The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia: The History and Results of Research, 1940-1980 9781803273907, 9781803273914, 1803273909

Citation preview

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia: The History and Results of Research, 1940–1980 V. A. Kashin

Translated from the Russian and edited by

Richard L. Bland and Yaroslav V. Kuzmin

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia The History and Results of Research, 1940–1980

Vitaly A. Kashin Translated and edited by Richard L. Bland and Yaroslav V. Kuzmin

Archaeopress Archaeology

Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Summertown Pavilion 18-24 Middle Way Summertown Oxford OX2 7LG www.archaeopress.com

ISBN 978-1-80327-390-7 ISBN 978-1-80327-391-4 (e-Pdf) © Vitaly A. Kashin and Archaeopress 2023

Cover background: The Orochi River valley, Gizhiga River basin (photo by I.E. Vorobei).

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners. This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com

Contents List of Figures, Tables, and Plates������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ iii List of Abbreviations���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������iv Translators’ Introduction�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������vi Introduction�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������1 Chapter I: Beginning of Palaeolithic Studies in Northeast Asia. Activities of the Lena Historical– Archaeological Expedition. The Period of Initial Accumulation of Data (1948–1959)����������������������������������������5 Chapter II: Investigations of the Palaeolithic of Aldan River and Kamchatka Peninsula. The Determination of Local Cultures and Creation of Regional Cultural-Chronological Schemes in the Evolution of the Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia (1960–1969)�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 18 Sites of the Aldan River��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������18 The Ushki Palaeolithic Complex�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������38 Chapter III: Investigations of the Palaeolithic in Yakutia, Western Coastal Region of the Okhotsk Sea, Chukotka, and Kamchatka. Further Development of Concepts about the Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia (1970–1980)����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 46 Yakutsk Research Programme��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������46 Magadan Research Programme������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������68 Chapter IV: Some Research Problems of the Northeast Asian Palaeolithic������������������������������������������������������ 80 Conclusion������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 91 Colour Plates�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 92 References������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 98 Published Sources�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������98 Archival Materials���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������117 Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 120

i

ii

List of Figures, Tables, and Plates

Table 1.

Major Palaeolithic cultural complexes in Northeast Asia�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������vii

Figure 1. Figure 2.

Northeast Asia (after Kashin 2003, p. 152; modified)����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 Distribution of Palaeolithic and presumably Palaeolithic sites in Northeast Asia (after Kashin 2003, p. 207; modified)������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 2 Distribution of Palaeolithic sites in the Lena River basin (Okladnikov 1953a) (after Kashin 2003, p. 155; modified)����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 10 Lithics from the Chastinskaya site (Okladnikov 1953a) (after Kashin 2003, p. 153; modified)������������������������������������ 11 Lithics from the Lena River sites (Okladnikov 1953a) (after Kashin 2003, p. 154; modified)��������������������������������������� 12 Lithics from the Sumnagin I site (after Mochanov et al. 1983, p. 181; modified)����������������������������������������������������������� 23 Lithics from the Ikhine I site (after Mochanov 1977, pp. 142–143; modified)���������������������������������������������������������������� 24 Lithics from the Dyuktai Cave, layer VIIa (after Mochanov 1977, p. 16; modified)������������������������������������������������������� 29 Lithic and bone items from the Dyuktai Cave (after Mochanov 1977, p. 20; modified)������������������������������������������������ 30 Lithics from the Dyuktai Cave (after Mochanov 1977, p. 25; modified)��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 31 Lithics from the Ust-Timpton I site, layer IVb (after Mochanov 1977, p. 160; modified)��������������������������������������������� 33 Lithics from the Ust-Timpton I site, layer Va (after Mochanov 1977, p. 178; modified)����������������������������������������������� 34 Lithics from the Ust-Timpton I site, layer Vb (after Mochanov 1977, p. 181; modified)���������������������������������������������� 35 Artefacts from the early Ushki culture (layer VII) (after Dikov 1979d, p. 35; modified)���������������������������������������������� 39 Wedge-shaped cores, microblades, and ski spalls from the dwelling of the Ushki I site, layer VI, 1965 excavations (after Dikov 1977a, p. 268; modified)��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 41 Artefacts from the lower cultural layer (horizon C) of Ust-Mil II site (after Mochanov 1977, p. 37; modified)�������� 47 Lithics from the Verkhne-Troitskaya site (after Mochanov 1977, p. 65; modified)������������������������������������������������������� 48 Lithics from the Ezhantsy site (after Mochanov 1977, p. 52; modified)�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 49 Lithics from the Ezhantsy site (after Mochanov 1977, p. 54; modified)�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 50 Artefacts from the Berelekh site (after Mochanov 1977, p. 80; modified)���������������������������������������������������������������������� 51 Ivory and bone artefacts, and image of mammoth from the Berelekh site (after Mochanov 1977, pp. 82, 84; modified)����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 54 Lithics from the Tumulur site, Palaeolithic cultural layer (after Mochanov 1977, p. 72; modified)��������������������������� 55 Lithics from the Ikhine II site (after Mochanov 1977, p. 46; modified)��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 59 The structure of Aldan River terraces and stratigraphic position of key Palaeolithic sites (after Mochanov 1977, p. 216; modified)������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 61 Lithics from the Kurung site, layer VI (after Mochanov et al. 1983, pp. 79, 379; modified)������������������������������������������ 65 Striated slab and a “lunar calendar” from the Ushki I site, layer VI (after Dikov 1979d, p. 66; modified)���������������� 69 Lithics from the Siberdik site (after Kashin 2003, p. 194; modified)�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 71 Lithics from the Siberdik site (after Kashin 2003, p. 195; modified)�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 72 Lithics from the Kongo site (after Kashin 2003, p. 192; modified)����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 73 Lithics from the Kongo site (after Dikov 1977a, p. 383; modified)������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 74 Bifaces from the Berelekh site (after Kashin 2003, p. 206; modified)������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 88

Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure 10. Figure 11. Figure 12. Figure 13. Figure 14. Figure 15. Figure 16. Figure 17. Figure 18. Figure 19. Figure 20. Figure 21. Figure 22. Figure 23. Figure 24. Figure 25. Figure 26. Figure 27. Figure 28. Figure 29. Figure 30. Figure 31. Plate 1. Plate 2. Plate 3. Plate 4. Plate 5. Plate 6.

The Lena River in Central Yakutia (photo by A.A. Galanin)���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 92 The Vilyui River, with camp of geologists on the island (photo by A.A. Galanin)��������������������������������������������������������� 93 The gorge in the Druchak River valley, Northeastern Siberia (photo by I.E. Vorobei)������������������������������������������������� 94 The view of the Berelekh site; arrows indicate suggested places of archaeological excavations in 1971 and 1974 (photo by V.V. Pitulko)���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 95 A view of Ushki Lake and the channel of the Kamchatka River; the green area (willow bushes) on the left side of the lakeshore is the location of the Ushki I site (photo by N.A. Krenke)�������������������������������������������������������������������� 96 A cross-section of deposits at the Ushki cluster, near the Ushki I site; light layers near the top are volcanic ashes, and dark layers below are palaeosols (photo by N.A. Krenke)������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 97

iii

List of Abbreviations AN AzSSR

Akademiya Nauk Azerbaijanskoi Sovetskoi Sotsialisticheskoi Respubliki [Academy of Sciences of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic].

AN SSSR

Akademiya Nauk Soyuza Sovetskihk Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik [USSR Academy of Sciences].

BKICHP

Byulleten Komissii po Izucheniyu Chetvertichnogo Perioda [Bulletin of the Commission for Study of the Quaternary Period].

BP

Before Present (in radiocarbon dating, with AD 1950 as a starting point).

Cand. Sci.

Candidate of Sciences (Soviet/Russian scientific degree equal to Ph.D. and D.Phil.).

Dr. Sci.

Doctor of Sciences (Soviet/Russian scientific degree equal to Dr. habil. degree in Western Europe, and to Full Professor position in USA).

DVF

Dalnevostochny Filial [Far Eastern Division].

DVNTS

Dalnevostochny Nauchny Tsentr (Akademiya Nauk SSSR) [Far Eastern Scientific Centre (USSR Academy of Sciences)].

GAIMK

Gosudarstvennaya Akademiya Istorii Materialnoi Kultury [State Academy of the History of Material Culture, Leningrad].

GES

Gidroelectrostantsiya [Hydroelectric power station].

IA RAN

Institut Arkheologii Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk [Institute of Archaeology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow].

IIMK

Institut Istorii Materialnoi Kultury [Institute of the History of Material Culture, USSR/Russian Academy of Sciences, Leningrad/St. Petersburg].

IYaLI

Institut Yazyka, Literatury i Istorii Yakutskogo Filiala Sibirskogo Otdeleniya Akademii Nauk SSSR [Institute of the Language, Literature, and History, Yakut Division of the Siberian Branch, USSR Academy of Sciences, Yakutsk].

KPSS

Kommunisticheskaya Partiya Sovetskogo Soyuza [Communist Party of the Soviet Union].

KSIA

Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Arkheologii [Short Communications of the Institute of Archaeology].

LIAE

Lenskaya Istoriko–Arkheologicheskaya Ekspeditsiya [Lena Historical–Archaeological Expedition].

LOIA

Leningradskoe Otdelenie Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR [Leningrad Branch of the Institute of Archaeology, USSR Academy of Sciences, Leningrad].

MIA

Materialy i Issledovaniya po Arkheologii SSSR [Materials and Studies on the Archaeology of the USSR].

NIIYaK

Nauchno-Issledovatelsky Institut Yazyka i Kultury [Scientific Research Institute of Language and Culture, Yakutsk].

PAE

Prilenskaya Arkheologicheskaya Ekspeditsiya [The Lena Archaeological Expedition].

RGO

Russkoe Geograficheskoe Obshchestvo [Russian Geographical Society].

SO AN SSSR

Sibirskoe Otdelenie Akademii Nauk SSSR [Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences].

SORGO

Sibirskoe Otdelenie Russkogo Geograficheskogo Obshchestva [Siberian Branch of the Russian Geographical Society, Irkutsk].

SVAKAE

Severo-Vostochnaya Kompleksnaya Arkheologicheskaya Interdisciplinary Archaeological Expedition].

SVKNII

Severo-Vostochny Kompleksny Nauchno-Issledovatelsky Institut DVNTS AN SSSR [North-Eastern Interdisciplinary Research Institute, Far Eastern Scientific Centre, USSR/Russian Academy of Sciences, Magadan]. iv

Ekspeditsiya

[North-East

Asian

VAE

Vilyuiskaya Arkheologicheskaya Ekspeditsiya [Vilyui Archaeological Expedition].

VINITI

Vsesoyuzny Institut Nauchno-Technicheskoi Informatsii [All-Union Institute of ScientificTechnical Information, USSR/Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow].

VSORGO

Vostochno-Sibirskoe Otdelenie Russkogo Geograficheskogo Obshchestva [East Siberian Branch of the Russian Geographical Society, Irkutsk].

YaGU

Yakutsky Gosudarstvenny Universitet [Yakutsk State University, Yakutsk; now North-Eastern Federal University in Yakutsk].

YaORGO

Yakutskoe Otdelenie Russkogo Geograficheskogo Obshchestva [Yakutian Branch of the Russian Geographical Society, Yakutsk].

YF SO AN SSSR Yakutsky Filial Sibirskogo Otdeleniya Akademii Nauk SSSR [Yakut Division of the Siberian Branch, USSR Academy of Sciences, Yakutsk].

v

Translators’ Introduction This book, written by Vitaly A. Kashin (1946–2010), was originally published in Russian in 2003. It contains meticulous descriptions of discoveries of Palaeolithic sites in a vast region of Northeast Asia (essentially, the northeastern part of modern Russia), and analysis of hypotheses, ideas, and concepts related to the Northeast Asian Palaeolithic. This is especially important for better understanding the development of knowledge on this subject, closely related to the issue of the peopling of the New World, because a very limited number of papers by Soviet/Russian archaeologists on the Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia were published in English (and other languages) until the mid-1990s. We, therefore, decided to make this book available to the international scholarly community, especially to North American colleagues dealing with the extremely complicated problem of the initial human settlement of the Americas.

Lena and Angara rivers (see Kuzmin 2021). Therefore, Mochanov and Fedoseeva were his rivals. Okladnikov did not support Dikov during the early stage of his career, but later accepted Dikov’s Dr. Sci. dissertation for defense at the Institute of History, Philology, and Philosophy (Siberian Branch, USSR Academy of Sciences) in Novosibirsk, where Okladnikov was a Director and a head of the Scientific Council (see Kuzmin 2021). There is not any doubt that Mochanov and Fedoseeva throughout their 50+ years of research created the modern archaeology of Yakutia, not only in terms of the Palaeolithic but also the later periods. However, the personal interrelations of Mochanov with colleagues and employees were often far from cordial. He (according to Kuzmin’s personal observations) had only two kinds of relationships with other scholars: love and hate, nothing much in between. There was bad blood between Mochanov and Dikov because the former did not accept the undisturbed stratigraphy of the Ushki cluster in Kamchatka. In a Foreword to the translation of his 1977 book, Mochanov (2009, pp. xii–xviii) calls scientists who disagree with him by the quite derogatory term “armchair archaeologists”. In one of his latest books (Mochanov 2007), he goes on and on about the differences in opinions on the Dyuktai culture, severely criticising numerous scholars, especially Okladnikov (Mochanov 2007, pp. 100–102; see also Mochanov and Fedoseeva 1996: 160–161).

From the age of nineteen V.A. Kashin was involved in archaeology, and participated as an employee of the Institute of Language, Literature, and History (Yakut Division of the Siberian Branch, USSR Academy of Sciences) in excavations of all important Palaeolithic sites in the Aldan River basin from the mid-1960s to the late 1980s; thus, gaining first-hand knowledge of its prehistory and stratigraphy including controversial issues. In 1991, he defended his Cand. Sci. (Ph.D.equivalent) dissertation that is the basis of this book. After that, Kashin moved to the Institute of Humanitarian Studies, Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), and continued archaeological works in the Kolyma River basin, where he found and studied 47 Neolithic sites (see Kashin 2013), until his death. The main dramatis personae of this book are four scholars – Aleksei P. Okladnikov (1908–1981), Nikolai N. Dikov (1925–1996), Yuri A. Mochanov (1934–2020), and Svetlana A. Fedoseeva (1936–2017) (the latter two were also husband and wife). They made the largest contribution to the creation and development of archaeology in Northeast Asia, the vast and remote part of Eurasia. Their works are described in numerous books and edited volumes cited in the main References at the end of this monograph.

Mochanov, as his boss, gave Kashin a hard time for not agreeing with the scheme of periodisation developed by Mochanov (1977). In Kashin (2003, p. 34, footnote) it is said: “Yu. A. Mochanov and S. A. Fedoseeva protested against the inclusion in this book of drawings from their published works. For any inconvenience for readers of the book in this regard, the author apologizes”. We excluded it from translation, but it is worth mentioning here as evidence of the tense relationships between Mochanov and his employees and students in case of disagreement. One of us (Y. Kuzmin) also experienced the hostile treatment by Mochanov on the issue of the age of the Diring Yuriakh site (see Kuzmin and Krivonogov 1994, 1999).

However, the history of Palaeolithic studies in Northeast Asia is also a history of personalities. A biography of Okladnikov was recently published (Konopatskii 2019, 2021). It is well known that Okladnikov, as a ‘doyen’ of Siberian archaeology, was to some extent jealous of other researchers who worked in regions that were previously studied by him, especially the basins of the

In order to have the main schemes of periodisation of Northeast Asian Palaeolithic more visible and understandable for international readers, we put together all major cultural complexes in chronological order (Table 1). It is based on fundamental monographs of two leading archaeologists of this region, Mochanov (1977) and Dikov (1979). vi

Translators’ Introduction

Table 1. Major Palaeolithic cultural complexes in Northeast Asia.

Late Pleistocene

Holocene

Periods

Yakutia Sumnagin

Kamchatka Final Ushki (Layer V)

Kolyma River and Chukotka Early Maltan Late Siberdik

Late Ushki (Layer VI) Dyuktai

Early Siberdik Early Ushki (Layer VII)

We have ‘created’ our own system of transliteration by combining the BGN (US Board of Geographic Names) with a slightly modified version of the LOC (Library of Congress). We have also settled on one ending for words, as the English language forces us to do, rather than providing the appropriate ending (masculine, feminine, neuter, plural/nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, instrumental, and prepositional) that can occur in Russian.

We reduced the number of illustrations compared to the original 70 in Kashin’s (2003) volume and selected the most important ones for understanding the main prehistoric cultural complexes of Northeast Asia. Many extra figures and other drawings can be found in Mochanov’s (2009) and Dikov’s (1997, 2003, 2004) books. Since the research for this volume was completed in 1991, and included in Kashin’s Cand. Sci. dissertation, several books and a plethora of papers were published in English about the archaeology and palaeoecology of the Northeast Asian Palaeolithic. It is, therefore, worth mentioning some of them here.

Some names and terms are ‘semi-formalised’ in English. We decided not to use an apostrophe (’) to transliterate the Russian soft sign letter (‘ь’), especially for site names which are now widely accepted like Malta (instead of Mal’ta) or Buret (instead of Buret’). For names that do not have an accepted English form we have tried consistently to use our system for transliterating. The Russian ‘-ский’ (‘-skii’) end of names we reduced to ‘-sky’. We generally give a (Russian) ‘i’ or ‘y’ plural for plural words that are not translated. This is with the exception of ethnic names, which are given no ending in the plural (following one accepted form found in Webster’s 3rd International Dictionary, 1965). The common Russian term “archaeological culture” or simply “culture” we translated as “cultural complex”, “assemblage”, and “culture” interchangeably.

Major monographs by Mochanov and Dikov are now translated (Dikov 2003, 2004; Mochanov 2009). The volume by Mochanov and Fedoseeva (2008) and translation of Mochanov’s (1976) review paper (see Mochanov 1986) contain the essence of their research in Yakutia and neighbouring territories from the 1960s to the 1990s. The description of the still enigmatic Diring Yuriakh site, accepted by Mochanov as the oldest in Asia and one of the oldest in the entire world, can be found in Mochanov (1993). Research on the Palaeolithic of Chukotka and the Kolyma River basin, conducted mainly after 1980, is summarised in Dikov (1997), Kiryak (2010) (see also Kiryak 1996), and Slobodin (2014). The descriptions of Palaeolithic sites in other parts of Northeast Asia, mentioned in Kashin’s book, are also available (Khlobystin 2005; Ineshin and Tetenkin 2017; Slobodin et al. 2017). A compendium volume edited by West (1996) is an excellent source on the Palaeolithic archaeology and palaeoecology of Beringia (including both Siberia and North America). The annotated bibliography of Palaeolithic studies in Beringia, compiled by Beaudoin and Reintjes (1994), is also valuable for any student of the Northeast Asian Palaeolithic. As for North America, three books—among many others—are very useful for general information

For published references, we give transliteration of the original title of a paper and/or a book and its translation, and for sources (such as edited volumes, collections of papers and/or abstracts, periodicals, and semi-periodicals) only transliteration is given. This, however, is sufficient enough to find the volumes in the LOC online catalogue or in Russian library resources. The archival sources are manuscripts (typewritten excavation reports) deposited at the Institute of Archaeology, Russian Academy of Sciences, in Moscow, and can be found by their indicated numbers in the archival catalogue.

vii

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia Dikov, N.N. (1979). Drevnie Kultury Severo-Vostochnoi Azii. Aziya na Styke s Amerikoi v Drevnosti (Ancient Cultures of Northeast Asia. Asia at the Junction with America in Antiquity). Moscow: Nauka. Dikov, N.N. (1997). Asia at the Juncture with America in Antiquity (The Stone Age of the Chukchi Peninsula). Anchorage, AK: Shared Beringian Heritage Program. Dikov, N.N. (2003). Archaeological Sites of Kamchatka, Chukotka, and the Upper Kolyma. Anchorage, AK: Shared Beringian Heritage Program. Dikov, N.N. (2004). Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia. Anchorage, AK: Shared Beringian Heritage Program. Flenniken, J.J. (1987). The Paleolithic Dyuktai pressure blade technique of Siberia. Arctic Anthropology 24(2): 117–132. Goebel, T., and I. Buvit (eds) (2011). From the Yenisei to the Yukon: Interpreting Lithic Assemblage Variability in Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Beringia. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press. Gómez Coutouly, Y.A. (2016). Migrations and interactions in prehistoric Beringia: the evolution of Yakutian lithic technology. Antiquity 90: 9–31. Gómez Coutouly, Y.A. (2018). The emergence of pressure knapping microblade technology in Northeast Asia. Radiocarbon 60: 821–855. Haynes, G. (2002). The Early Settlement of North America: The Clovis Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hoffecker, J.F., and S.A. Elias (2007). Human Ecology of Beringia. New York: Columbia University Press. Ineshin, E.M., & A.V. Tetenkin (2017). Humans and the Environment in Northern Baikal Siberia during the Late Pleistocene. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. Kashin, V.A. (2003). Paleolit Severo-Vostochnoi Azii: Istoriya i Itogi Issledovany. 1940–1980 GG. (The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia: History and Results of Research in 1940–1980). Novosibirsk: Nauka. Kashin, V.A. (2013). Neolit Srednei Kolymy (The Neolithic of the Middle Kolyma River). Novosibirsk: Nauka. Keates, S.G., A.V. Postnov, and Y.V. Kuzmin (2019). Towards the origin of microblade technology in Northeastern Asia. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Series History 64: 390–414. Khlobystin, L.P. (2005). Taymyr: The Archaeology of Northernmost Eurasia. Washington, D.C.: Arctic Studies Center, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. Kiryak, M.A. (1996). Bolshoi Elgakhchan 1 and 2, Omolon River basin, Magadan District. In: West, F.H. (ed.), American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Palaeoecology of Beringia, pp. 228–236. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press. Kiryak (Dikova), M.A. (2010). The Stone Age of Chukotka, Northeastern Siberia (New Materials) (B.A.R. International Series 2099). Oxford: Archaeopress.

