Will also add the Box chapter.

EDIT: Misprint.

8th Jul 2017 19:42 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

Chu-Sarysu basin also added to all three.

10th Jul 2017 04:08 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager

So and are the same locality?

10th Jul 2017 04:38 UTCChester S. Lemanski, Jr. Manager

The Rocksmiths were selling specimens attributed to the Dzhezkazgan Mine. This may account for the discrepancy since they regularly had specimens so attributed that they acquired in Kazakhstan.

12th Sep 2019 14:24 UTCTom Wesby

I was lucky enough to visit this area a few months ago. The added complication is that there are extensive underground workings, some of which will have locally-developed supergene carbonate minerals, and which overlap "historic" naming divisions between the various surface mines.

But the place where I saw most azurite was Karashoshak just like you said. You can easily fossick for good samples at the ore loading terminal as the mine is disused and there was clearly a dedicated Cu-carbonate ROM pad separately from sulfide ore. This is the last of the open pits in the NE corner of the "Zhezqazgan syncline" and a long way from the coords. I think this or perhaps Zhezqazgan sub-basin is a better name for the ore district as it is quoted in several USGS reports e.g. 
Dzhezkazgan, now preferred latinised spelling is Zhezqazgan was indeed the name of the largest open pit and if you ask people where this mine is, they would agree on the area just north of the quoted coordinates from Peter. Confusingly, there was also a Zhezqazgan village, partially destroyed by mining activities there, and a larger Zhezqazgan city further to the SE with railway terminals and smelters.

12th Sep 2019 16:33 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Actually, the preferred spelling now appears to be Zhezkazgan or Jezkazgan.

Kazakhstan are switching to a latin alphabet and have already revised their transliterations a couple of times. 

Is the official website of the town. The English language page on their site seems to be a copy-paste from Google Translate, so I wouldn't even trust that Zhezkasgan is their preferred term.

Regardless of this, we don't use the term preferred of the state in general, we use the term preferred and most popular in the English language.  For now that's probably Jezkazgan.

Mineral and/or Locality  
Mindat Discussions Facebook Logo Instagram Logo Discord Logo is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. Public Relations by Blytheweigh.
Copyright © and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2020, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us Current server date and time: October 30, 2020 02:37:22
Go to top of page