about the oldest archaeological complexes (see Haynes 2002; Hoffecker and Elias 2007; Meltzer 2009). More summary sources are now available for the international scholarly community about the Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia. The pressure flaking technique, initially established by Flenniken (1987) for the Dyuktai culture, was additionally studied by Gómez Coutouly (2016, 2018). Issues on microblade complexes in Northeast Asia and North America are examined in two edited volumes, by Kuzmin et al. (2007) and Goebel and Buvit (2011), and in a review paper by Keates et al. (2019). Results and problems of the chronology and palaeoenvironment of the Northeast Asian Palaeolithic are summarised in Kuzmin and Orlova (1998), Vasil’ev et al. (2002), Pitul’ko and Pavlova (2016), Pitulko and Pavlova (2020), Pavlova and Pitulko (2020), Kuzmin (2017), and Chlachula et al. (2021). The results of DNA analysis of rare Palaeolithic human fossils in Northeast Asia can be found in Sikora et al. (2019). We are grateful to several colleagues for their cooperation in our work. As always, Archaeopress and personally D. Davison and R. Makjanić enthusiastically supported its publication. N. Coppock-Bland helped with copy-editing of the text. Photographs of the landscapes and sites in Northeast Asia were provided by A.A. Galanin, N.A. Krenke, V.V. Pitulko, and I.E. Vorobei. V.V. Kalinina—V.A. Kashin’s widow—supplied a photograph of the book’s author. We sincerely hope that this volume will serve as a useful source on the history of Palaeolithic studies in Northeast Siberia in the twentieth century. Now, the translation of all major Russian books on this subject is completed. Finis coronat opus. Yaroslav V. Kuzmin (Novosibirsk, Russia) Richard L. Bland (Eugene, OR, USA) May 2022 References Beaudoin, A.B., and F.D. Reintjes (1994). Late Quaternary Studies in Beringia and Beyond, 1950–1993: An Annotated Bibliography (Provincial Museum of Alberta, Archaeological Survey, Occasional Paper, No. 35). Edmonton: Archaeological Survey, Provincial Museum of Alberta. Chlachula, J., M.Y. Cheprasov, G.P. Novgorodov, T.F. Obada, and E. Little (2021). The MIS 3–2 environments of the middle Kolyma Basin: implications for the Ice Age peopling of northeast Arctic Siberia. Boreas 50: 556–581.

viii

Translators’ Introduction

Konopatskii, A.K. (2019). Aleksei P. Okladnikov: The Great Explorer of the Past. Volume 1: A Biography of a Soviet Archaeologist (1900s – 1950s). Oxford: Archaeopress. Konopatskii, A.K. (2021). Aleksei P. Okladnikov: The Great Explorer of the Past. Volume 2: A Biography of a Soviet Archaeologist (1960s – 1980s). Oxford: Archaeopress. Kuzmin, Y.V. (2017). Central Siberia (the Yenisey-LenaYana region). In: Kotlyakov, V.M., A.A. Velichko, and S.A. Vasil’ev (eds), Human Colonization of the Arctic: The Interaction between Early Migration and the Paleoenvironment, pp. 211–237. London: Academic Press. Kuzmin, Y.V. (2021). Aleksei P. Okladnikov and the Akademgorodok of Novosibirsk: a story of twenty fruitful years. In: Konopatskii, A.K. Aleksei P. Okladnikov: The Great Explorer of the Past. Volume 2: A Biography of a Soviet Archaeologist (1960s – 1980s), pp. xi–xxx. Oxford: Archaeopress. Kuzmin, Y.V., S.G. Keates, and C. Shen (eds) (2007). Origin and Spread of Microblade Technology in Northern Asia and North America. Burnaby, B.C. (Canada): Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University. Kuzmin, Y.V., and S.K. Krivonogov (1994). The Diring Palaeolithic site, Eastern Siberia: review of geoarchaeological studies. Geoarchaeology 9: 287– 300. Kuzmin, Y.V., and S.K. Krivonogov (1999). More about Diring Yuriakh: unsolved geoarchaeological problems at a “Lower” Paleolithic site in Central Siberia. Geoarchaeology 14: 351–359. Kuzmin, Y.V., and L.A. Orlova (1998). Radiocarbon chronology of the Siberian Paleolithic. Journal of World Prehistory 12: 1–53. Meltzer, D.J. (2009). First People in a New World: Colonizing Ice Age America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Mochanov, Y.A. (1976). Paleolit Sibiri (nekotorye itogi izucheniya) (The Palaeolithic of Siberia (some results of the study). In: Kontrimavichus, V.L. (ed.), Beringiya v Kainozoe, pp. 540–565. Vladivostok: DVNTS AN SSSR. Mochanov, Y.A. (1977). Drevneishie Etapy Zaseleniya Chelovekom Severo-Vostochnoi Azii (The Earliest Stages of Settlement by People of Northeast Asia). Novosibirsk: Nauka. Mochanov, Y.A. (1986). Palaeolithic finds in Siberia (resume of studies). In: Kontrimavichus, V.L. (ed.), Beringia in the Cenozoic Era, pp. 694–724. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema. Mochanov, Y.A. (1993). The most ancient Paleolithic of Diring and the problem of a nontropical origin for humanity. Arctic Anthropology 30(1): 22–53. Mochanov, Y.A. (2007). Dyuktaiskaya Bifasialnaya Traditsiya Paleolita Severnoi Azii (Istoriya Ee Vydeleniya i Izucheniya) (Dyuktai Bifacial Tradition of the Palaeolithic of North Asia (History of its Definition

and Research)). Yakutsk: Centre for Arctic Archaeology and Human Palaeoecology. Mochanov, Y.A. (2009). The Earliest Stages of Settlement by People of Northeast Asia. Anchorage, AK: Shared Beringian Heritage Program. Mochanov, Y.A., and S.A. Fedoseeva (1996). Chapter 3. Aldansk: Aldan River valley, Sakha Republic. Introduction. In: West, F.H. (ed.), American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Palaeoecology of Beringia, pp. 157– 163. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press. Mochanov, Y.A., and S.A. Fedoseeva (2008). Archaeology, and the Paleolithic of Northeast Asia, a Non-Tropical Origin for Humanity, and the Earliest Stages of the Settlement of America. Burnaby, B.C. (Canada): Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University. Pavlova, E.Y., and V.V. Pitulko (2020). Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene climate changes and human habitation in the arctic Western Beringia based on revision of palaeobotanical data. Quaternary International 549: 5–25. Pitul’ko, V.V., and E.Y. Pavlova (2016). Geoarchaeology and Radiocarbon Chronology of Stone Age Northeast Asia. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press. Pitulko, V.V., and E.Y. Pavlova (2020). Colonization of the Eurasian Arctic. In: Goldstein, M.I., and D.A. DellaSala (eds), Encyclopedia of the World’s Biomes. Volume 2, pp. 374–391. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Sikora, M., V.V. Pitulko, V.C. Sousa, M.E. Allentoft, L. Vinner, S. Rasmussen, A. Margaryan, P. de Barros Damgaard, C. de la Fuente, G. Renaud, M.A. Yang, Q. Fu, I. Dupanloup, K. Giampoudakis, D. NoguesBravo, C. Rahbek, G. Kroonen, M. Peyrot, H. McColl, S.V. Vasilyev, E. Veselovskaya, M. Gerasimova, E.Y. Pavlova, V.G. Chasnyk, P.A. Nikolskiy, A.V. Gromov, V.I. Khartanovich, V. Moiseyev, P.S. Grebenyuk, A.Y. Fedorchenko, A.I. Lebedintsev, S.B. Slobodin, B.A. Malyarchuk, R. Martiniano, M. Meldgaard, L. Arppe, J.U. Palo, T. Sundell, K. Mannermaa, M. Putkonen, V. Alexandersen, C. Primeau, N. Baimukhanov, R.S. Malhi, K.G. Sjogren, K. Kristiansen, A. Wessman, A. Sajantila, M.M. Lahr, R. Durbin, R. Nielsen, D.J. Meltzer, L. Excoffier, and E. Willerslev (2019). The population history of northeastern Siberia since the Pleistocene. Nature 570: 182–188. Slobodin, S.B. (2014). Archaeology of the Kolyma and Continental Priokhot’e in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene. Anchorage, AK: Shared Beringian Heritage Program. Slobodin, S.B., P.M. Anderson, O.Y. Glushkova, and A.V. Lozhkin (2017). Western Beringia (Northeast Asia). In: Kotlyakov, V.M., A.A. Velichko, and S.A. Vasil’ev (eds), Human Colonization of the Arctic: The Interaction between Early Migration and the Paleoenvironment, pp. 241–298. London: Academic Press. Vasil’ev, S.A., Y.V. Kuzmin, L.A. Orlova, and V.N. Dementiev (2002). Radiocarbon-based chronology

ix

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia of the Upper Paleolithic of Siberia and its relevance to the peopling of the New World. Radiocarbon 44: 503–530.

West, F.H. (ed.) (1996). American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Palaeoecology of Beringia. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.

x

Introduction made it possible to identify major cultural complexes and create a number of original concepts regarding their appearance, features of development, and place and role in the prehistory of the Northern Asian and American continents. Their meaning is preserved at the present time (early 2000s) in the appropriate chronological framework.

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia (Figure 1) is a relatively young phenomenon in archaeology. Until recently, the opinion was that people settled there rather late (in the Neolithic). It seemed incredible to talk about the history of a Palaeolithic population of one of the harshest areas for life on the planet. However, thanks to the works of A.P. Okladnikov, N.N. Dikov, Y.A. Mochanov, S.A. Fedoseeva, A.N. Alekseev and other researchers, the Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia became a reality and received universal recognition.

The results of these studies attract a lot of attention and produce a wide variety of opinions and assessments among specialists. The attitude towards them is expressed in a range from full recognition (Boriskovsky 1980; and others) to rejection of the scientific

By the beginning of the 1980s, numerous sites had been discovered and studied there (Figure 2), which

Figure 1. Northeast Asia (shaded) (after Kashin 2003, p. 152; modified).

1

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia

Figure 2. Distribution of Palaeolithic and presumably Palaeolithic sites in Northeast Asia (Okladnikov 1953a) (after Kashin 2003, p. 207; modified). 1 – Mironovo; 2 – Korshunovo; 3 – Chastinskaya; 4 – Dubrovino; 5 – Solyanka; 6 – Avdeikha; 7 – Bolshaya Severnaya; 8 – Khamra; 9 – Gamataiskaya; 10 – Nyuya; 11 – Tochilnaya; 12 – Daban; 13 – Ytylakh; 14 – Kurung; 15 – Novyi Leten A, B, and C; 16 – Malaya Dzhikimda; 17 – Bolshaya Kyuske; 18 – Teryut; 19 – Markhachan; 20 – Kullaty; 21 – Ust-Timpton I; 22 – Sumnagin I and III; 23 – Tumulur; 24 – Alysardakh; 25 – Belkachi I; 26 – Dyuktai Cave, Ust-Dyuktai I; 27 – Bilir I, Ust-Bilir II; 28 – Ust-Mil I, II, and III; 29 – Verkhne-Troitskaya, Nizhne-Troitskaya; 30 – Yakimgzha II; 31 – Kyra-Krestyakh; 32 – Ezhantsy; 33 – Eldikan; 34 – Ust-Kyunkyu; 35 – Buyaga; 36 – Dyamalakh; 37 – Tomto; 38 – Ikhine I and II; 39 – Ust-Chirkuo; 40 – UstSyuldyukar; 41 – Kyuskyunde; 42 – Kharya; 43 – Kuta; 44 – Talanda; 45 – Kitchan; 46 – Tebyulyakh; 47 – Olenek; 48 – Kuranakh I; 49 – Berelekh; 50 – Siberdik; 51 – Kongo; 52 – Maiorych; 53 – Shilo; 54 – Bochanut; 55 – Bolshoi Elgakhchan I; 56 – Tytyl I–IV; 57 – Yagodnaya II and III; 58 – Panteleikha I–VIII, Pirs; 59 – Torom; 60 – Amka; 61 – Kukhtui III; 62 – Utyrchuk; 63 – Inaskvaam I and II; 64 – Chelkun II and III; 65 – Kurupka; 66 – Ushki I, II, IV and V; 67 – Lopatka.

significance of many discovered sites and historical reconstructions based on factual material (Fainberg 1986).

helps to establish the measure of the truth of the hypotheses and propositions put forth, their strengths and weaknesses, and the true state of knowledge of the problem. In this sense, the author shares the opinion that “... the essence of any phenomenon can be understood only by knowing its history and the history of its study” (Formozov 1975, p. 11). It

In such a situation, it seems important and necessary to turn to the history of the study of the Palaeolithic in Northeast Asia as a form of scientific research that 2

Introduction

is also important that a retrospective view, which comprehensively restores the process of scientific knowledge, contributes not just to the most objective assessment of the achieved progress but also opens up prospects for further improvement of scientific understanding. Science cannot develop successfully without deep knowledge of all accumulated theoretical, methodological, and factual information, without taking into account successes and achievements, and without striving to identify and correct shortcomings and flaws. Therefore, it is not by chance that one of the requirements of modern archaeology is the creation of chronicles of archaeological research, both for the study of individual regions of the country and for the study of particular epochs (Formozov 1975).

• to determine, if possible, the quality of sources, the degree of their informativeness, and their importance to modern science; • to study from which specific sources and in what measure certain historical reconstructions and generalisations followed in different periods of study; • to show the evolution of research techniques and ways and means of developing modern ideas; • to trace and analyse the development of the problems in Palaeolithic studies, as well as theoretical views, concepts, and ideas of various scholars on such key issues for Palaeolithic research of Northeast Asia as the chronology of sites, the identification of archaeological cultures, origin, areas, and relationships determining their place and role in the Palaeolithic of Northern Asia and America; and • to compare the concepts of researchers and identify the most difficult issues in the study of the Palaeolithic of the region under consideration.

The first steps in this direction have already been taken. Historical research on the archaeology of certain regions of Northern Asia has been conducted by Zykov (1972), Arkhipov (1973a), and Demin (1981). Case studies have also appeared. This is, first, the fundamental two-volume work of Larichev (1969, 1972), devoted to the history of research and ideas on the Palaeolithic of Northern, Central, and East Asia up to 1951. The historiographical section in Abramova’s (1979a) monograph on the Palaeolithic of the Yenisei River has an independent research character. The work of Konstantinov (1983) on the development of views of the Palaeolithic of Western Transbaikalia is noteworthy. As for the history of the study of the Northeast Asian Palaeolithic, so far only some information is known, summarised in the works of Okladnikov (1953a), Zykov (1972), Mochanov (1992), and partly Arkhipov (1973a). Bibliographic references are contained in the publications of Dikov (1967b, 1970c, 1975b), Mochanov and Fedoseeva (1980), Fedoseeva (1971), Safronov (1976), Alekseev (1982, 1987), Argunov (1982), and Kistenev (1982). The activities of the Lena Historical– Archaeological Expedition (hereafter – LIAE), led by A.P. Okladnikov (see Zykov 1972; Larichev 1972), are highlighted. However, a special generalising work on the history of Palaeolithic studies in Northeast Asia has not yet been written.

It was considered methodologically justified to look at each problem from the point of view of how a phenomenon appeared, passed through what main stages in its development, and a look at its current state. It also seemed expedient to show a parallel display of practical and theoretical research, most of all revealing cause-and-effect relationships and the dialectic of the unity of the empirical and theoretical knowledge. The chronological framework of this volume covers the years 1940–1980. The lower limit is set by the time of the discovery of the first traces of the Palaeolithic in the region. These finds were not unexpected; they had been initiated by the entire course of the previous Russian and, in particular, Siberian Palaeolithic studies. Therefore, the lower boundary is preceded by a necessary brief excursion—starting from 1871, the year of the discovery of the Palaeolithic in Russia—regarding some prerequisites for the formation of Palaeolithic research in Northeast Asia. The upper boundary is more tentative. Here the author encountered the same problem that Larichev (1972, p. 8) writes about, namely, the difficulties of “... accurately drawing the upper boundary, given the continuity of the research process, both field and general theoretical ...”. The author agrees with Larichev that “... in these conditions it is most convenient to consider the issuance of large publications in which the results of a more or less completed cycle of works carried out over a relatively long period of time are summed up as a kind of boundary” (Larichev 1972, p. 8). For Northeast Asia, such a threshold can be considered the publications of monographs by Mochanov (1977), Dikov (1977a, 1979d), and edited volumes on Palaeolithic topics: Novye

The purpose of this work is to show the origin, development, and state of Palaeolithic studies in Northeast Asia by the early 1980s. In this regard, it seemed important to do the following: • to define criteria and periodise the process of studying the Palaeolithic of the region; • to give an assessment of each selected period; • to examine in detail the history of field research and the process of accumulation of factual material both in archaeology and in related disciplines – geology, palaeontology, palynology, and radiocarbon dating; 3

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia Arkheologicheskie Pamyatniki Severa Dalnego Vostoka [New Archaeological Sites of the Northern Far East] (1979), Novoe v Arkheologii Yakutii [New in the Archaeology of Yakutia] (1980), and Noveishie Dannye po Arkheologii Severa Dalnego Vostoka [The Latest Data on the Archaeology of the Northern Far East] (1980).

This work uses published and archival data and archaeological collections as well as the authors’ experience and knowledge accumulated during longterm excavations of all Palaeolithic sites in the Aldan River basin.

4

Chapter I Beginning of Palaeolithic Studies in Northeast Asia. Activities of the Lena Historical–Archaeological Expedition. The Period of Initial Accumulation of Data (1948–1959) In historical science, the emergence of new trends, schools, and ideas is dynamic. Their origins are often hidden, difficult to distinguish. At the same time, they belong to a historical kind of knowledge. With careful application of this approach, it is possible to establish not only natural cause-and-effect relationships but also the point in time for the beginning of an event. In archaeology, where the directions and pace of development are determined mainly by the results of excavations, such a key point is undoubtedly the discovery of new sites.

prehistoric archaeology. Local museums, public educational organisations, and especially branches of the Russian Geographical Society (RGO) provided great assistance in research to enthusiastic archaeologists. The Siberian Branch of the Russian Geographical Society (SORGO), formed in Irkutsk in 1851, was, in fact, the organising and guiding centre of most historical, ethnographic, and archaeological research conducted in Siberia. It was SORGO (later on, East Siberian Branch of the Russian Geographical Society – VSORGO)1 that provided financial support to a member of its society, I.T. Savenkov, who began to survey the Yenisei River valley in 1884 and excavate the now world-famous Palaeolithic site of Afontova Gora near Krasnoyarsk.

The 1870s were marked in the archaeology of Russia by significant events. In 1871, in the city of Irkutsk located in Eastern Siberia, geologists A.L. Chekanovsky and I.D. Chersky discovered the first Palaeolithic site in Russia – Voenny Gospital (Military Hospital) (Chekanovsky 1871, 1874; Chersky 1872, 1874). In 1873, history teacher F.I. Kaminsky and geologist K.M. Feofilaktov managed to find an equally ancient site with stone and bone tools, traces of a campfire, and charred mammoth bones at the village of Gontsy, Poltava Province of southern European Russia (now Ukraine) (Kaminsky 1878; Feofilaktov 1878). In 1879, flint tools along with bones of fossil animals were discovered by zoologist Polyakov (1880) at the village of Kostenki near the city of Voronezh (southern European Russia).

The Irkutsk and Krasnoyarsk finds posed the problem of the Palaeolithic of Siberia in a substantive way. Among its various aspects, the so-called “mammoth question” took the main place. Interest in it did not turn out to be traditional which boiled down to clarifying the anatomical features of the animal, the territory and conditions of its habitat, the causes of death, or a review of the fantastic ideas of the Siberian peoples about it – to which, starting in the sixteenth century, E.Y. Ides, N. Witsen, D.G. Messerschmidt, G.F. Müller, P.S. Pallas, J.G. Georgi, J.G. Gmelin, V.N. Tatishchev, and many other Russian and Western European scholars, travellers, and diplomats had turned their attention (Illarionov 1940). On this issue, Chersky and Savenkov, who shared his views, singled out the “anthropological” side, viewing the mammoth and its contemporary animals as objects of the hunt by Palaeolithic humans.

These findings played an extremely important role in the formulation and study of the questions of the habitat of prehistoric humans and their culture. The assumptions about the existence of “post-Pliocene” humans in the northern regions of Eurasia had finally acquired irrefutable evidence. In Russian historical science, along with the traditional sections of the investigrations of ancient, Oriental, and Slavic-Russian antiquities, a new direction of research—Palaeolithic studies—was established and developed for the first time.

In light of the available data, such a connection was established quite definitely: at the Voenny Gospital site Chekanovsky and Chersky found, along with stone implements, artefacts of mammoth tusks and the bones of a primitive bull (Bos priscus) and wild horse (Equus caballus) (Chersky 1872) split by a human. A similar picture was revealed by Savenkov in the “clay quarries” of Afontova Gora, where worked stones had been deposited together with the bones of woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius), woolly rhinoceros (Caelodonta antiguitatis), primitive bull, horse, bison (Bison priscus),

In pre-revolutionary Russia, the matter of studying Palaeolithic sites progressed extremely slowly. Sites of early human history were known in only a few regions. In Siberia, they were concentrated mainly in the areas of Irkutsk, Krasnoyarsk, Tomsk, and Troitskosavsk– Kyakhta, i.e., within the administrative, economic, and cultural centres where a few intellectuals and political exiles could be engaged in scientific activities, including

In connection with the establishment of the West Siberian Branch of the RGO in Tomsk in 1877, the Siberian Branch was renamed East Siberian.

1 

5

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia reindeer (Rangifer tarandus), and other fossil animals (Astakhov 1966a).

humans, popular in Western European archaeology in the second half of the nineteenth century, where Siberia was assigned the role of the “cradle of humanity” and the source of Western European cultures of the Stone Age (Larichev, 1969, pp. 15–25 ) .

These data contributed to the fact that by 1872 Chersky had undertaken a search for the oldest sites with bones of extinct animals, thereby outstripping Polyakov, who “... was one of the first in Europe to develop a methodology for the discovery of Palaeolithic sites with fossil fauna” (Artsikhovsky 1960, p. 626).2 Fossils also led Chersky to the idea of widespread settlement by prehistoric humans in Northeast Asia, where finds of extinct animals were especially common. It is noteworthy that faunal remains even from the New Siberian Islands caused the researcher to ask: “How far north did post-Pliocene man penetrate?” (Chersky 1891, p. 705). The study of traces of “cutting tools” on the head of a woolly rhinoceros from the Verkhoyansk District led to the conclusion that they could be attributed “even to prehistoric time” (Chersky 1879, p. 59).

The “North Asian” hypothesis, which was not substantiated by real data, partly drew attention to Siberian antiquities and determined some directions of Palaeolithic research. “After the discovery of man in all of Europe ... and in the south of Asia,” wrote Savenkov, “the question of post-Pliocene man moved by itself to the north of Asia,” since “this part of the world has long been considered the cradle of humanity” (Central Research Centre according to Larichev [1969, p. 120]). The influence of this hypothesis, in particular one of its provisions on the uniform path of the evolution of the culture of post-Pliocene humans, explains the fact that in the 1870s–1880s, following the outstanding discoveries of Palaeolithic cave sites in the territory of Western and then Eastern Europe, there grew an interest in the study of caves among Siberian researchers. The caves of Eastern Siberia were examined by N.E. Brandenburg, I.D. Chersky, A.S. Elenev, and P.S. Proskuryakov, as well as by the outstanding geologist and geographer P.A. Kropotkin. In the report on the trip from the Nerchinsk District to Olekminsk, he wrote: “Lena caves may be of no less interest. The long-standing population of Asia, the abundance of caves in Lena limestones – everything makes one think that new facts can be found in them to clarify dark questions about the time of the infancy of the human race” (Kropotkin 1873, p. 190).

The above does not mean that Chersky associated every palaeontological find with the activities of primitive hunters. The researcher was not a supporter of statements that were not confirmed by strictly scientific facts. Lacking proper data, he assumed the presence of Palaeolithic traces in the Subarctic always with great caution and a high degree of criticality. The scholar was well aware that palaeontological finds alone were clearly not enough to prove that humans had mastered the Palaeolithic era in the expanses of Northeast Asia. The decisive arguments could only be the data of archaeology.

N.M. Kozmin also spoke about the long-standing occupation of the caves of the valley of the Maly Patom River (a right tributary of the Lena), considering them “shelters of Stone Age man,” which, undoubtedly, “should serve as a starting point for further archaeological research in the valley of the M. Patom” (Kozmin 1898, p. 76). Interestingly, the reason for such statements was not the materials from the caves of the Maly Patom (Kozmin’s inspection of two caves turned out to be fruitless) but due to finds of a different kind, to which the article is dedicated.

He considered the absence of Palaeolithic sites in northern Asia to be a temporary phenomenon. “It is impossible not to agree,” wrote Chersky, “with the opinion of Count Uvarov, according to which we are not familiar with the Palaeolithic man of those localities only because insufficiently knowledgeable inhabitants of the north do not pay attention to chopping tools, mixing them with ordinary stones and pebbles, while more advanced artefacts involuntarily catch the eye...”. Specialists, far from the tasks of archaeological study, “cross these inhospitable areas with haste, depending on the goals and objectives of this expedition” (Chersky 1891, p. 705).

It describes the discovery of the gat’ (causeway) found in 1896 on the middle reaches of the Maly Patom. At the ends of the sticks forming the causeway, Kozmin determined the “signs of cutting” with the aid of a “stone axe” (Figure 2). The antiquity of the find was determined by its joint occurrence with the bones of a mammoth, a primitive bull, and other animals. The bones, according to the author, were “stacked as if in heaps, which can only be explained by the dwellings of Stone Age people near these heaps...”. Kozmin did not find traces of the dwellings themselves or human tools, although the search was conducted in the most thorough way. At the same time, it was not without

The conviction of Uvarov (1881a, p. 122) in the existence of the “cultural history of the Palaeolithic era of Siberia” had a concrete basis, determined by the findings at the Voenny Gospital site. The theoretical basis was the views formed not without the influence of the hypothesis of the North Asian ancestral homeland of Arembovsky and Ivaniev (1956) wrote about the priority of I.D. Chersky in applying a methodology for searching for Palaeolithic sites with fossil fauna. 2 

6

Beginning of Palaeolithic Studies in Northeast Asia

special excavations – the first in Northeast Asia, with the purpose of discovering Palaeolithic culture.

The development of prehistory was largely hindered by the state of the archaeological service in Siberian provinces. There was no such thing on the northeastern outskirts of Russia. Archaeological data accumulated thanks to excavations and finds by participants of non-archaeological expeditions, intellectuals, local residents, and especially political exiles (see Antropova 1949; Zykov 1972). The Museum of Local Lore and the Yakutsk Branch of the Russian Geographical Society (YaORGO), established in Yakutsk in 1891 and 1913, respectively, were the only institutions in Northeast Asia capable of attracting and organising local scientific forces for the development and implementation of archaeological programmes. However, prehistoric archaeology was not developed in these organisations. The main directions in their scientific activity were research in linguistics, physical anthropology, and ethnography. This orientation fully corresponded to the “Provision” about the YaORGO, where the main task of the Branch was to study the Yakut Province “... in geographic, ethnographic, and statistical relations proper” (Mostakhov 1966, p. 123).

Due to the recognition of the gat’ as a beaver dam and the absence of an actual archaeological site here (Arembovsky 1936, 1940; Okladnikov 1953a), Kozmin’s find is only of historiographical interest. However, the very fact of finding the “causeway” and the results of its study clearly show that by the end of the nineteenth century ideas about the close connection between humans and mammoth, about the colonisation of a significant part of Northeast Asia by humans during the Ice Age, about the high level of his material culture, about the ability to build complex dwellings and a sedentary lifestyle were emerging and becoming widespread in the evolving science of the Palaeolithic of Siberia. It is also curious that the excavations, surprising in their actual results, nevertheless allowed Kozmin to identify strikingly accurate prospects for the archaeology of the Maly Patom: it was here in 1984 that the second cave site in Northeast Asia with traces of a culture dated to 16,000 ± 200 years was found (Cherosov 1988).3

There were also a number of other circumstances hindering the progress of archaeological research, which, like the above, were ultimately determined by the very weak development of the productive forces in the northern part of Siberia and its extreme socioeconomic backwardness.

Before the revolution, not a single Palaeolithic site was discovered in the territory of Northeast Asia. The remarks of I.D. Chersky, I.T. Savenkov, A.S. Uvarov, P.A. Kropotkin, and N.M. Kozmin that anticipated the time about the possibility of the existence of a Palaeolithic culture here remained unconfirmed by archaeological data. And this is not surprising. In the humanitarian studies of Northeast Asia during the pre-revolutionary period, the dominant position was occupied by ethnography, meeting the interests and objectives of the policy of the tsarist government, aimed at including the northeastern outskirts of the Russian Empire in the commercial and industrial structure of the state and strengthening its eastern borders. Numerous expeditions of government agencies, the Academy of Sciences, and various societies turned attention to ethnological topics, observing and documenting the most diverse aspects of the life of the aboriginal population (see Azatyan et al. 1969; Shirina 1983). With the development of capitalism in Russia, interest in the peoples of Siberia was growing more and more. At the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries special historical and ethnographic expeditions appeared for the first time, in the organising and financing of which wealthy Russian industrialists and merchants, such as I.M. Sibiryakov and F.P. Ryabushinsky, took an active part. The scientific study of the region was closely connected with commercial and industrial capital. It became, according to the remark of one of the participants of Sibiryakov’s expedition, W.G. Bogoras, the “... social task of the epoch” (see Bogoras 1934, p. 14). 3 

The Russian Revolution made a huge change in all areas of the country’s life. Soviet archaeology was gaining strength along with the deployment of economic and cultural construction in the country. Depending on the specifics of the transformed areas, socialist events were characterised by many features (different terms, rates, forms and methods of implementation, different sets of priority tasks, etc.), which, in turn, determined the uniqueness of regional archaeological research. In the early years of the Soviet regime and before the beginning of World War II, the study of the Stone Age of Northeast Asia did not receive the powerful development that was noted in the neighbouring areas. In northeast USSR the local studies, even more than before the revolution, began to turn attention to historical and ethnographic aspects dictated by the tasks of cultural development and the implementation of Soviet national policy. The study of the history and culture of small ethnic groups was carried out mainly based on physical anthropology, folklore studies, and ethnography, while archaeological materials were assigned an auxiliary role. This was especially characteristic of the archaeology of Yakutia, whose development and successes differed little from the prerevolutionary ones. In this regard, it seems that the archaeologists Y.A. Mochanov and S.A. Fedoseeva (see Mochanov and Fedoseeva 1980), who, not mechanically

This site is known as Khayrgas.—Trans.

7

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia transferring general historical periodisation onto the history of science itself, and taking into account its real achievements, determined the first stage of archaeological study of Yakutia from the end of the eighteenth century to 1940, not highlighting the Soviet pre-war period. The revolution undoubtedly opened up qualitatively new opportunities for archaeology, but it is also true that the conditions for the development of science are not yet science. Conditions are taken into account in periodisation not by themselves but through the progress of such. General conditions of development may exist, but science might not immediately respond to them with real results. Meanwhile, only the latter are the decisive indicator of progress and belong to the essence of the periodised process (Nechkina 1960, p. 81).

“Bering Isthmus” along an ice-free southern coastal edge passing along the line of the Commander and Aleutian islands (Arseniev 1929, p. 282). Thus Arseniev not only supported the Steller–Krasheninnikov hypothesis but also made an attempt to develop it further, earning the right to be called the first who turned to finding the specific way of human settlement of the New World. Not doubting the coexistence of humans and postTertiary animals, Arseniev, at the same time, did not permit the possibility of human existence in Northeast Asia in the Pleistocene. This region, in his opinion, was the last of all parts of the Eurasian continent to be freed from the cover of large ice sheets that hindered the advance of prehistoric communities. Arseniev considered all Northern Asian Palaeolithic sites, including those where stone tools and mammoth bones were recorded in indisputable stratigraphic unity (Afontova Gora, Tomsk, and other sites) to be postglacial, younger than European ones.

In the Chukotka and Kamchatka regions of Northeast Asia, archaeological research was more intensively developed in pre-World War II times (see Antropova 1949; Vasil’evsky 1965; Dikov 1967a), but they concerned sites whose antiquity did not exceed 4000 years (Dikov 1977a). As a result, while about 60 Palaeolithic sites had already been surveyed in the basins of Yenisei, Angara, Selenga, and Amur rivers by the mid-1930s (Berezin 1936), rare evidence was received from the territory of Northeast Asia, allowing only the assumption of a Palaeolithic settling of this vast region.

W.I. Jochelson adhered to a more realistic position regarding the age of the Siberian Palaeolithic. Relying on the geological and palaeontological data of the oldest archaeological sites, he had no doubt that Palaeolithic humans had already settled in the southern regions of Siberia during the glaciation and were a contemporary of the “mammoth” fauna. However, had Kamchatka been inhabited such a long time ago? In light of the finds of Quaternary fauna in the Kamchatka River valley, such a question did not seem unreasonable to Jochelson. Having failed to find “the works of Palaeolithic humans” with the help of excavations in Kamchatka, he nevertheless noticed that “... the presence of a mammoth proves that the climatic conditions were suitable for human life there, and only in the future, perhaps, the remains of Palaeolithic man will be found there” (Jochelson 1930, p. 215). At present, when remarkable sites of Palaeolithic culture, including the burial of Palaeolithic humans unique in Northeast Asia, have been discovered in the Kamchatka River valley,4 Jochelson’s remark has acquired special significance. It can rightfully be called the first forecast of the Kamchatkan Palaeolithic in the history of archaeology.

One of them is associated with the name of the famous naturalist researcher V.K. Arseniev. Travelling in 1918 along the Kamchatka River, he noted the bones of mammoths, rhinoceroses, and primitive bulls in the area of the villages of Shchapino, Mashura, Kirganik, and Verkhnekamchatskoe. These were bone-bearing outcrops which had been reported by K.M. Ditmar in 1856 (see Obruchev 1934, p. 268). These and other geographically close finds of fossil animals were recalled by Arseniev when a palaeontological collection sent to the Khabarovsk Museum from the Anadyr Region of Chukotka fell into his hands. After examining the bones of the mammoth and rhinoceros, he concluded that they had been processed by prehistoric humans (Arseniev 1929, p. 282). Arseniev attached great importance to this fact, especially in relation to the development of the problem of the land connection between Asia and America and the settlement of the American continent by immigrants from Asia, i.e., with the very problem that was first outlined by G.F. Steller in the middle of the eighteenth century (see Arutyunov and Sergeev 1969, p. 8; Ivanov 1978, p. 112) and posed by S.P. Krasheninnikov (see Krasheninnikov 1949, p. 175). Arseniev traced the distribution of finds of ancient fauna on the islands and in the areas adjacent to the Bering Sea, from which he drew the important conclusion that mammoths and their companions penetrated America through the

Covering the background of Palaeolithic studies in Northeast Asia, it is necessary to recall geologist M.M. Ermolaev’s discovery on Bolshoi Lyakhovsky Island. When examining post-Pliocene deposits in 1928, he encountered the scattered remains of a mammoth, among which there was a fragment of a tusk “... with a notch made with a flint knife”. Geological and stratigraphic observations had shown that the artefact was “... probably located in the original occurrence ...” 4 

8

This is the Ushki site cluster.—Trans.

Beginning of Palaeolithic Studies in Northeast Asia

and was dated to the “... layer of the second interglacial epoch ...” that followed the Yoldian transgression. Proceeding from this, Ermolaev (1932; 1933, p. 166) concluded that “... humans already lived in these places in Quaternary times”.

population of Siberia in the Palaeolithic, permitting settlement of almost any area, it was confirmed in the geography and density of the already known sites of Northern Asia and, most important, in the final recognition in the late 1920s of the Pleistocene age of some sites in America (Beregovaya 1948). The latter, in the light of the hypothesis of the American archaeologist N.C. Nelson (see Nelson 1937) about the Central Asian origin of the first settlers in America, assumed the mandatory presence of Palaeolithic sites in the northeastern sector of Asia, and their study promised to bring science closer to solving one of the most exciting issues of world archaeology – the problem of the initial human settlement of the New World.

In the early 1930s, this conclusion seemed highly sensational and, it seemed, should have attracted attention. In essence, it assumed an all-encompassing area of Palaeolithic humans’ exploration of the northern sector of Asia, and at a time preceding the most ancient sites of Siberia – the sites at the Voenny Gospital and Malta. However, the scientific world showed no interest in Ermolaev’s find. The non-confirmation of it by strict scientific data caused serious doubts among experts. When Ermolaev handed over the “tusk with the notch” to V.I. Gromov, a well-known specialist in Quaternary geology and fauna of Palaeolithic sites in Siberia, the latter treated the find rather restrainedly, not mentioning it in any of his numerous works.

The initiator of the first systematic research in Northeast Asia was the Scientific Research Institute of Language and Culture (NIIYaK) established in 1935 under the Council of the People’s Commissariat of the Yakut Autonomous Region.5 Not yet having a sufficiently solid scientific base for a comprehensive study of the history of Yakutia, but realising its necessity, NIIYaK in 1939 raised the question of conducting special surveys in the territory of Yakutia and addressed this to the All-Union centre of archaeology – the Institute of the History of Material Culture (IIMK), part of the USSR Academy of Sciences, in Leningrad. The appeal was soon followed by an important event for the archaeology of Yakutia: in 1940 with the active support of the Council of the People’s Commissariat, the Lena Historical–Archaeological Expedition (LIAE) was organised by the NIIYaK and IIMK under the leadership of A.P. Okladnikov.

Prior to the outbreak of World War II, knowledge about the Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia was limited only to forecasts and assumptions. Their appearance was associated with outstanding success in the study of ancient cultures in neighbouring areas of Siberia, primarily on the Yenisei and Angara rivers, and Transbaikalia, where by 1940 Russian and Soviet researchers had discovered and surveyed numerous sites of the Old Stone Age (Larichev 1969, 1972). The data obtained during the excavations convincingly testified to the real possibility of human existence during the glacial period in regions more northerly than the one already known. In this regard, it can be argued with good reason that the results of practical and theoretical studies of the Siberian Palaeolithic, accumulated by 1940, were a prerequisite and a powerful incentive to start an organised study of the Palaeolithic of the northernmost regions of Asia.

The LIAE faced unprecedented scientific and practical tasks in terms of their scale: to explore the entire length of the Lena River, the largest in Northern Asia, to find and, if possible, to study more fully the most diverse sites of the earliest (prehistoric) past of the region. This was supposed to help clarify the past of the neighbouring areas—basins of the Anabar, Olenek, Indigirka, and Kolyma rivers—and become the basis for future archaeological surveys of all Northeast Asia.

At the end of the 1930s, the need for this began to be felt more acutely than ever. The lack of exact knowledge about the remote past of the inhabitants of the North had become an obstacle in the development of many fundamental issues that Russian/Soviet archaeology had approached. It began to restrain the progress of traditional ethnographic research in the region. Lacking Palaeolithic materials that are the starting point for understanding subsequent evolution, ethnographers, in fact, were deprived of the possibility of in-depth analysis of the origins of many sociocultural phenomena in the life of the peoples of the Far North.

Difficulties also corresponded to the global scale nature of the tasks. The expedition deployed work in an atmosphere of an approaching war, while the bulk of field research fell on the most difficult wartime for the country. The issues of funding, transport, food, expedition equipment, and labour were much more difficult to solve than in peaceful days. Under these conditions, the expedition was greatly assisted by the local Communist Party, economic, scientific,

Meanwhile, by this time no one had any doubts about the prospects of searching for traces of Palaeolithic culture in Northeast Asia. In addition to the facts of a sufficiently developed socio-economic life of the

Later on, the Institute of Humanitarian Studies, Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) (in 2022, it is called Institute for Humanities Research and Indigenous Studies of the North, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.—Trans.).

5 

9

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia and regional history organisations. The Council of the People’s Commissariat of the Yakut Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic financed LIAE; its participants enjoyed the support of the Chairman of the Council of the People’s Commissar I.E. Vinokurov and the People’s Commissar of Education V.N. Chemezov. In addition to Okladnikov, the artist V.D. Zaporozhskaya, and two (in 1944 – four) workers, the researchers of the NIIYaK

(linguist I.I. Barashkov and ethnographer-folklorist S.I. Bolo) also took part in it. The Yakut Museum of Local Lore provided an opportunity to store field materials of the expedition and entrusted their processing to its employee I.D. Novgorodov. The LIAE began its activity in 1940, and for six years (1940–1945) essentially pioneering research on the

Figure 3. Distribution of Palaeolithic sites in the Lena River basin (Okladnikov 1953a) (after Kashin 2003, p. 155; modified). 1 – Ponomarevo; 2 – Khabsagai; 3 – Manzurka; 4 – Makarovo; 5 – Shishkino; 6 – Shishkinskaya; 7 – Sorokinskaya Chasovnya; 8 – Verkholensk; 9 – Vodyanishny Ruchei; 10 – Mironovo; 11 – Korshunovo; 12–14 – Chastinskaya (locales I, II, and III); 15–16 – Pyanobykovskaya (locales I and II); 17 – Dubrovino; 18 – Solzavod; 19 – Solyanka (locales I and II); 20 – Vitim; 21–23 – Khamra (locales I, II, and III); 24 – Nyuya; 25 – Tochilnaya; 26 – Daban; 27 – Markhachan; 28 – Sailyk; 29 – Balagannakh.

10

Beginning of Palaeolithic Studies in Northeast Asia

Figure 4. Lithics from the Chastinskaya site (Okladnikov 1953a) (after Kashin 2003, p.153; modified).

a northern one, between the villages of Chaya and Markhachan. In the gap between them was the point “Vodyanishny Creek,” 5 km below Potapovo Village. The southern group is geographically beyond the scope of this study, so we omit its overview and will refer to it only when necessary.

Lena River accumulated large archaeological and ethnographic collections from various periods in the history of the northern tribes, starting with the Palaeolithic. The oldest finds were made in the areas of Kachug–Yakutsk (1941) and Mironovo–Yakutsk (1944). Okladnikov recorded and partially studied 25 new localities with stone artefacts and other traces of Palaeolithic culture (Figure 3). These materials have found wide coverage in scientific and popular science literature (Okladnikov 1943a, 1943b, 1946, 1947, 1948a, 1948b, 1949a, 1949b, 1949c, 1950a, 1950b, 1950c, 1950d, 1951, 1953a, 1955a, 1956).

In the group of northern locations, the most interesting was the Chastinskaya site, discovered in 1944 on the left bank of the Lena, 1.5 km above the village of the same name. The first evidence of ancient human presence was a greenstone flake located on a ledge of a 15–20m terrace, the left promontory of the Krokhalev Creek. Attracted by flake material, widespread in the Late Palaeolithic sites of Siberia, Okladnikov excavated here

The sites were concentrated into two groups: a southern one, near the towns of Kachug and Verkholensk; and 11

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia

Figure 5. Lithics from the Lena River sites (Okladnikov 1953a) (after Kashin 2003, p. 154; modified). 1 – Daban; 2 and 5 – Nyuya; 3 – Khamra; 4 – Markhachan; 6 – Tochilnaya.

an area of 18 m2. Under the deposits with Neolithic finds, he uncovered a sandy loam horizon with two clusters of cultural remains. Okladnikov interpreted both locales as exhibiting possible traces of dwellings. Among the most diagnostic stone artefacts, he mentioned quartzite skreblo-like tools with the unfacially worked blade, a sub-discoid tool, a narrow knife-like blade, and a pointed tip made on a greenstone flake (Figure 4). The results of palaeontological analysis conducted by V.I. Gromov showed that among the fauna of the Chastinskaya site there were bones of woolly rhinoceros, horse, reindeer, and Arctic fox (Alopex lagopus).

Finds made in 1941 on the left bank of a 25–30-m terrace, 2 km above the village of Nyuya, were also interesting. At the base of palaeosol, under the 1 m thick layer of aeolian sand, a hearth and a burned spot with nearby split pebbles and flakes of greenstone and jasper-like rock were uncovered. There were also cores, a skreblo with “Mousterian” retouch (Figure 5: 2), and a rough “unifacial axe” similar to the adze-like tools from Afontova Gora and Verkholenskaya Gora (Figure 5: 5). By the nature and location of the remains of material culture, the Daban site, in many ways similar to the

12

Beginning of Palaeolithic Studies in Northeast Asia

Nyuya site, was discovered in the same year 6 km below the town of Olekminsk. In the sediments of a 20-m terrace, Okladnikov revealed a cultural layer saturated with charcoal, burnt and split river pebbles, flakes of greenstone and flint, and knife-like blades as well as two finished artefacts – a Siberian-type skreblo (Figure 5: 1) and a conical core.

the tradition of the Siberian school of Palaeolithic studies, he solved this issue comprehensively, taking into account the data of geology, geomorphology, stratigraphy, palaeontology, and mineralogy. Naturally, not everything turned out to be present at the same time but rather to the extent that each site under study permitted.

Diagnostic material was also collected at the northernmost site near the village of Markhachan. The first finds were discovered on the surface of a 60–80m terrace in 1940. The collections of the following year supplemented the assemblage. In general, it was made up of disc-shaped (Figure 5: 4) and prismatic cores, skreblos resembling ones from the Chastinskaya site, a tool in the form of a core-like heavy scraper (rabot), broad knife-like blades, and flakes. Many artefacts were covered with a thick patina.

At stratified sites, the archaeological age was controlled by geochronology. Okladnikov (1943b, p. 16) established the geological age of the Lena terraces, which contain traces of prehistoric culture, by means of a rigid geomorphological correlation with the well-studied and dated terrace sequences on the Angara and Yenisei rivers, while putting forward the idea of the relatively synchronous formation of the Lena, Angara, and Yenisei terraces and the correspondence of these complexes to each other. This approach opened up wide opportunities for interregional correlation and synchronisation of cultural deposits and the cultures themselves. Such identification of terraces, proved by V.I. Gromov for the morphostructures of the Angara and Yenisei, in relation to Lena seemed to be a new step in the study of the Palaeolithic geology in Siberia.

The remaining locations of the northern group, judging by the publications of Okladnikov, are represented by unstratified (i.e., surface) finds of single tools, chipped stones and flakes, accumulations of faunal remains, and hearths. Skreblos and skreblo-shaped tools were found 1.5 km below Chastinskaya, 3–5 km above Khamra Village (Figure 3; Figure 5: 3), and near Sailyk Village on the Markha River (a left tributary of the Lena). Flakes and a “core-scraper”6 were found below Gatamaiskaya Village; flakes and chopping tools made from pebbles were collected 3 km below the Chastinskaya and Tochilnaya settlements (Figure 3). Layers with flakes, a blade, and bones of a bull (woolly rhinoceros?), with a hearth lined with cobbles, and with chipped stones were found, respectively, at the village of Dubrovino, 8–9 km below Pyanobykovskaya Village, and 2.5–3 km above the village of Korshunova. Burned layers were discovered 6 km above Mount Solyanskaya, at the 1115th km on the Lena from the town of Kachug, 4–5 km below the village of Solyanka, and at the village of Vitim. Crushed bones of mammoth and horse were found 1 km above the village of Mironovo (Figure 3).

Taking into account the geological position of the Angara–Yenisei Palaeolithic, Okladnikov considered the most ancient sites of the Lena Valley to be those locations whose cultural horizons lay in loess-like loams and the underlying sands of the second and third abovefloodplain terraces.7 He stated that the accumulation of such deposits “... occurred in geological and climatic conditions, sharply different from modern ... in a drier and colder climate than now ...” as evidenced by the remains of mammoth, rhinoceros, Arctic fox, and wild horse (Okladnikov 1943b, p. 16). In some cases (Chastinskaya and Mironovo), the antiquity of the site was determined by the fauna, especially using such diagnostic animal species as rhinoceros and mammoth. Sometimes the material used to make tools was an indicator of the archaic nature of cultural remains (Dubrovino site). Okladnikov noticed that at the final stage of the Palaeolithic, quartzite, slate, jasper-like, and especially green stone rocks were most commonly used, while the Neolithic population preferred flint to these materials. However, the main indicators of the age of sites were the archaeological collections – their context, inventory features, and forms and techniques of tool-making.

Okladnikov especially noted an accidental discovery of 1945 close to the mouth of Balagannaakh Creek, near the former village of Petrovskaya. At the foot of a cliff with the rock art he picked up an artefact “... archaic, almost an Acheulean chopper”. Calcareous incrustation thickly covered parts of quartzite sandstone’s surface used for tool-making. The ambiguity of the geomorphological and stratigraphic position of the chopper forced Okladnikov to suggest a Palaeolithic age for the find.

Guided by the above age criteria, Okladnikov dated the Lena Palaeolithic and identified two stages in it. The Chastinskaya and presumably Mironovo sites were assigned to the early stage. Chastinskaya, according

Studying the excavated materials, Okladnikov turned first to dating and periodising them. According to “Core-scraper” was the term proposed by Petri (1921) to distinguish this core type. After the work of Panichkina (1959), it became known as a “wedge-shaped” core.

6 

7  Hereafter, we use “terrace” instead of “above-floodplain terrace”.— Trans.

13

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia to him, is “extremely close” to Afontova Gora and Buret. The similarity of the sites was traced in geology, faunal remains, and artefacts, which made it possible to date Chastinskaya to the time of Malta and Buret or somewhat younger (Okladnikov 1948a, p. 7).

Lena, on the one hand, and the Yenisei, Angara, and Selenga rivers, on the other, since he divided the early sites of the latter regions into the same chronological groups reflecting “... two large sections of the Siberian Palaeolithic”. Moreover, based on the typological proximity of the materials of the Lena sites to the Angara and Yenisei complexes, he recognised not only their chronological but also their cultural unity within the correlative chronological divisions. Lena antiquities were considered by Okladnikov as a reflection of similar historical phenomena that arose, developed, and transformed in the Palaeolithic throughout Siberia. It is important that such views formed the basis for the method of recreating the appearance of cultures and racial identity of Lena populations, because before they were determined based mainly on the data of wellstudied Angara and Yenisei localities that were richer in finds, rather than based on the small amount of material from the Lena sites themselves.

Okladnikov attributed the remaining locations to the next stage of the Late Palaeolithic, coinciding with the early time of the post-glacial period, when the ice of the Sartan glaciation began to melt and modern landscape zones, climate, flora, and fauna began to form. The absence of rhinoceros and mammoth bones in this group of sites, the cultural layers confined to the alluvium of the first terrace or to the young cover deposits of higher terraces, and the technical and typological features of the artefacts gave Okladnikov a reason to compare these sites with the late Magdalenian (based on the Western European scheme) and with the sites of the Yenisei (Pereselenchesky Punkt, Kokorevo I, and Biryusa) and Angara (Olonki and Ust-Belaya). Only the Ponomarevo site (from the southern group) was assigned to the time of “... the initial period of the late Magdalenian, when the rhinoceros had already disappeared but the mammoth continued to exist” (Okladnikov 1943a, p. 52).

In the cultural–chronological scheme of development of the Siberian Palaeolithic, created in the early 1940s, the sites of Voenny Gospital, Malta, Buret, and Chastinskaya were assigned by Okladnikov as the oldest sites in Siberia. They, he believed, represented a special Upper Palaeolithic culture, the bearers of which were “... Arctic hunters of reindeer, mammoth, and rhinoceros” (Okladnikov 1948a, p. 10), leading a sedentary lifestyle in camps with fairly extensive and durable semi-subterranean dwellings.

The chronological assessment of all Lena localities did not cause any particular difficulty for Okladnikov, with the exception of the Markhachan site. Different determinations came up for its age. The site was synchronised with Ponomarevo (Okladnikov 1948b, p. 100). It was suggested that the finds from Markhachan might be “... older than Chastinskaya or simultaneous with it” (Okladnikov 1953a, p. 263). In most works, the archaeologist directly (Okladnikov 1949a, 1955a, 1956) or indirectly (Okladnikov 1943a, b, 1948a, 1949b, 1950a) dated the site to the Late Palaeolithic, including it in the second chronological group of sites such as Daban, Nyuya, Dubrovino, and others.

The high level of their material culture was vividly emphasised by stone and bone tools. Okladnikov called the predominance of small artefacts over large ones a feature of the first category, thus agreeing with Gerasimov (1931, 1935) and Efimenko (1934), who had previously made a similar observation about the nature of Malta’s industry. Small tools were made mainly of rather thin broad blades removed from cores of prismatic and less often discoid, cuboid, or conical types. Points, burins, punches, and end scrapers were formed on the blades. Scrapers of “high shape” and disc-shaped types were made from small flakes. They were complemented by a few large tools: skreblo-like and rough chopping artefacts in the form of discs.

The discrepancy in the dating of the site led to the fact that in the publications that appeared later with reference to Okladnikov, the age of Markhachan is indicated differently. In the study by Larichev (1972, p. 77), for example, an Early Holocene date of the site is given, while in the work by Mochanov (1969a, p. 139) a Late Pleistocene date. I also consider only the Pleistocene age of the location (Kashin 1982, p. 48). It seems to me more acceptable, since modern studies have established that the disc-shaped core and broad blades present in the inventory of Markhachan are not typical for the Early Holocene culture of Yakutia.

The perfection of bone working was not inferior to the skill of splitting stone. It could be traced in the ability of making needles, awls, adzes, chisels, and polishers. However, it was especially pronounced in the work of the bone art: jewelry in the form of bracelets and diadems carved from mammoth tusks, engravings of birds, mammoths, and snakes, and sculpted images of women and birds.

By highlighting two stages in the evolution of the Palaeolithic culture of the Lena basin, Okladnikov (1950a, p. 152) expressed the opinion about the simultaneity of events occurring in ancient times on the banks of the

Okladnikov characterised the culture of the inhabitants of the late (Holocene) Lena sites differently. In his 14

Beginning of Palaeolithic Studies in Northeast Asia

opinion, it belonged to nomadic hunters, arranging temporary camps of light surface dwellings with hearths in the form of stone “tubs”. The most typical elements of the inventory of this culture were massive Mousterian-like tools made of pebbles (unifacial and bifacial choppers, and scrapers), prismatic cores and blades, burins and punches on blades, and small scrapers. It was a culture that had a “... uniform and stable character throughout a vast expanse ... from Ulaanbaatar to Biisk, and chronologically at an equally long stage from Afontova Gora II to the beginning of the developed Neolithic” (Okladnikov 1950b, p. 144).

and other arguments could not refute Okladnikov’s point of view since they had an alternative solution or, as in the case of the Afontova Gora, were not comparable chronologically. The water-glacial barriers in Eastern Europe and Western Siberia reconstructed by Gromov (1948, 1950), which allegedly completely excluded the possibility of transcontinental migrations, were put forward as a special argument against Okladnikov’s hypothesis. The barriers were referred to by Bader (1950, 1956), Chernetsov (1950), Levin (1950, 1951), Zamyatnin (1951), and other researchers. However, the palaeogeographic model of Gromov was not devoid of controversial points, and precisely those that concerned the essence of the existing disagreements. This was immediately noticed (Illarionov 1940, p. 62). Later, Larichev (1972, p. 171) spoke very accurately about them:

The concept of “uniformity” of the North Asian Palaeolithic permitted Okladnikov to approach the question of the emergence of the Lena Palaeolithic as a problem of the origin of this period of the whole of Siberia. Therefore, the early stage of the culture in the Lena River basin was reconstructed according to the Malta–Buret complex. It led Okladnikov to the conclusion that in its main manifestations (economy, domestic life, house-building, production inventory, and art), it had the closest similarity to European cultures, in particular to the “... remarkable Late-Solutrean and Early-Magdalenian ... culture of the Kostenki and Gagarino, and Mezin in Ukraine” (Okladnikov 1948a, p. 10). In part, this conclusion was not new: even before the discovery by Okladnikov of Buret in 1936, the “western” appearance of the Malta culture was noted by Gerasimov (1931), Sosnovsky (1934), Efimenko (1931, 1934, 1936), and other researchers. However, if Gerasimov mainly stated the similarity of Malta to European sites without revealing the reasons, Sosnovsky explained it by the existence of the same economic needs; and Efimenko saw in it a manifestation of universal and uniform laws of the development of the Palaeolithic of the world. By contrast, Okladnikov, developing the ideas of G. von Merhart and L. Sawiski,8 perceived the similarity as a direct indication of the migration of Palaeolithic humans from Europe to Siberia.

There are difficult-to-solve questions regarding the reliability of synchronising the transgression of the Caspian Sea with the advance to the south of the Don tongue of the glacial cover in the epoch of maximum glaciation, which should also have been exactly correlated with the Solutrean– Magdalenian epoch, the time of the supposed beginning of the advance of disparate groups of Palaeolithic hunters of Europe to the East. It was not yet possible to answer them with the desired accuracy, so they remained open, making the chances of the disputing parties approximately equal at best. Currently, it is considered established that since 400,000 to 350,000 years ago there has been no barrier in the territory of Eastern Europe preventing human penetration from West to East or from East to West (see Matyushin 1982). As for the barrier in Western Siberia, references to it in the previous context also seem unconvincing, since modern research has discovered sites of the Solutrean–Magdalenian period in the territory of the proposed glacial basin (Genning 1969; Petrin 1972, 1979; Posrednikov 1973). This suggests that the palaeogeographic aspect has ceased to be a serious argument of supporters of convergent development, although of course the problem of the origin of the Malta–Buret culture continues to be debatable.

This unusual point of view immediately found many opponents. It was not shared by archaeologists such as Sosnovsky (1934), Efimenko (1950), Chernetsov (1950), and Zamyatnin (1951), by geologist Gromov (1936), or by physical anthropologist Levin (1950, 1951), who explained the similarity of the Malta– Buret culture with the European ones by convergence of their development. Particular attention was paid to the peculiarity of the stone inventory of the Asian sites (a combination of small and large tools in a single complex), the original features of art objects, and the discovery in 1937 on Afontova Gora of the remains of a Homo sapiens skull of Mongoloid (and not a Caucasoid) type (Gromov 1940; Debets 1941, 1946). However, these

Okladnikov saw the solution to the question of the origin of the Late Palaeolithic culture of Lena communities in the understanding of the peculiarity of the Siberian Palaeolithic, which gave opportunity to Efimenko (1928) to identify a special facies of the Upper Palaeolithic of the world, and then allowed Auerbakh (1930) to distinguish a special Asian circle of the Upper Palaeolithic. We are talking about the already mentioned unusual—according to European models— combination in the Late Palaeolithic inventory of

For the views of G. von Merhart and L. Sawiski on the Palaeolithic of Siberia, see Larichev (1969, pp. 216–218, 221).

8 

15

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia Asian sites of both large archaic (Mousterian and even Acheulean in appearance) pebble tools and artefacts of small forms, not inferior in processing technique to European items of the final stage of the Palaeolithic. Okladnikov adopted the concept of Auerbakh about the unity of the Palaeolithic of Siberia, Mongolia, and Ordos in China, and on this basis constructed a picture of close ethno-cultural ties of the population of these areas, resulting in a peculiar culture with a “mixed” complex and a Mongoloid type of population were formed in the vast expanse of Northern and Central Asia (Okladnikov 1955a, 1955b).

mainly those collected from the surface. Such a factual base had a significant impact on the choice of methods of historical reconstructions – projecting features of the Palaeolithic of adjacent territories on Lena sites and only the illustrative addition of the latter to the already existing cultural and historical scheme of the Palaeolithic in Siberia. Okladnikov tried to reveal the problem of the Northeast Asian Palaeolithic in a wide range of key aspects. As a result, the development of issues of chronology, periodisation, origin, character, and anthropological content of the Palaeolithic culture of the Lena region took a prominent place in Okladnikov’s works. The results of theoretical understanding were the scientific basis for the expansion of subsequent studies of the Palaeolithic to northeastern regions of the USSR, and largely determined the ways of further research. The scheme of the stadial development of the Lena Palaeolithic turned out to be especially fruitful, in which Okladnikov identified two stages: the early (25,000– 20,000 years ago), represented by the Chastinskaya site; and the late (10,000–7000 years ago), characterised by the remaining localities. At its core, this scheme has not lost its significance at the present time.

The first survey along the entire length of the Lena River valley revealed an “oasis-like” nature in the placement of prehistoric sites. Having discovered traces of them to the 61° N, Okladnikov (1943b, p. 22) stated that “... Palaeolithic people still failed to fully settle the North”. From the standpoint of the achievements of modern archaeology, this conclusion is rightly criticised (Mochanov and Fedoseeva 1980, p. 4), though for the 1940s it was quite natural, and reflected the generally accepted views on the northern border of the Palaeolithic ecumene. It can be noted that the idea of late (Neolithic) human settlements in the extremely northern regions persisted much later, until the mid1960s (Larichev and Fedoseeva 1964, p. 183; Rogachev et al. 1967, p. 10).

An enviable feature of Okladnikov’s activity already in these years was the desire for the speedy introduction into scientific circulation of newly acquired materials. The work of the expedition was in full swing, and while Chastinskaya and other equally interesting sites had not yet been discovered, the first reports about the Palaeolithic of the Lena region had already appeared in print (Okladnikov 1943a, 1943b).

*** It is necessary to say the following when evaluating the primary achevements of the LIAE’s activities. The discovery of the first Palaeolithic sites in Northeast Asia was one of the most impressive results of the expedition. The Palaeolithic of this region, predicted for a long time by Russian and then Soviet scholars, finally turned from hypotheses and assumptions to reality. Up to the 1940s, Palaeolithic sites in Siberia, represented by 74 locations (Efimenko and Beregovaya 1941), were known only in the Altai Mountains, Yenisei River valley near Krasnoyarsk, Lake Baikal region, and Transbaikalia. The LIAE not only supplemented their number but also discovered the northernmost Palaeolithic sites in the world.

The discovery of early sites in the Lena River valley was recognised as an outstanding achievement of Soviet archaeology (Boriskovsky 1949). The Palaeolithic of the Lena had received universal acceptance. This was especially convincingly confirmed by the reviews of Bernshtam (1950), Boriskovsky (1950), Stepanov (1950), and Tokarev (1951) on the fundamental study by Okladnikov (1949c)9 of the history of Yakutia, in which he most fully and profoundly covered the events of the Palaeolithic in the Lena River region.

Introducing the new Palaeolithic region of Northern Asia to the international scholarly community, Okladnikov for the first time in the history of Russian/ Soviet Palaeolithic studies mapped the positions of the pre-Neolithic locations of the Lena (Figure 3). Soon this scheme was reproduced on the map of the Palaeolithic in the USSR territory (Beregovaya 1960).

By the early 1960s, the valley of the Lena River from Kirensk to Markhachan remained the only area of Northeast Asia where traces of Palaeolithic culture were known. This statement is not contradicted by the findings of geologist A.I. Zubov, published by Vaskovsky and Okladnikov (1948), since thanks to the critical remarks of Pidoplichko (1950), Larichev (1972), and

The study of the oldest Lena sites was of a reconnaissance nature, and it was not deployed in systematic excavations (because of wartime difficulties). This predetermined the small number of Palaeolithic finds,

9  In a revised and expanded version, the first volume of the History of Yakutia was reissued by the Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1955. This edition was translated into English: Okladnikov, A.P. (1970). Yakutia before Its Incorporation into the Russian State. Montreal: McGill–Queen’s University Press.

16

Beginning of Palaeolithic Studies in Northeast Asia

Mochanov (1977), it had become apparent that traces of working on poplar fragments from the Susuman River in Magadan Province have a similar origin as in the Maly Patom finds (i.e., beaver gnawings).

adaptation of Palaeolithic communities to the extreme conditions of the most physically and geographically severe areas on the planet, established by the LIAE, had a huge impact on the development of a new strategy in the study of the Palaeolithic of the USSR – expansion of the search to the Far North. Its embodiment was the remarkable discoveries of the Palaeolithic near the Arctic Circle in the Pechora River basin (Guslitser and Kanivets 1965a, 1965b), as well as the achievements discussed in the next chapter.

The activity of the LIAE and the subsequent, almost 20-year break in the search for pre-Neolithic sites ends the first period of studying the Northeast Asian Palaeolithic. The knowledge acquired during this time created favourable conditions for further research and showed their undoubted prospects and necessity. The

17

Chapter II Investigations of the Palaeolithic of Aldan River and Kamchatka Peninsula. The Determination of Local Cultures and Creation of Regional Cultural-Chronological Schemes in the Evolution of the Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia (1960–1969) At the end of the 1950s, with the accelerated opening up of the natural resources of Siberia and the Far East, the eastern regions of the USSR began to develop at a faster pace. This process was accompanied by a sharp increase in the scientific potential of these territories. In 1957, the large scientific centre was created in Novosibirsk – the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences. In its composition, along with other units, a humanities one was organised, designed to conduct and coordinate relevant research east of the Urals.

organised the Vilyui Archaeological Expedition (VAE), which in 1959–1964 discovered and examined 23 sites of the Neolithic and Palaeometal periods on the upper course of the Vilyui River (Fedoseeva 1961, 1968). The results of the work of the LIAE and VAE, as well as the strengthening of archaeological forces in 1963 by Leningrad scholar Y.A. Mochanov, allowed a long-term programme of archaeological studies in Yakutia to be outlined and its implementation to begin. After the examination of the Lena and upper Vilyui rivers, the attention of specialists focused on the Aldan River. In addition to an unexplored sites,1 this area promised interesting finds due to its location at the junction of the ancient cultural regions of Northern Asia: Lena, Transbaikalia, Amur, and Chukotka and Kamchatka (Mochanov A-1965).2

In the spring of 1960, the first science conference on the history of Siberia and the Far East was held in Novosibirsk (Andreev and Grishin 1961). Prominent Soviet historians, ethnographers, archaeologists, and physical anthropologists summed up the achievements of historical science and outlined further ways and methods of developing it under new circumstances. Here, in particular, the priority tasks of archaeology were also identified: (1) to direct efforts to save the endangered sites; (2) to expand the search and excavation of sites in the north of Siberia and the Far East; (3) to establish contacts and conduct research together with representatives of the natural sciences; and (4) to improve the quality of publications of archaeological material (Okladnikov 1961). In its content, it was a deeply thought out programme of action dictated by time and the successes of Siberian archaeology.

Study of the Aldan region began in 1964 by the team under the leadership of Mochanov. Its main task was to conduct reconnaissance in order to identify all kinds of ancient sites. The results exceeded the wildest expectations. During 20 days of survey, about 30 sites were recorded on the stretch from the town of Tommot to the mouth (a distance of about 2000 km). The particularly notable ones are Ust-Timpton I, Sumnagin I, Belkachi I, Bilir I, and Ust-Mil I (Figure 2: 21, 22, 25, 27, 28); they contained several cultural layers with artefacts of Neolithic and later cultures. Early Neolithic assemblages with wedge-shaped cores were encountered in the lower (second) layer of the Tumulur site (Figure 2: 23), and the single-layer Alysardakh site (Mochanov A-1965, 1966a).

In the 1960s, surveys and excavations of Palaeolithic sites of Northeast Asia were carried out primarily in two areas – the valleys of the Aldan and Kamchatka rivers.

The most ancient finds were discovered at the Ikhine I site (Figure 2: 38). The artefacts were found in a test pit on a 17-m terrace of the left promontory of Ikhine Creek, in colluvial loam at a depth of 0.2 m (layer I), and in alluvial loam at a depth of 0.7 m (layer II). A flake was found in the upper layer, a scraper – in the lower layer, as well as bones of bison and ground squirrel (Citellus

Sites of the Aldan River The organiser of the research on the Aldan was the Institute of Language, Literature, and History (IYaLI) of the Yakut Division, the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences. After participating in the works of the LIAE, due to the lack of specialists, the IYaLI did not conduct archaeological surveys for more than ten years. With the arrival in 1958 of a young specialist S.A. Fedoseeva, the archaeological research of the Institute resumed. In order to save sites from flooding by the Vilyui hydroelectric power station, the IYALI

Before 1963, only one Stone Age site was known in the Aldan River valley – a Neolithic site on the island of Syurakh-Aryi (Gromov 1933; Kyakshto 1933). 2  Here and further: letter “A” means unpublished archival files (see References, section “Archival Materials”). 1 

18

Investigations of the Palaeolithic of Aldan River and Kamchatka Peninsula

undulatus fossilus).3 The composition of the fauna left no doubt about the Pleistocene age of the site, and the geological observations carried out by Mochanov (1966a, p. 136) made it possible to specify its time no earlier than 15,000 years ago.

and to outline the periodisation of the Stone Age of the Aldan River on a local stratigraphic basis. The clear stratigraphy of the Aldan sites contributed to their study using the most advanced methodology: the sequential removal of each cultural layer throughout the excavation area with simultaneous clearing of all the manufacturing and household complexes encountered. It also provided extremely secure sampling for sedimentological, palynological, and radiocarbon analyses.

The discovery of Ikhine I was important. First, it showed a very early human settlement of a new, even more northern, region of Northeast Asia – the lower reaches of the Aldan.4 It stimulated the search for Pleistocene sites throughout the river valley, and it gave good reason to assume the presence of previously undiscovered sites of Early Holocene age here.

Excavations of the multi-layered sites of Ust-Timpton I, Sumnagin I, Belkachi I, Bilir I, and Ust-Mil I led to the discovery of new layers with cultural remains older than the Neolithic.

The discovery of Ikhine I was also important for the theoretical development of Palaeolithic problems, although one important feature should be borne in mind here. The study of the Palaeolithic of the Aldan began by Mochanov from pre-selected positions – adherence to the concept of autochthonous development of the North Asian Palaeolithic and rejection of migration schemes. Even without having data on the Early Holocene sites of Yakutia, he was already convinced that the Early Neolithic culture of Aldan was “... a direct development of the Mesolithic culture preceding it ...” covering the territory from the Yenisei River to Japan, and from the Yellow River to, presumably, the Arctic Ocean which in turn, “... develops on the basis of the ‘North Asian’ Upper Palaeolithic culture distinguished by S.N. Zamyatnin” (Mochanov 1966a, p. 135). Of course, such views were formed on the basis of the ideas of not just S.N. Zamyatnin but also on earlier similar views of B.E. Petri, G.P. Sosnovsky, V.I. Gromov, N.K. Auerbakh, and M.M. Gerasimov.

At the Ust-Timpton I site, confined to a 15-m high floodplain, cultural layers IV and V were excavated.5 In layer IV, the remains of subterranean dwellings were discovered in the form of clusters of stone artefacts and bones of elk and bear6 around pebble hearths. In the stone inventory, in addition to prismatic cores, there were mainly artefacts made on blades and microblades:7 insets, burins, end scrapers, and punches. Tools on flakes—scrapers and burins—were much less common. The assemblage was diversified by skreblos and adzes of large diabase pebbles. Eight pebble sinkers for fishing nets lay in a small cluster in the upper horizon of the layer. Fewer finds were made in layer V, but in technical and typological terms they did not differ from the assemblage of layer IV. The only difference was that there were several wedge-shaped cores in layer V, and no traces of fishing were found. At the Sumnagin I site, located on a 15–17-m high floodplain under a layer containing Early Neolithic items, the lowest cultural layer, no. XV, was uncovered. It contained a pebble-lined hearth with blades and flakes lying around it. The stratigraphic position and the absence of pottery created the opinion that the layer and artefacts were of pre-Neolithic age.

The first archaeological survey on the Aldan revealed a large volume of upcoming field and laboratory studies, whose implementation was impossible without the organisation of a special division. In this regard, the leadership of the IYaLI allocated an independent archaeological group from the History Department, entrusting it with the development of the theme “Prehistoric Communal System in the Territory of Yakutia (Based on Archaeological Materials from the Middle Lena Basin)”.

Excavation was carried out on a particularly large scale at the Belkachi I site, located on a 13-m high floodplain within the village of the same name. A 50 m long excavation was cut into the eroded bank of the river. The pre-Neolithic layers VIII–XI were opened along the section from a depth of 1.6 m and excavated to a depth of 3 m, respectively, in an area of 222, 225, 210 and 110 m2, for strata VIII–XI.

In 1965, the Aldan team focused its efforts on the excavation of multilayered sites, where cultural strata lay in thick alluvial deposits that were separated by well-controlled sterile layers. Excavations of such sites made it possible to identify “pure” cultural complexes 3  The fauna was identified by I.M. Gromov, an employee of the Zoological Institute, USSR Academy of Sciences; and O.V. Egorov, an employee of the Institute of Biology, Yakut Division, Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences. 4  Being located at 63° N, the Ikhine I site remained the northernmost site of the Asian Palaeolithic until 1970.

Until 1969, cultural layers IV and V were not divided into horizons “a” and “b.” 6  Identified by O.V. Egorov. 7  In this book, a microblade means a blade with a width of no more than 0.4 cm. 5 

19

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia In general, these layers contained hearths of the same design (lined with pebbles) with flakes, blades, and prismatic cores scattered around them; many different tools on blades and microblades, rare tools on flakes, unifacial choppers, bifacial choppers and skreblos, hammerstones, grinding stones, bones of elk, reindeer, roe deer (Capreolus capreolus L.), and wolf or dog (Canis sp.). In layer XI, the vertebrae of sturgeon (Acipenser baeri Brandt)8 were found.

considering the more acceptable term proposed by Rogachev (1962) for the designation of the final stage of the Palaeolithic. Like Okladnikov, Mochanov interpreted the Late Palaeolithic sites of the Aldan as seasonal camps of nomadic hunters who practiced fishing in the final Palaeolithic. He identified wedge-shaped and prismatic cores; angular and lateral burins; end scrapers (including those “with lugs”); punches; points; chiselshaped tools on blades and flakes; handaxes, adzes, and skreblos made of diabase and quartzite pebbles; abrading stones; and polished bone punches and points as characteristic elements of their production inventory. At the same time, Mochanov pointed out three features of the complex: (1) the combination of small tool forms with items on massive pebbles typical for Siberian Late Palaeolithic sites; (2) the complete absence of bifacially worked tools of siliceous stone; and (3) the absence of polished stone artefacts.

The Bilir I site was studied by cleaning the edge of the 11-m high first terrace. At the contact of the colluvial sandy loam with the underlying alluvial sands (depth 1–1.2 m), layer V was recorded containing flakes, blades, cores, scrapers, knives, points, and skreblos made of flint and diabase. The layer was overlapped by a horizon with Early Neolithic artefacts. A similar collection of finds was revealed in cultural layer III at the Ust-Mil I site, dated by the deposits in the 10-m first terrace near the mouth of Mil Creek. This layer was found under the Early Neolithic stratum at a depth of 1.3 m. Flint flakes, blades, points, scrapers, blades with a beveled edge, and a diabase adze were extracted from it.

Mochanov dated the Late Palaeolithic sites of the Aldan to the eighth–fifth millennia BC, arguing this with the help of geological and stratigraphic data and the archaeological parallels of the Aldan sites with the North Asian ones of the Late Palaeolithic period. Nevertheless, these arguments presumably did not have decisive significance for dating, which was the generally accepted opinion about the chronological boundary of the Pleistocene and Holocene, on the one hand, and the beginning of the Neolithic period in Siberia, on the other. There were no geological data defining the lower boundary of the given dating yet, and only the upper one was stratigraphically clear. Recognised as similar to the Aldan sites were Afontova Gora and Tashtyk on the Yenisei; Fedyaevo, Krasny Yar and Verkholenskaya Gora on the Angara; Oshurkovo in Transbaikalia; Makarovo I and Shishkino on the Upper Lena; Kondon on the Lower Amur; Shirataki, Tachikawa and Araya in Japan; and the Upper Cave of Zhoukoudian and Shaiyuan in China. “To all these sites,” Mochanov (1966b, p. 217) believed, “... in one or another minor chronological and territorial variants, the same features of stone inventory are characteristic of the Aldan Late Palaeolithic sites”. However, most of them were already considered as Pleistocene by specialists at that time, and therefore they could not serve as justifications for the Holocene age of the Aldan complexes. It should also be noted that the cultural uniformity of North Asian sites no longer seemed to most experts as unconditional as before (Abramova 1966a, 1966b; Astakhov 1966a). This circumstance, reflecting the trends that emerged in the mid-1950s toward the allocation of local Late Palaeolithic cultures in Northern Asia, had a considerable impact on further ideas about the Palaeolithic of Yakutia and adjacent territories.

In addition to the mentioned complexes, similar assemblages were studied at the Sumnagin III and Tumulur sites. On the first of them (Figure 2: 22), on the promontory of the 19-m terrace of the Sumnagin River, in alluvial deposits at a depth of 1 m, several blades and flakes were found, as well as a blank core. At the second site, an excavation on a 12-m high floodplain at a depth of 0.3–0.4 m revealed a horizon of yellowish-brown sandy loam with cultural remains of different times, including prismatic cores, insets, punches, and points made on blades, and chisel-shaped tools on flakes. Thus, the 1965 fieldwork in the Aldan River basin turned out to be very useful. It not only significantly supplemented the archaeological collections but, most importantly, led to the discovery of new sources providing information about a previously unknown cultural complex preceding the Neolithic. The new data very soon received coverage in the press (Mochanov 1966b). The author of the article acted as a like-minded person and follower of the idea developed by Okladnikov (1950b) about the spread of a single Late Palaeolithic (“Epi-Palaeolithic”) culture in the vast territory of Northern Asia in the eighth to sixth millennia BC, the culture evolving, bypassing the Mesolithic stage of development, directly into the Neolithic. Mochanov assigned the preceramic complexes of the considered Aldan sites to the “Late (Holocene) Palaeolithic,” 8 

Identified by O.V. Egorov.

20

Investigations of the Palaeolithic of Aldan River and Kamchatka Peninsula

After the discovery of the “Holocene” Palaeolithic of the Aldan, the question of its origin naturally arose. However, it was not easy to answer it. Close to Mochanov’s views, the version of a local origin (as, indeed, a polar one – from the outside) did not have proper arguments. Therefore, Mochanov approached this problem globally, outlining a theoretical course for the forecasted facts, based on the following.

The idea of a genetic link between the Palaeolithic of Yakutia and America had now become the most important in Mochanov’s scientific work. It formed the basis of all subsequent understanding and illustration of the essence, direction of correlations, and connections of the Palaeolithic throughout Northeast Asia. Initially, this link was a generalising vector of logically developed assumptions, and when analysing specific materials it was a tool for comprehension. Its method-forming role is also noteworthy: the Palaeolithic of the Aldan, and then the whole of Northeast Asia, was studied only in comparison with the Palaeolithic of Central Asia, on the one hand, and America, on the other. The leading inventory elements, defining the appearance of Aldan Palaeolithic culture, were recognised primarily as those that could be compared with American ones.

Even before arriving in Yakutia, Mochanov was deeply interested in the problem of the initial human settlement of America. In his first papers on the subject (Mochanov 1966e, 1966f), based on Okladnikov’s (1962) output on the existence in the Middle Palaeolithic of Central Asia of two site groups of the Mousterian–Levallois complex and the culture of choppers, as well as the hypothesis of the American archaeologist Chard (1960) about Central Asian Mousterian–Levallois origins of Palaeoindian cultures, Mochanov suggested the existence in the Central Asian region of two distinct Middle Palaeolithic complexes (a “northern” – Mousterian–Levallois, and a “southern” – chopper culture). Based on these, 35,000 to 30,000 years ago the corresponding Upper Palaeolithic complexes arose, including the oldest Palaeoindian culture Sandia,9 genetically related to the “northern” Middle Palaeolithic culture.

In parallel with the preliminary publication, the Aldan materials were carefully studied in the laboratory: granulometric and palynological analyses were carried out, the species and quantitative composition of the fauna were determined, artefacts were comprehensively examined. Taking into account these studies, the prepottery complexes of the Aldan River and related problems were covered in Mochanov’s Cand. Sci. dissertation, defended in 1966 (see Mochanov 1966d, 1969a). The work is of substantial scientific interest since in addition to the exhaustive publication of the factual material, it developed fundamental provisions that determined both the practical and the theoretical orientations in the study of the Stone Age of Yakutia for many years.

Working in the Russian Far East, Mochanov believed that traces of the advance of pro-Americanoids from Asia to America should be sought along the Okhotsk Sea coast, perhaps even in the zone of the modern shelf (Mochanov 1966e, p. 29). Migration routes in the Okhotsk Sea area, laid out by Chard (1958), seemed to Mochanov most likely due to his discovery in 1960. The site of Kondon (Amur Region) has a wedge-shaped core similar to the one that at one time permitted N.C. Nelson to create the hypothesis mentioned above about the Central Asian ancestral homeland of American Indians, which was soon supported by Okladnikov (1954, p. 235).

Eleven cultural layers and extensive archaeological material allowed Mochanov to single out the Belkachi I site as a reference for the study of the Stone Age not only on the Aldan but also in a wider area of Northeast Asia. For Mochanov, it was essentially the same site and tool of cultural and historical constructions as the Ulan-Khada site was for Petri (1916).

In connection with the above, it may seem paradoxical that Mochanov explained his arrival in Yakutia with the desire to find “the first Americans” here (Larichev 1975, p. 25). But the fact remains: having discovered assemblages with wedge-shaped cores on the Aldan, Mochanov stated that now it would be most correct to explain the migration of Central Asian population groups to the New World on the way not via the Amur River basin but through the Aldan River region (Mochanov 1966c, p. 70). Thus, Mochanov shared Chard’s (1960, 1963) opinion on the penetration of Central Asian Mousterian–Levallois elements of Palaeoindian cultures along the second path through the Arctic, thereby indirectly indicating the alleged origins of the Aldan Palaeolithic.

Arguing with B.E. Petri, G.P. Sosnovsky, and L.P. Khlobystin, who distinguished a special pre-pottery stage of the Neolithic in the Stone Age of Siberia, Mochanov (1969a, p. 134) expressed the opinion that “... the main and generalising criterion for distinguishing the Neolithic era ...” in Siberia can be and continues to be in reality only the emergence of pottery and serial polished stone artefacts. Taking into account these criteria, the locations of Ust-Timpton I (layers IV and V), Sumnagin I (layer XV), Sumnagin III, Tumulur, Belkachi I (layers VIII–XI), Bilir I (layer V), Ust-Mil I (layer III), and Eldikan10 (Figure 2: 33) were assigned to the pre-Neolithic culture of the Aldan.

9  It turned out much later that this “culture” was a result of forgery (see in Translators’ Introduction: Meltzer 2009, pp. 185–186).—Trans.

10  In 1964, an adze similar to the pecked pebble adzes from the UstTimpton I site was found on a towpath in Eldikan Village.

21

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia Mochanov justified the cultural unity and Palaeolithic stage of these sites within the framework of the eighth– fifth millennia BC. The lower age limit was reasoned by the position of layer XI of Belkachi I “... almost above the riverbed horizon of the high floodplain” (see Mochanov 1969a, p. 48).

penetration from outside of any currently known Late Palaeolithic culture of Northern Asia”. It was assumed that the “Holocene” Palaeolithic of Yakutia might have developed on a local basis, represented by the Upper Palaeolithic (Late Pleistocene) sites of Markhachan on the Lena and Ikhine I on the Aldan, and at the final stage of its development it was undoubtedly the base on which the Syalakh culture of the Early Neolithic was formed (Mochanov 1969a, pp. 139, 141).

In the stone inventory of pre-pottery assemblages, Mochanov additionally noted two more specific features: (1) the complete absence of spearheads, darts, and arrowheads; and (2) a high percentage of tools on microblades, decreasing from ancient layers (85%) to relatively young ones (10%). The latter feature, combined with stratigraphic data, served as the basis for the division of the pre-Neolithic culture into early (eighth–seventh millennia BC) and late (sixth–fifth millennia BC) stages.

Faithful to the topic of the origin of the oldest cultures in America, Mochanov also suggested that the Early Holocene culture of the Aldan–Lena interfluve, spreading gradually to the northeast, probably penetrated Alaska at the end of the fifth millennium BC and took part in the formation of Arctic cultures such as the Denbigh Flint Complex (Mochanov 1969a, p. 142).

In his Cand. Sci. dissertation, Mochanov for the first time addressed the “very interesting,” in his opinion, Palaeolithic finds of Okladnikov on the Lena within Yakutia. During the establishment of cultural and chronological links between the sites of the Lena and the Aldan, Mochanov found that such Lena localities as Nyuya, Gatamaiskaya, Tochilnaya, Daban,11 and Balagannaakh, “by the nature of cultural remains,” were most clearly correlated and synchronised with the pre-pottery complexes of the Aldan. Hence, an important conclusion was made about the cultural and chronological unity of the Lena and Aldan sites, which represented a special pre-Neolithic stage of the Yakutian Stone Age.

The main provisions of Mochanov’s Cand. Sci. dissertation are reflected in the synopsis (Mochanov 1966d). However, new information on the Palaeolithic of the Aldan accumulated so quickly that it had to be clarified and changed. New data, in particular, yielded the first radiocarbon date for the archaeological sites of Yakutia, which determined the age of cultural layer X of Belkachi I – 6720 ± 50 BP (LE-650).12 With the calculation of the possible rate of accumulation of alluvium in the modern high floodplain, this date rejuvenated the age of layer XI to the seventh millennium BC. This correction, in turn, served as a deterrent to repeating the conclusion about two stages in the development of the culture of the “Holocene” Palaeolithic, and it was no longer mentioned in the synopsis.

To the Late Palaeolithic sites, Mochanov also attributed the Lena multilayered Kullaty site, investigated in 1944–1946 by Okladnikov (1950) (Figure 2: 20), where additional excavations were carried out in the autumn of 1965 by the archaeological group of the IYaLI, and stratigraphically separated pre-pottery artefacts in the form of flint blades and flakes were discovered.

It is also very important in the historiographical aspect that it is here, in the dissertation’s synopsis, the final departure from the idea of the undifferentiated culture of the Late Palaeolithic in Siberia takes place. For the first time, it is concluded that the Early Holocene sites of the Lena and the Aldan represent a special culture, which according to the Sumnagin I site—where it was first recorded in clear stratigraphic conditions—can be called “Sumnagin”13 (Mochanov 1966d, p. 12). New views on the Palaeolithic of the Aldan–Lena region were supported so far by a small amount of materials from sites, none of which had yet been fully excavated. Therefore, in order to properly substantiate the claimed concepts, Yakutsk archaeologists intensified field research.

The specificity of the Aldan complexes forced Mochanov to abandon his previous opinion about the uniformity of the culture of the Late Palaeolithic in Northern Asia, as is convincingly evidenced by his attempt to establish the origin of the Palaeolithic of the Aldan–Lena region. Determining for this purpose the degree of cultural proximity of the North Asian sites of the final stage of the Palaeolithic, Mochanov (1969a, p. 140) now wrote that “... despite the similarity with the synchronous Late Palaeolithic sites of various regions of Northern Asia, the Late Palaeolithic sites of Yakutia do not even have an approximate identity with them .... This circumstance does not permit us to consider the appearance of a Late Palaeolithic culture in Yakutia as a result of the

In 1966, the IYaLI archaeologists again went to the Aldan River, which henceforth became a kind of According to current calibration (IntCal20 dataset), this radiocarbon date corresponds to calendar age of ca. 5640 cal BC, i.e., the sixth millennium BC. – Trans. 13  Further study of the Sumnagin I site showed that in 1965 preNeolithic remains at the site had not yet been discovered, therefore the name of the culture was tentative. 12 

This location is called At-Daban in the Cand. Sci. dissertation and in all subsequent publications of Mochanov.

11 

22

Investigations of the Palaeolithic of Aldan River and Kamchatka Peninsula

Figure 6. Lithics from the Sumnagin I site (after Mochanov et al. 1983, p. 181; modified). 1–4, 7, 16 – layer XXXVI; 5, 8–9, 11–12 – layer XXX; 6, 10 – layer XXXV; 13 – layer XX; 14, 17 – layer XXIV; 15 – layer XXIX; 16 – layer XXXVI; 18 – layer XXXVIII.

“testing ground” for them, and where a reference cultural and chronological scheme of the evolution of ancient cultures was worked out on stratified sites, then distributed by separate analogies to almost the entire territory of Northeast Asia.

XXXV, XXXVII, and XXXVIII) contained worked flints and a bone ornament in small quantities (Mochanov 1977; Figure 6). The discovery of a flint knife in layer XV was somewhat unexpected; the bifacial nature of it gave reason to doubt that this layer belonged to the Sumnagin culture, characterised by the absence of bifacial tools in the flint inventory.

The Ust-Timpton I site underwent additional excavations, which gave a new collection of stone artefacts characteristic of the Sumnagin culture from layers IV and V. Items typical for this complex were also discovered during the excavations of the Bilir I and UstMil I sites.

The most extensive excavations were conducted at the reference site of Belkachi I, where new cultural layers were also uncovered: nos. XII, XIII, and XIV. The depth of the latter stratum revealed the fallacy of the previous opinion about the proximity of layer XI to stream deposits and showed the prospects of searching for even more ancient finds at the site. The cultural assemblages of the new layers had no fundamental

During the study of the Sumnagin I site, 23 more humic layers were found under cultural layer XV, nine of which (nos. XVI, XX, XXIV, XXV, XXIX, XXX, 23

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia

Figure 7. Lithics from the Ikhine I site (after Mochanov 1977, pp. 142–143; modified). A: 1 – blade (layer II); 2 – knife preform (layer I); 3 – blade (layer I); 4 – chisel-like tool (layer II); 5 – scraper (layer II); 6–7 – flakes (layer II); 8 – wedge-shaped core (layer II). B: 1–2 – biface blanks (layer II).

differences between themselves, or in comparison with the complexes of layers VIII–XI, which testified to their association with the Sumnagin culture.

At the same time as the excavations at Ikhine I, a 12-m terrace on the right promontory of Ikhine Creek was examined, where isolated worked stones had been recorded back in 1965. Digging revealed flakes occurring with the bones of a bison and a horse. Thus, the second Upper Palaeolithic site of the Aldan was found – Ikhine II (Figure 2: 38).

In the autumn of 1966, the IYaLI crew continued the excavations of Ikhine I (Mochanov A-1967) (Figure 2: 38). As a result, it was possible to extract a flint flake and a horse bone (Equus caballus subsp.) from layer I; and three flakes, a fragment of a blade, a chisel-shaped tool on a flake, a wedge-shaped (“Gobi”) core, and horse and mammoth bones from layer II (Figure 7).

For the first time, materials from the 1966 excavations were used by Mochanov after defence of the Cand. Sci. dissertation in a report to the Irkutsk conference in 1967 (see Mochanov 1970a). His concept on the problems of the Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia was further developed. It was considered on the basis of two hypothetical premises: first, the belief that the settlement of America took place through the Arctic and continental regions of Yakutia and Chukotka (and not along the Okhotsk Sea coast); second, the assertion that “... the Aldan sites are reliable standards for identifying the main stages of the Stone Age of the vast

Mochanov and Fedoseeva (1968) described the site as “a short-term hunting camp” and, based on geological and palaeontological data, determined its time as 22,000 to 10,000 years ago. This chronological range, of course, did not contradict the specified characteristics of the site, and it only clearly reflected the impossibility at this stage of the study of establishing a more accurate age for it.

24

Investigations of the Palaeolithic of Aldan River and Kamchatka Peninsula

territory of Northeast Asia, especially its continental part” (Mochanov 1970a, p. 60).

basins, and the northeastern boundary – with coverage of Chukotka and access to Alaska.

Based on the materials from Ikhine I (and without taking into account Markhachan), Mochanov for the first time found it possible to single out the oldest special “Ikhine” culture in Northeast Asia with an age of 22,000 to 10,000 years ago. Its broad expanse, according to Mochanov, “is still being proved theoretically”. It covers the area from the regions of Northeast Asia, which are a more southern relative to Ikhine I, to Alaska, where at the sites of Fairbanks, Utukok, and others, there are wedgeshaped cores similar to those of Ikhine and different from those at Ushki Lake (Kamchatka).14 The origin of the culture is associated with the areas of Transbaikalia lying on the supposed migration route to America. It is here that the Ikaral site, which is close in inventory and age to the Ikhine I site, is placed by Mochanov.

Comparing the materials of the excavations of 1965 and 1966, it is easy to verify their identity. As for the theoretical part of the research of the same years, it had changed significantly. Hence, it becomes obvious that in the mid-1960s, the change of some views on the Palaeolithic of the Aldan and neighbouring territories by others’ opinions took place mainly on theoretical grounds. Knowledge developed at the expense of hypotheses and versions, and therefore had an assumed character. On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Soviet power, Fedoseeva (1971) gave a brief overview of the history and results of the archaeological study in Yakutia. Of the eight Palaeolithic sites discovered by Okladnikov within Yakutia, she noted five, identifying them as Early Holocene. Among these sites was the Markhachan, whose Late Pleistocene age was unconditionally revised by 1967, judging by Mochanov’s report in Irkutsk (see Mochanov 1970a). A new point of view on the age of Markhachan allowed Mochanov and Fedoseeva (1980, p. 4) to conclude “... that Okladnikov was never able to find sites of hunters of mammoths and other extinct Pleistocene animals in Yakutia ...”, and to identify Ikhine I as the first such site (Mochanov and Fedoseeva 1968, p. 248). Fedoseeva pointed out the establishment of the Ikhine culture that existed during the time of the Sartan glaciation. Noting the time of emergence, the area of distribution (in the west up to the middle course of the Vilyui River), and the appearance of the Sumnagin culture inventory, she emphasised its great importance for establishing the origin of the Syalakh culture. “Acquaintance with it,” Fedoseeva (1971, p. 29) concluded, “allows us to look for the roots of the Neolithic of Yakutia not in the Baikal region, as A.P. Okladnikov did, but on the spot”. Similar information about the studies of the Palaeolithic of the Yakutia was given by Safronov (1976).

The report also covered issues related to the Sumnagin culture. “It seems very likely,” Mochanov noted (1970a, p. 63), “that the tradition of microblades, brought to its apogee in the Sumnagin culture, is genetically related to the Ikhine culture”. Mochanov added the Nyurbachan–6th Kilometre site, discovered up the Vilyui River by Fedoseeva and Mochanov in 1964, to the well-known six Lena and nine Aldan sites of the Sumnagin culture.15 Mochanov attributed to the same culture part of the materials (wedge-shaped cores) from the sites of Tuoi-Khaya and Ust-Chirkuo, which were studied in 1959–1963 by Fedoseeva (1968) and dated to the Neolithic. However, after the discovery of multilayered sites on the Aldan and the stratigraphic isolation of the pure Sumnagin culture complex, Fedoseeva (1970, p. 67) rethought the material of the Vilyui sites, having recognised that they contain artefacts (wedge-shaped cores and microblade insets) of a still unidentified “... Late Palaeolithic or Mesolithic culture synchronous with the Sumnagin, but different from it and from the culture of the Baikal Region”. Mochanov also identified as Sumnagin some of the finds (which he did not specify) from the Chukotkan sites of Ust-Belaya, Snezhnoe, and Chikaevo, which their researcher, Magadan archaeologist Dikov (1958a, 1958b) considered as Neolithic. As a result, without the involvement of new materials, but on the basis of critically rethought (in line with these two premises) collections of previously studied sites, the western boundary of the Sumnagin culture was established by Mochanov along the watershed of the Yenisei and Lena

The year 1967 was marked by extraordinary events in the archaeology of Yakutia both in organisational and in scientific terms. This year, in connection with the planning of the construction of a hydroelectric power station on the Middle Lena, the IYaLI formed the Prilenskaya (Lena Region) Archaeological Expedition (PAE) under Mochanov’s leadership on the basis of the Aldan team. Thanks to a Government Decree “On the Preservation of Historical and Cultural Sites” (dated October 14, 1948; No. 3898), obliging all organisations to allocate funds to ensure archaeological surveys in construction zones, the PAE received substantial financial support from the USSR Ministry of Energy and Electrification, which allowed it to solve logistical, transport, and personnel problems, invite specialists

14  In this regard, attention is drawn to the opinion that “Gobi” cores are still unknown on the American continent, that they are “CentralEast Asian specifics,” spread to the north no farther than the Aldan (Medvedev et al. 1974, pp. 70–71). 15  Information on the site has not been published.

25

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia Traces of ancient culture were also found on a 20-m rocky promontory at the mouth of the Dyuktai Creek (Figure 2: 26). During the inspection of this site, it was possible to collect flakes, several blades, a “pencilshaped” core, and a knife on a broad blade (Mochanov, A-1969).16 The location was named Ust-Dyuktai I.

from the country’s central institutions to excavations, and begin mass processing of palynological and radiocarbon samples. In 1967, the PAE started working on a route along the Lena from Kirensk to Yakutsk. The Chastinskaya site was excavated (15 m2). Only fragments of reindeer antlers were found in the Palaeolithic layer. It confirmed the correctness of Okladnikov’s (1964a, p. 79) conclusion that, “... judging by the area ...” the site belonged to a small camp of hunters who excavated it almost completely in 1944. Sumnagin cultural remains were identified among mixed surface material at the Daban site (Mochanov A-1971).

The discovery of Dyuktai Cave was a turning point in the study of the Palaeolithic in Yakutia and adjacent territories. From it originated the development of new theoretical opinions, even more closely connected with the idea of genetic relationship of the oldest sites in the continental part of Northeast Asia and in America. It is important to note here the following circumstance.

The work on the Lena River was of the nature of exploration and did not last long. The PAE concentrated its main efforts on excavations at the Belkachi I site on the Aldan River, where new cultural layers XV–XX were discovered under layer XIV. The artefacts contained in them showed cultural unity with the complexes of layers VIII–XIV. The new findings revealed an older stage of development of the Sumnagin culture and exposed the erroneous ideas about the geology of the site and the absolute age of its oldest layers. On the previously assumed (see Mochanov 1966d, p. 7) border of the floodplain and channel sediments, in fact, layer XIV was located, below which lay more than 1.5-m thick cultural deposits. Hence, naturally, the dating of layer XI to the seventh millennium BC, calculated in accordance with the previous assessment of the stratigraphic position of this layer, was also questioned.

In American archaeology, there has long been the general opinion that the most striking and characteristic feature of the Palaeolithic of the New World is bilaterally processed projectile points. Some experts explained their appearance as the result of the local development of a previous culture (e.g., Chard 1963); others were inclined to attribute their origin to the Old World. The search for prototypes of Palaeoindian projectile points, based only on technological similarity, led the latter group to the sites of the Altai (Wormington 1962), the Lake Baikal region (Bandi 1965), and even Europe – to the “Solutrean” layer of the Kostenki culture (Müller-Beck 1966). Naturally, in light of the attempts of supporters for the Eurasian origin of American projectile points, Dyuktai Cave became extremely important since its points turned out to be geographically closer to the American ones, thereby providing a more realistic opportunity for comparisons. The current situation was taken into account immediately and had a guiding effect on the fact that among the rather diverse set of tools from the cave, it was the bilaterally worked points and knives (“bifaces”) that were recognised as determining the appearance of the culture of its inhabitants.17

When the expedition was coming back to Yakutsk, during a stop at the mouth of the Dyuktai Creek (a right tributary of the Aldan River), the captain of the boat, K.I. Kolganov, showed Mochanov a small (60 m2) karst cavity in Cambrian limestones at an elevation of 12–13 m above the creek (Figure 2: 26), named Dyuktai Cave (Lykhin 1969; Mochanov 1970b). The excavation (10.3 m2) placed in the mouth of the cave revealed culturecontaining sediments up to 2.3 m thick, resting on bedrock. In the upper part of the deposits, to a depth of 0.5–0.6 m (layers I and II), Early Iron Age and Neolithic remains were found. Below, a loam with rubble (layer III), a horizontally layered loam–sandy loam layer (layer IV), and a relatively thick (to 1.6 m) stratum of rubble with loam (horizons V–XIV) were unearthed. These strata contain abundant remnants of Pleistocene fauna (small fragments of mammoth tusks, and bones of horse, bison, muskox and other species), as well as split flint slabs, flakes, and blades, cores of subdiscoid form, and blanks of wedge-shaped cores, multi-faceted burins, scrapers and skreblos, a leaf-shaped tip from a flake of mammoth tusk, and fragments of bifacially worked flint points and knives.

It is fair to note that the emphasis on Dyuktai bifaces and bifacial inventory also arose due to the great role that, since the 1930s, bilaterally worked artefacts began to play in Palaeolithic studies in general. The research by Formozov (1959) is indicative in this respect, in which bifaces served as the main criterion in the division of the oldest sites of the European part of the USSR. Thus, they formed the basis for the allocation of Lower Palaeolithic sites with and without handaxes. For the Middle Palaeolithic period, this subdivision has been preserved in the form of Mousterian sites 16  This report on Dyuktai Cave and the Ust-Dyuktai I site presents the results of the work of 1967. 17  The term “biface” was first proposed in 1930 by H. Breuil to designate bilaterally worked artefacts of the ancient Palaeolithic (Zamyatnin 1951, p. 107).

26

Investigations of the Palaeolithic of Aldan River and Kamchatka Peninsula

with the Acheulean tradition and typical Mousterian, representing two ethno-cultural areas – the northern bifacial (Russian Plain) and the southern unifacial (Caucasus). According to Formozov (1959), the two ways of development of the Mousterian industry determined the origin and character of Upper Palaeolithic cultures as well: on the basis of the northern Mousterian, cultures of the Szeletian–Solutrean type with bifacial points were formed; and on the basis of the southern Mousterian, “Aurignacian-like” cultures with a predominance of tools made on blades originated.

in European Russia: on the basis of Middle Palaeolithic cultures of both groups, the corresponding Upper Palaeolithic complexes with bifacial points (Voenny Gospital), and Upper Palaeolithic “Aurignacian-like” cultures with a developed technique for separating blades from prismatic cores (Malta and Sanny Mys), appeared 40,000–35,000 years ago. The hypothesis proposed by Mochanov meant that it logically and consistently deduced those general ideas about the Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia that the solid data known in its territory could not yet give. Traditionally linking the settlement of Northern Asia with an increase in population in the southern regions of the formation of Upper Palaeolithic cultures and the migration of large Pleistocene animals in a northern direction, Mochanov put forward the conclusion that initial representatives of “bifacial” complexes most actively and deeply settled the north. The creators of one of these cultures, pursuing animals 35,000–30,000 years ago, penetrated Alaska through Yakutia and Chukotka for the first time. Mochanov categorically excluded the Okhotsk Sea coastal route for settlement of Northeast Asia and America, recognising it as unsuitable for the habitat of “mammoth” fauna and, consequently, for prehistoric hunters due to physical and geographic conditions. The facts of the discovery of mammoth remains in Kamchatka (Kuprina 1966) were assessed as indications “... only about the episodic penetration of small groups of these animals from the main (continental and Arctic regions.—V.K.) habitat ...” (Mochanov 1969b, p. 81). All this led Mochanov to a very important conclusion about the lack of human settlement of Kamchatka and the Okhotsk Sea coast in Karginsk times. As for Yakutia and Chukotka, the oldest culture with the final stage associated with Dyuktai Cave developed here, according to Mochanov, until the beginning of the Sartan glaciation, after which it was replaced by another complex, the Ikhine culture. What role the Dyuktai culture played in the formation of the latter remained unclear.

The information above will not seem extraneous when we turn to Mochanov’s (1969b) publication, where the results obtained during the study of the Aldan sites in 1967 are used for the first time. This work is notable for the fact that it presents a new periodisation of the Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia with the determination of three stages covering the periods 35,000–22,000, 22,000–10,000, and 10,000–6000 years ago. The identification of the first stage “... is mainly based on a new interpretation of the problems of the initial settlement of Siberia and America” (Mochanov 1969b, p. 80), since no sites of this time have been found in the region under study, with the possible exception of Dyuktai Cave. The Karginsk (i.e., Marine Isotope Stage 3) age of the cave was predicted by palaeogeographic data (the periods of the existence of Beringia and the Laurentide Ice Shield), linked to the recognised antiquity (about 20,000 years) and the high development of the Sandia–Clovis cultures with bifacial points and accompanying inventory, which was the closest, according to Mochanov, to the Dyuktai complex. The reason for the proximity is seen in the unity of origin of the creators of these cultures. To explain the origins of the Dyuktai culture, and at the same time Palaeoindian complexes, Mochanov developed the “Asian version” of Formozov’s (1955, 1959) hypothesis. In the Middle Palaeolithic of Central Asia (Mongolia and Dongbei [Northeast China]) and possibly Southern Siberia (Altai, Tuva, and Lake Baikal regions), Mochanov recognised the existence of two population groups whose cultures differed only in the way of lithic processing. One group was characterised by the Levallois–Mousterian technique with the ability to make bifaces (Acheulean tradition); the other group was characterised by the Levallois–Mousterian assemblage, but without bifaces. The cultures of both groups differed sharply from the “pebble” complexes of Southeast Asia. It was also established that the population of the first group occupied the regions from northeastern Kazakhstan (the Sary-Arka sites) to China (Dingcun), and the second group – the central and southern regions of Mongolia. Later, according to Mochanov, the same process took place (and in similar terms) as

Mochanov correlated the second stage in the development of the Palaeolithic in Northeast Asia with the Ikhine culture. Since its source base remained the same—the extremely limited material of the Ikhine I site—Mochanov, as before, focused mainly on the “elongated wedge-shaped core” as a chronological and ethno-cultural indicator that explains the spread of culture all the way to Alaska. The third stage was characterised by the Sumnagin culture with an exposition of all the provisions expressed about it earlier. It is important, however, to note that by the beginning of work on the article (see Mochanov 1969b), Mochanov received a large series (by standards of the late 1960s – Trans.) of radiocarbon dates for the 27

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia cultural deposits of the Sumnagin I and Belkachi I sites. Based on the Sumnagin chronological column (5960 ± 60 BP, LE-795, layer XX; 6360 ± 60 BP, LE-796, layer XXIV; 6280 ± 60 BP, LE-797, layer XXXIII; and 6200 ± 60 BP, LE798, layer XXXVI), he revised the association of layer XV to the Sumnagin culture, and together with layer XVI attributed it to the culture of the Early Neolithic. Since that time, only layers XVII–XXXVIII have been recognised as Palaeolithic. The Belkachi radiocarbon dates determined the time of the Sumnagin culture’s existence to the seventh–fifth millennia BC (Romanova and Sementsov 1970, p. 138; Sementsov et al. 1969). The culture of the eighth millennium BC still had to be determined.

archaeologist Krieger (1962), with the first wave of the peopling of North America. The oldest sites are Scripps Campus (21,500 ± 700 BP), Santa Rosa Island (29,650 ± 250 BP and 15,820 ± 280 BP), Tule Springs (from 23,800 to more than 28,000 years ago), and Louisville (33,000–37,000 years ago). Although the dating of these localities, as well as the culture “before the points” as a whole, was still debated in American archaeology (which allowed Mochanov to join the researchers who denied the “stage before points”), Laricheva not only recognised its existence but also established for it a close ethno-cultural connection with the Palaeolithic of Northern Asia based on its characteristic inventory (pebble cores, uniface choppers, bifacial choppers, rough skreblos, and small artefacts on blades and flakes).

The study of the Aldan Palaeolithic with involvement of absolute (i.e., radiocarbon) dates differed favourably from the Palaeolithic studies in most areas of the USSR. Boriskovsky (1969, p. 10) rightly noted that “... further development of works on the Palaeolithic in the USSR is impossible without relying on a much broader chain of radiocarbon dates than is currently available”. Thanks to the pursuit of Mochanov and the active support of S.I. Rudenko, the head of the Laboratory of Archaeological Technology, Leningrad Branch of the Institute of Archaeology (LOIA), the USSR Academy of Sciences, the Palaeolithic of the Aldan almost from the very beginning of the application of the radiocarbon dating method for archaeological sites in the USSR was better provided with absolute dates than anywhere else. They immediately began to play a decisive role in establishing the chronology, periodisation, and geological position of the Aldan sites.

Thus, relying equally on the hypothesis of the peopling of America through the Bering Land Bridge by immigrants from southern Asia, but imagining the culture of the first American settlers differently (either with or without points, but with pebble traditions), Mochanov and Laricheva put forward sharply different views on a number of problems concerning the Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia. It was difficult to give preference to either of the two hypotheses considered, since without reliable archaeological data on Northeast Asia they could not be properly proved or refuted. In such a situation, it is quite understandable why Dyuktai Cave aroused Mochanov’s special interest. Its materials had been subjected to the most comprehensive and detailed study. The faunal remains were identified by O.V. Egorov, E.A. Vangengeim (Geological Institute, USSR Academy of Sciences), V.S. Zazhigin and E.N. Kurochkin (Palaeontological Institute, USSR Academy of Sciences), E.A. Tsepkin (Moscow State University), and P. Balloman (Palaeontological Institute, Münich, Germany). The technical and typological analysis of stone and bone inventory was carried out by Mochanov. Charcoal from the middle part of the Pleistocene deposits was sent to E.N. Romanova at the LOIA for radiocarbon dating.

The concept of Mochanov, mentioned above, has taken a special place in the system of historical knowledge about the Palaeolithic of Northern Asia and America. Its novelty and originality stood out most vividly against the background of ideas developed at the same time by the Soviet archaeologist and Americanist Laricheva (1966a, 1966b, 1968, 1969). Laricheva, as well as Mochanov, saw the origins of the Upper Palaeolithic cultures of Northern Asia and America in the Middle Palaeolithic of east Kazakhstan and Central and East Asia, but in complexes associated with pebble traditions. It was from this substrate that she deduced such a combination of large pebble and small flint artefacts so specific for the Siberian Palaeolithic. According to Laricheva, the initial settlement by mammoth hunters of the New World occurred from Asia along the Pacific zone (Lower Amur, Commander and Kurile islands, Okhotsk Sea coast, Kamchatka, and Chukotka) 50,000–40,000 years ago, even before the Vorontsov transgression (48,000/35,000–28,000/25,000 years ago) (Hopkins 1967). She connected the widespread “stage before points” sites, identified by the American geologist and

It is no coincidence that during the 1968 field season, the PAE conducted the main excavations at Dyuktai Cave. Test pits and a stratigraphic trench were laid in the cave and its entrance, which made it possible to establish that Pleistocene deposits lay below the layer with the remains of the Sumnagin culture, and Upper Palaeolithic artefacts together with Pleistocene fauna lay in the entrance area to a depth of 4 m. At the same time, the Ust-Dyuktai I site was examined. Here, in an area of 15 m2, a mixed cultural layer was uncovered with remnants of the Neolithic, and Bronze and Early Iron ages. A wedge-shaped core was also found. 28

Investigations of the Palaeolithic of Aldan River and Kamchatka Peninsula

Figure 8. Lithics from the Dyuktai Cave, layer VIIa (after Mochanov 1977, p. 16; modified). 1 – willow-leaf point; 2 – laurel-leaf point; 3 – inset; 4 – triangle microblade core; 5 – microblade core blank; 6 – burin; 7 – microblade core; 8, 10 – bifacial knives; 9 – boat-shaped microblade core; 11 – skreblo; 12 – knife blank.

In parallel with the excavations at Dyuktai Cave, work was carried out at Belkachi I (Mochanov A-1969). New layers were examined – nos. XXI–XXIII; flint microblades and pieces of ochre were found in layer XXIII. Channel sediments began under layer XXIII at a depth of about 7 m. With the establishment of the “archaeological” bedrock in this way, excavations at Belkachi I were completed and were no longer resumed.

the surface of the terrace in the covering loam after removal of the sod – including a ski-shaped spall and a wedge-shaped core. Small excavations were carried out at the Ust-Mil I site, which yielded new collection of artefacts from the Sumnagin culture. On the left promontory of Mil Creek, in an area on a 16–18-m terrace, worked stones were collected. The new location was named Ust-Mil II (Figure 2: 28). Here, on a 26-m terrace, another place with finds was recorded (Ust-Mil III). The cultural remains lay under the sod in a mixed cultural layer of covering loam. Among the finds were flakes and blades, prismatic cores, a scraper on a flake, a Timpton-type adze, and a fragment of pottery.

In order to clarify the stratigraphy, the Bilir I site was studied in the same year. The Ust-Bilir I site, discovered back in 1965 on the right bank of the 30-m terrace at the mouth of Bilir Creek (Figure 2: 27), was re-examined. In 1965 and in 1968, stone and pottery artefacts from different time periods were found on 29

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia

Figure 9. Lithic and bone items from the Dyuktai Cave (1–2, 8, 13, and 16 – layer VIIb; 4 and 15 – layer VIIa; 3, 5–7, 9–12, and 14 – layer VIII) (after Mochanov 1977, p. 20; modified). 1–3, 5, 12 – burins; 4 – worked bone with notches; 6 – ski-shaped spall; 7 – knife or spear point; 8 – flake from core; 9 – laurel-leaf point; 10 – skreblo; 11, 13, 14, 16 – knives; 15 – bone hammer.

30

Investigations of the Palaeolithic of Aldan River and Kamchatka Peninsula

Figure 10. Lithics from the Dyuktai Cave (1–3, 5, and 7 – layer VIIc; 4, 6, and 8–10 – layer IX) (after Mochanov 1977, p. 25; modified). 1 – burin; 2 – end scraper; 3, 5, 8 – wedge-shaped core blanks; 4 – spear point; 6–7 – willow-leaf points; 9 – knife blank; 10 – knife.

Geological observations were carried out at the sites of Ikhine I and II. In particular, the first of them once again confirmed the conclusion about the alluvial origin of sediments containing cultural layer II of the site.

well-known expert of the Siberian Palaeolithic geologist S.M. Tseitlin. Methodological consultations and practical work on the collection of organic materials for radiocarbon dating at Belkachi I and Dyuktai Cave were carried out by employees of the Laboratory of Absolute Age of the LOIA, A.A. Sementsov and V.N. Ulyanov. Moscow archaeologist G.I. Andreev worked on almost all the sites examined by the PAE that year.

A notable feature of field research in 1968 was the unification of the forces of specialists from different fields of knowledge. The fauna of Dyuktai Cave was identified by zoologist O.V. Egorov. Permafrost expert E.M. Katasonov worked fruitfully at Belkachi I. The issues of geology of Belkachi I, Dyuktai Cave, Bilir I, UstMil I and II, and Ikhine I and II were dealt with by the

The results of the 1968 campaign caused a new wave of changes in views on the Palaeolithic of the Aldan. Based on materials from Dyuktai Cave (Figures 8–10), 31

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia a special Upper Palaeolithic “Dyuktai” culture, sharply different according to Mochanov (1969c, p. 215) from synchronous materials in the sites of Siberia, was identified.

ago. However, it should be noted that the established radiocarbon chronological incompatibility of the cultures of Dyuktai and Sandia19 (the latter is much older) refuted the idea of direct influence of the former on the formation of the latter. Therefore, adhering to the main previous positions, Mochanov put forward a new conclusion that these complexes belong to “one cultural tradition,” which was probably characteristic of the not yet identified sites of the early stage of the Dyuktai culture (Mochanov 1969d).

Mochanov considered the complexes of all Siberian sites of the age of 22,000–10,000 years ago to be different from the Dyuktai assemblage, since these complexes were related to this time span (and not to the Karginsk time) that the Dyuktai finds were now dated. The new dating of the site was determined, apparently, by the position of the artefacts in the alluvium of the first terrace.

In 1969, the excavations at Dyuktai Cave were continued. They confirmed the presence in it of remnants of the Sumnagin culture materials and produced additional artefacts belonging to the Dyuktai culture. Interestingly, this year, in addition to the known material, mammoth bones were discovered for the first time; previously, it was possible to find only fragments of the tusks of this animal. Just as in previous years, fish bones were found, but the total volume of the ichthyofauna was small and, therefore, its presence in the reference site of the Dyuktai culture was probably just recorded and not explained (Mochanov 1970b, 1977).

Mochanov attributed to the Dyuktai culture the sites of Ust-Dyuktai I, Ust-Bilir II, and Ust-Mil III. “The materials of these sites,” he wrote, “are similar to the materials from Dyuktai Cave. The assignment of cultural remains both in Dyuktai Cave and in open-type sites to the deposits of the floodplain facies of alluvium of the first and second terraces of the Aldan and the fauna (mammoth, bison, horse, muskox, Arctic lemming, etc.) found together with human artefacts permit them to be attributed to the Upper Pleistocene – Sartan time” (Mochanov 1969c, p. 214).18 The cultural unity of these sites with Dyuktai Cave was not argued, but judging by later sources, it was determined by the similarity of single wedge-shaped cores and ski-shaped spalls found at the Ust-Dyuktai I and Ust-Bilir II sites. Probably, their Sartan age was also established by the same artefacts, since in reality the mixed cultural remains at these sites lay in the overlying sediments and did not contain Pleistocene fauna (Mochanov 1973b, p. 9; Mochanov et al. 1983, pp. 49, 51, 54).

Along with the excavation of Dyuktai Cave, digging was carried out at the Ust-Dyuktai I site. Among the stratigraphically undifferentiated archaeological materials of various ages extracted from the trenches and pits, the most archaic were insets made of blades and a wedge-shaped core.

Soon Mochanov (1969d) wrote an article in which the Dyuktai culture received a more detailed description. It was based on previous theoretical ideas about the origins and time of the formation of the complex of Dyuktai Cave, as well as available factual data, including the first radiocarbon date for the Pleistocene sites of Yakutia – Dyuktai Cave (13,070 ± 90 BP, LE-784). The chronological framework for this culture was determined in the range of 35,000–10,000 years ago. Judging by the date, only late materials were available to Mochanov, and he came to the conclusion that “... only the remains of the middle and final stage of the Dyuktai culture were recorded on the Aldan. The remains of the early stage, transitional to the Middle Palaeolithic, have yet to be discovered” (Mochanov 1969d, p. 239). Mochanov had no doubt that the latter would eventually be found on the territory of Yakutia and Chukotka, since he found close similarity between Dyuktai artefacts and the Palaeoindian complexes from 20,000–10,000 years

The year 1969 was marked by an interesting discovery, during which the effectiveness of the search for Palaeolithic sites by I.D. Chersky’s method was clearly manifested. Being in the village of Ust-Maya, Mochanov saw mammoth bones in the local history museum. Inquiries eventually led him to a sand and pebble shoal on the right bank of the Aldan 3 km above Troitskoe Village (Lykhin 1969, 1970a). Here Mochanov saw an impressive picture: for 1.5 km the shoal was “strewn” with bones of mammoths, rhinoceroses, horses, reindeer, and other animals; next to them, often already eroded out, lay numerous stone artefacts, including Palaeolithic ones. The location was named VerkhneTroitskaya (Figure 2: 29). In search of the cultural layer, several pits were laid on the 12–13-m terrace adjacent to the shoals, but they did not produce any finds. At the distance of 6 km, under similar conditions, Mochanov discovered another location with artefacts. In addition to the Pleistocene fauna, several flakes, a blade, a skishaped spall, a prismatic core, a scraper, a unifacial and a bifacial knife, and a fragment of pottery were collected here. This site was named Nizhne-Troitskaya (Figure 2: 29).

Judging by all the subsequent works, Mochanov soon refused to consider Ust-Mil III as a Palaeolithic site.

19  This complex was fabricated, and therefore “Sandia culture” does not exist.—Trans.

18 

32

Investigations of the Palaeolithic of Aldan River and Kamchatka Peninsula

Figure 11. Lithics from the Ust-Timpton I site, layer IVb (after Mochanov 1977, p. 160; modified). 1, 7, 10–14, 21–22 – scrapers; 2, 5–6 – tools with beveled edge; 3 – knife-like blade; 4, 9, 23 – blade; 8 – knife; 15, 19 – burins; 16–18, 24 – cores; 20 – doubleplatform core; 25 – adze.

33

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia

Figure 12. Lithics from the Ust-Timpton I site, layer Va (after Mochanov 1977, p. 178; modified). 1–2 – knife-like blades; 3, 9 – prismatic cores; 4 – blade; 5–6, 8, 10, 12–13– scrapers; 7 – knife; 11 – skreblo.

34

Investigations of the Palaeolithic of Aldan River and Kamchatka Peninsula

Figure 13. Lithics from the Ust-Timpton I site, layer Vb (after Mochanov 1977, p. 181; modified). 1 – borer; 2, 5–7, 9–10 – scrapers; 3 – wedge-shaped core; 4, 8, 12 – blades; 11 – burin preform; 13 – wedge-shaped core preform; 14 – prismatic core.

After a two-year break, the PAE resumed in 1970 excavations at the Ust-Timpton I site. During the control deepening of the old excavation pit, a new cultural stratum was discovered – layer VI. Represented by two smaller strata of loam, it was separated from layer V by a relatively thick (up to 25 cm) sterile sand layer.

In the top of the layer (horizon VIa), there were single flakes and blades; in horizon VIb similar artefacts were supplemented with three scrapers (Figures 11–13). In addition, at the base of the layer were the remains of the frame of a dwelling made of charred trunks of larch or pine trees with diameters of 3–17 cm. 35

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia In the spring of 1970, a large series of radiocarbon dates for cultural layers IVa–VIb of Ust-Timpton I was obtained in the LOIA, which, together with younger dates, highlighted a number of issues of the site’s geology and archaeology in a new way, and it also determined the prospects for its study.

views about the Palaeolithic in Northeast Asia and America began to develop – bifaces. By the beginning of the 1970s, these facts had already led Mochanov (1970b, p. 63) to reject the Ikhine culture, first in the form of a conclusion about the replacement of the Dyuktai (and not the Ikhine) culture by Sumnagin, and then an open recognition of the “prematurity” of determining the Ikhine culture (Mochanov 1973a, p. 41).

When compared with the Sumnagin and Belkachi columns of radiocarbon dates, the Ust-Timpton I values immediately showed the incompatibility of the profiles from the high floodplain on Sumnagin I and Belkachi I, on the one hand, and from Ust-Timpton I, on the other. The peculiarity of the dynamics and conditions of sedimentation on the modern high floodplain at the mouth of the Timpton River, as revealed by the dates, exposed the fact that the processes of terrace formation in different parts of the Aldan River valley—at least in the Holocene—were far from uniform. Thus, it was not enough to rely only on hypsometric coincidences for correlation and synchronisation of low Aldan terraces.

The importance that Mochanov attached to bifaces and bifacial technique had deeper consequences. The genetic relations of cultures, both in time and in space, began to be determined by Mochanov only by the presence or absence of bifaces. The Sumnagin complex, for which bifaces are not typical, was recognised as genetically unrelated to the Dyuktai culture (Mochanov 1970b, p. 63), as well as not being the basis on which the “bifacial” Neolithic Syalakh complex emerged (Mochanov 1973a, p. 43). This approach to interpretation of historical and cultural phenomena required the transition from recognition of autochthonous origin of the Stone Age cultures of Yakutia (Mochanov 1969а, p. 97) to migrationism. This is how it was possible to explain the emergence of these cultures due to repeated waves of new populations from the south, causing part of the aboriginal communities to be forced out to the north and northeast by the newcomers, and the rest to be assimilated (Mochanov and Fedoseeva 1973, p.197).

Radiocarbon dates also corrected Mochanov’s opinions (see Mochanov 1969a, pp. 126, 132) of the synchronicity of the cultural remains of layers IV and V of UstTimpton I with the archaeological complexes of layer XV of Sumnagin I, and layers VIII and IX of Belkachi I. The Ust-Timpton finds turned out to be 1000–4000 years older. Based on radiocarbon dates, it is now safe to say that no finds have been identified at Sumnagin I that are simultaneous with Palaeolithic ones from UstTimpton I. The cultural remains from layer IV of the latter site are contemporaneous with complexes from layers XI–XXIII of Belkachi I, and the assemblages of layers V and VI of the Ust-Timpton I are chronologically completely unique.

In the late 1960s, Mochanov made another attempt to clarify the areas of Palaeolithic cultures determined on the Aldan River. Based on his vision of the close similarity of the Upper Palaeolithic industries of the Aldan and Hokkaido, he considered it “... very likely that about 20 to 10 thousand years ago the Lower Amur region was part of the habitat of the Dyuktai culture” (Mochanov 1970c, p. 179). Judging by this opinion, Mochanov no longer excluded for certain areas of the Pacific zone the possibility of the presence of “mammoth” fauna – the main condition for the existence of Dyuktai populations.

This circumstance caused increased interest in the Ust-Timpton I site. Due to the radiocarbon dates, the prospect of studying the Sumnagin culture at the earliest stage of its development was revealed here for the first time – in the period of 10,500–9000 years ago. It was also important because this chronological crosssection of Sumnagin culture was represented by clearly stratified cultural layers (V and VI), which were besides all at a shallow depth. This situation determined the fact that in the next decade none of the Aldan sites was excavated as actively and widely as Ust-Timpton I.

Finding separate parallels between the Early Holocene assemblages of the Aldan and materials from the sites of the Zeya River (Gromatukha) and the Middle Amur (Sergeevka), Mochanov (1970c, p. 179) suggested that the northern regions of the Middle Amur and, possibly, the Lower Amur “... in some periods of the Early Holocene ...” were part of the Sumnagin culture’s habitat. This conclusion suggested a discussion, since both Gromatukha and Sergeevka were considered sites of the Neolithic Gromatukha culture, going back to the Osipovka Mesolithic complex of the Far East (Derevianko 1964, 1968, 1970).

After studying Dyuktai Cave in 1968 and 1969, in the emerging system of knowledge about the Upper Palaeolithic of the Aldan, the question of the correlation, as it turned out, of the synchronous Dyuktai and Ikhine cultures arose acutely. Against the background of rich and diverse finds from Dyuktai Cave, the materials from Ikhine I no longer looked so convincing as to distinguish a special culture on their basis. In addition, the Ikhine collection did not contain the main items on which

In Northeast Asia, the new area of spread the Sumnagin people was the Indigirka River (Mochanov et al. 1970, 36

Investigations of the Palaeolithic of Aldan River and Kamchatka Peninsula

p. 19). This meant the Burulgino site, discovered in 1959 by Z.V. Gogolev and S.A. Fedoseeva (see Fedoseeva A-1960). Information about the site was first published by Beregovaya (1967, p. 87), who presumably dated it to the time of 7000–8000 years ago. This dating of the site coincided with the time of the Sumnagin culture, which contradicts typically Neolithic tools of the Burulgino.20

recognised as key objects, and their stratified archaeological assemblages as reference complexes for cultural and chronological interpretations of all the oldest localities in Northeast Asia. Hence, it becomes clear why the relatively few Palaeolithic materials of the Lena sites began to be considered in comparison not with the Yenisei and Lake Baikal sites, as was done by Okladnikov, but mainly with the Aldan sites.

At the end of the 1960s, data on the Palaeolithic of the Aldan began to be used in general and regional studies of geologists and archaeologists. Thus, when reviewing the geology of the Palaeolithic of the USSR, geologist Ivanova (1969, p. 36) noted that the site of Ikhine I, according to the expert, had a late Sartan age. Archaeologist Dikov (1969a, p. 108) mentioned the Sumnagin culture as an example of the longest development of the Palaeolithic in Siberia. At the same time, the Palaeolithic of the Aldan became known to a wide range of foreign specialists (Mochanov 1969e).

The cultural and chronological scheme of the evolution of the Aldan Palaeolithic, developed by Mochanov, should be recognised as a result of paramount importance. This continued one of the traditional topics of Siberian Palaeolithic studies, which was successfully developed in the 1930s – 1950s by G.P. Sosnovsky, N.K. Auerbakh, V.I. Gromov, M.M. Gerasimov, A.P. Okladnikov, and in the 1960s by Z.A. Abramova, M.P. Aksenov, S.N. Astakhov, G.I. Medvedev, and other prominent Siberian Palaeolithic specialists. Mochanov resolutely continued to develop the topic of the local nature of the Palaeolithic in Northern Asia, to a certain extent ahead of the accumulation of actual data. Like Okladnikov, who relied on Lena materials, Mochanov eventually sub-divided the Palaeolithic of the Aldan into two stages in accordance with geological divisions – the early (Pleistocene) and the late (Holocene) Upper Palaeolithic. This was not a simple repetition, since its lower chronological boundary, unlike in Okladnikov’s scheme, was lowered by Mochanov by 15,000 years. In addition, Mochanov’s scheme was distinguished by the advantage that it was built on purely local and more extensive material controlled by stratigraphy and radiocarbon dates. Along with this, it must be admitted that both stages have been studied with varying degrees of completeness. The picture of the late Upper Palaeolithic stage (10,500–6000 years ago), represented by the Sumnagin culture, was more clearly outlined. The early Upper Palaeolithic stage (35,000– 10,500 years ago), represented by the Dyuktai culture, was documented only by the younger materials (not earlier than 16,000–14,000 years ago) from Dyuktai Cave; the older age of the culture was proved only theoretically. This indicates that by 1970 the cultural and chronological scheme of the Aldan Palaeolithic was still under development and suggested more details and refinement after further research. At the same time, it already quite objectively reflected the 20,000year history of the life of Palaeolithic communities that created original highly developed cultures, whose existence until recently had been difficult even to suspect.

The year 1969 was the final one of the initial stage of Neolithic studies in Northeast Asia by the PAE. This milestone was objectively emphasized by the publication of the edited volume Po Sledam Drevnikh Kultur Yakutii (In the Footsteps of Ancient Cultures of Yakutia), by the completion of the collection of data that formed the basis of the scientific report on the topic “Pervobytno-Obshchinny Stroi na Territorii Yakutii” (The Primitive Communal System in the Territory of Yakutia) (Mochanov et al. 1970), and those qualitatively new phenomena in the study of the Palaeolithic of the northeastern regions of Asia by archaeologists from Yakutsk, which, as will be shown below, characterised the entire subsequent decade. Summing up the main results of the PAE activity in the period under review, the following can be noted. The PAE continued the work started by LIAE. On the basis of financial, material, and personnel security it intensified the study of the Old Stone Age sites of Yakutia in its new area – the Aldan River valley. During six years of research on the Aldan, the expedition discovered and examined 17 pre-Neolithic sites. Of these, the most valuable for understanding the ancient history of the region were the stratified Upper Pleistocene sites of Ikhine I and Dyuktai Cave, as well as multilayered sites from the Early Holocene times – Ust-Timpton I, Sumnagin I, Bilir I, Belkachi I, and Ust-Mil I. Thanks to large-scale excavations, many of them yielded rich and typologically diverse material, which made it possible to reconstruct the life, economy, and culture of the people who left them. Therefore, it is not by accident that the Aldan sites were immediately

An important result of the study of the Aldan Palaeolithic was the new provisions put forward by Mochanov on the problems of the peopling of the New World. He expressed ideas about the initial (35,000– 30,000 years ago) settling of America by the creators of the Dyuktai culture; the appearance of bearers of the

20  Further study of the Burulgino site showed that it does not belong to the Sumnagin but rather to the Ymyyakhtakh Late Neolithic culture (see Mochanov 1973a, p. 30; Fedoseeva 1980, pp. 128–147).

37

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia Sumnagin culture in Alaska after them; and the ways of their migrations from the Aldan along the continental and coastal Arctic regions of Yakutia and Chukotka. This allowed a new look at a number of aspects of archaeology, not only for America but also for Northeast Asia. These ideas were based on the belief that the cultural and chronological scheme of the development of the Aldan Palaeolithic had far from local significance but rather extended over a vast territory of Northeast Asia and, consequently, the large areas of the Dyuktai and Sumnagin cultures were acceptable. In light of these hypotheses, attempts to recognise some Neolithic sites on the Vilyui and Indigirka rivers, and in Chukotka as Sumnagin looked quite natural.

In 1962, Dikov (A-1963) initiated excavations at Stone Cape. They began with the establishment of the site to be confined to a terrace formed by bedrock and a 3-m thick stratum of overlapping loams, sands, and sandy loams. The ash layers of the Shiveluch Volcano could be clearly traced in the upper half of the section, complementing the exceptionally clear stratigraphy of unconsolidated sediments on Stone Cape (see colour Plate 6). The excavation, in an area of 334 m2, cut through four cultural layers, the lowest of which (layer IV) gave the collection of artefacts in the form of flakes, leaf-shaped arrowheads and a spear, a knife, and a scraper knife. In the same year, 500 m to the east of the first Ushki site (the Ushki I locale), Dikov found a second spot with ancient artefacts – Ushki II. The excavation with an area of 42 m2 revealed stratigraphy of sediments and cultural layers similar to Ushki I. In layer IV, in addition to four recesses-pits and an ash spot, flakes, wedge-shaped and prismatic cores, knife-like blades, arrowheads, and scrapers were found.

The Ushki Palaeolithic Complex The second region of Northeast Asia where intensive Palaeolithic research was carried out in the 1960s was the valley of the Kamchatka River. The discovery and study of the Kamchatkan Palaeolithic was largely facilitated by the creation in 1960 in Magadan of a science centre – the NorthEastern Interdisciplinary Research Institute (SVKNII), Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences, which included the first archaeological laboratory in the northeast USSR, organised under the leadership of N.N. Dikov.

The multilayered nature and stratification of the Ushki localities was a unique fact in Kamchatkan archaeology. The Ushki I was recognised as “... a key site in northeastern Russia, which can serve as a reliable support for the periodisation of ancient cultures of Kamchatka and Chukotka” (Dikov A-1963, p. 1). Realising this possibility, Dikov (1964a, 1964b) for the first time developed a periodisation for Kamchatkan cultures with the allocation of five chronological stages: Mesolithic, Early Neolithic, Middle Neolithic, Late Neolithic, and Remnant Neolithic. He attributed the lithic complexes of the lower layers of the Ushki sites to the Mesolithic. Their Early Holocene age was proved by stratigraphic, palynological, and archaeological data (Dikov 1964a, p. 662).

In 1961, Dikov (1969a) went on an exploration route along the practically unexplored,21 in archaeological respect, Kamchatka River from the village of Milkovo to the town of Ust-Kamchatsk. Since the sites known at that time on the Kamchatka Peninsula were no older than the second millennium BC, Dikov’s goal was to “... identify the most ancient, truly Neolithic culture of the Kamchatka Valley” (Dikov A-1962, p. 2). However, the results of the expedition turned out to be more significant: Dikov discovered not only Neolithic sites but also a site that soon became a world-famous Palaeolithic locale of the northeastern USSR.

The location of the Ushki site cluster on the shore of a non-freezing fish lake and the composition of the artefact inventory gave grounds to characterise the culture of Mesolithic settlers as that of fishermen and hunters. However, this was the least that could be said with sufficient confidence, based on the still limited data.

It was found on the shore of Bolshoe Ushkovskoe Lake (a.k.a. Great Ushki Lake) (see colour Plate 5), 18 km from the town of Kozyrevsk (Figure 2: 66). At Kamenny Mys (Stone Cape), on a towpath and a 3–3.5-m terrace, Dikov encountered traces of a “truly Neolithic culture” with knife-shaped blades and “... specific wedge-shaped cores going back to the Mesolithic” (Dikov A-1962, p. 2b). The latter “... immediately put the Ushki Neolithic site among the most promising for the study” (Dikov 1969a, p. 95).

The culture of the early Ushki people was not unexpected. Its existence and, to some extent, appearance was predicted by the well-known hypothesis about the Okhotsk Sea way of settling the New World by descendants of the Central Asian population. Considering this circumstance, Dikov materialised this hypothesis with Ushki artefacts, and he considered it possible to outline the ethnocultural ties of the Kamchatkan population in the Early Holocene. At the same time, he continued the idea of Okladnikov (1954, p. 235) about the relocation to Alaska

21  In 1910, K.D. Loginovsky (see Antropova 1949) was engaged in the study of ancient Itelmen pit houses in the Kamchatka River valley.

38

Investigations of the Palaeolithic of Aldan River and Kamchatka Peninsula

Figure 14. Artefacts from the early Ushki culture (layer VII) (after Dikov 1979d, p. 35; modified). A. Projectile points: 1 – leaf-shaped point; 2–7, 9–16 – stemmed points; 8 – fragment of bifacial foliate. B. Stone pendants.

of a Mesolithic population from the Far East, related to the one in Central Asia. Having found a lot in common between Ushki wedge-shaped cores and artefacts of the same kind in Central Asia, Primorye (Maritime Province), Japan, and Alaska, he explained this as a result of the settlement of Japan and Kamchatka, and farther of Alaska, by groups of people in the post-

glacial era who carried the “Central Asian Mesolithic technique” of separating blades from wedge-shaped cores in the Primorye and Amur regions. “It was then,” he concluded, “under relatively favourable climatic conditions, that intensive settling of Kamchatka, Chukotka, and, possibly, the entire Asian Far North should have taken place” (Dikov 1964a, p. 662). 39

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia With the discovery of the Mesolithic culture of Kamchatka, the search for traces of an earlier culture—a Palaeolithic—became completely real. In this regard, the continuation of research on Ushki Lake was seen as promising. The expectations were fully confirmed when, in 1964, Dikov (A-1965) again organised excavations at Stone Cape.

high level of culture in Kamchatka at the end of the Upper Palaeolithic, outstripping neighbouring areas” (Dikov 1965a, p. 47). Later, Dikov wrote extensive articles on the Palaeolithic of Kamchatka (Dikov 1967a, 1968a, 1968b). After giving a detailed description of the Ushki finds, he simultaneously clarified the date for cultural layer V – ca. 10,360 BP. He again stressed that the basis of the subsistence of the Ushki people was not only fishing but also hunting, which was carried out “ ... with the help of a bow and arrow on relatively small animals like reindeer” (Dikov 1967a, p. 30).

The work unfolded in autumn at low water level, which made it possible to deepen the previous excavation and discover new cultural layers (V–VIII). The first two layers contained carbonaceous spots and lithics. In layer VII, there were traces not only of a site of ancient people but also burials. Dikov noted three hearths and blades, scrapers, and arrowheads located nearby (Figure 14). He was particularly impressed by unifacially and bifacially worked basalt stemmed points, which revealed “... a close resemblance to similar artefacts of the Araya microlith complex on Hokkaido Island” (Dikov A-1965, p. 12).

Taking into account the development of views on the Kamchatkan Palaeolithic, it is important to point out that in this work Dikov for the first time stated the “sharp difference” between the industry of Ushki cultural layers VII and VI. The stemmed points, small flakes, and small number of microblades in layer VII (Figure 14) were contrasted with the bifacial leaf-shaped points, broad flakes, and microblades, accompanied by wedge-shaped cores and scrapers, typical for layer VI (Figure 15). The established typological analogies of these layers corresponded to the idiosyncrasies of the inventory, behind which the expression of “intensive cultural ties” was seen. Analogies to some elements of the culture of layer VII were traced to pre-pottery sites on Hokkaido and the ones later than Ushki – in America; layer VI – with the Late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites of Southern Siberia and America. At the same time, Kamchatka, according to Dikov (1967a), “... was at that time, perhaps, a single cultural zone ...” with Southern Siberia. This judgement undoubtedly coincided with the well-known concept of the uniformity of the Siberian Palaeolithic.

The burial was located east of the hearths and worked stones. The bones of the buried person were not preserved,22 but they were indicated by a rich set of pyrophyllite polished beads and pendants found at the bottom of the grave pit and in its fill, making up the “wampum” of the deceased, albite burin-like points, and traces of the ritual use of red ochre (Dikov A-1967, pp. 22–28). Cultural layer VIII was determined by a thin (up to 2 cm) layer of sandy loam containing only inclusions of charcoal.23 At conferences in Baku and Vladivostok, Dikov reported on the new results of research at Ushki Lake (Dikov 1965a, 1965b).24 He dated the strata below layer V to the end of the Upper Palaeolithic, including cultural layer VII dated to 14,000–16,000 years ago, supporting this with a set of data on stratigraphy, palynology (Shilo et al. 1967, 1968), and the first radiocarbon date for archaeological sites in the eastern part of Northeast Asia – 10,675 ± 360 BP (Mo-345) for the Early Mesolithic layer V of the Ushki I site. As for archaeological substantiation of the Pleistocene age of the lower Ushki strata, the problem of seemingly contradictory arrowheads, whose appearance in Northern Asia had been recorded so far only in the post-glacial period, emerged with particular acuteness. Explaining and at the same time evaluating this unique feature of the Ushki Palaeolithic complex, Dikov came to the conclusion “... about the

It is important to turn attention to the parallels with American cultures. Their establishment was a new step in the development of the problem of the settlement of America, which until recently had been solved mainly based on palaeogeography and physical anthropology. New archaeological “connecting links” (coincidences in the items of inventory, wampum, and the use of ochre) of the cultures of Kamchatka and America permitted Dikov to establish the “Americanoid” nature of the Ushki cluster and, together with its antiquity and geographical location, recognise them as “... strong evidence of an early, though not necessarily the initial, settlement of America from Asia through its extreme northeast, in particular through Kamchatka ...” (Dikov 1967a, p. 31). The discovery of the Kamchatkan Palaeolithic and the identification of its specific features outlined an interesting prospect for further research, wherein obtaining new sources became a primary task.

22  According to Dikov’s version, the skeleton was not preserved due to the active impact of groundwater. This assumption looks very convincing, since other osteological material from the Palaeolithic layers of the Ushki sites is almost unknown. 23  In summary works (see Dikov 1977a, 1979d), layer VIII does not have any artefacts.—Trans. 24  In Baku, Dikov proposed a new numbering of the Ushki cultural layers. In accordance with it, in 1964 layers Va–VIII were excavated at Ushki I. Layer IV, based on excavations in 1962, began to be designated as layer V.

The decision was fully answered by the excavations of 1965 at the Ushki I site. They were conducted at 40

Investigations of the Palaeolithic of Aldan River and Kamchatka Peninsula

Figure 15. Wedge-shaped cores, microblades, and ski spalls from the dwelling of the Ushki I site, layer VI, 1965 excavations (after Dikov 1977a, p. 268; modified).

41

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia three locales that preserved only cultural layers VI and VII (Dikov A-1966). As a result, semi-subterranean dwellings with a corridor-like entrance and three aboveground dwellings with hearths lined with stones were found in layer VI. The use of an advanced excavation technique—continuous horizontal cleaning of the area of dwellings and adjacent areas—contributed to the identification of a large number of diagnostic and typologically diverse stone artefacts. Among them, items that carried new information stood out, since they were encountered in layer VI for the first time. They were choppers, bilaterally worked willow-leafed arrowheads and a knife, slate polished knives, abraders, polished stone pendants, an item of “cufflink” shape, and a bone spatula. Cultural layer VII was studied at only one locale, where nine charcoal-ash spots, the poorly preserved remains of a dog or wolf jaw, and a few stone tools were identified.

America. In addition, new data for the first time allowed Dikov to turn to the issue of social relations and assume that the Ushki people were at the stage of differentiation of the maternal clan into family and, possibly, production groups, which was caused by the general crisis of the economy at the end of the Ice Age. To mark the half-century anniversary of Soviet power, Dikov wrote an article about the history of archaeological research in Chukotka and Kamchatka in Soviet times (see Dikov 1967b). Interesting for its historiographical part, this work also attracts attention by the fact that it traces the further development of views on the Palaeolithic of Kamchatka. Considered at the moment of discovery in 1962 to be Early Mesolithic (Dikov 1964a, c), then – Mesolithic or Late Palaeolithic (Dikov A-1965; Shilo et al. 1967), cultural layer V of the Ushki cluster in Dikov’s (1967b) paper was ultimately recognised as Late Palaeolithic. Unfortunately, no explanation is given for this, and therefore it can only be assumed that it lay in a new assessment of the similarity of the artefacts of layers V and VI, and to some extent to the radiocarbon date of 14,300 ± 200 BP (GIN-167–168) then obtained for layer VII. It is important, however, to note that the last interpretation of layer V, it would seem, should lead to the conclusion that the discovery of the Kamchatkan Palaeolithic was not in 1964, as it was believed until now, but in 1962. However, in the subsequent historiographical review Dikov (1970c) still refers the discovery of the Kamchatkan Palaeolithic to 1964.

Excavations in 1965 expanded the understanding of the Kamchatkan Palaeolithic. Information about the first truly Palaeolithic dwellings of various types in Northeast Asia became the asset of science. They were very valuable sources on the early history of not only the northeastern USSR but also America. The common origin of Siberian and American tribes, established by Betak (1965) by the similarity of some types of dwellings of North American Indians with EpiPalaeolithic dwellings in Siberia, was confirmed by the discovery of the Ushki semi-subterranean dwellings, which, according to Dikov (A-1966, p. 37), were “... the oldest currently known prototype of the dwellings of some Northeastern Palaeo-Asiatics and, evidently, North American Indians”.

In 1967, Dikov’s crew continued excavations at Ushki IV (Dikov A-1968). Cultural layer V underwent a thorough examination. The remains of a surface dwelling, a burned spot, and numerous bones were found in it, whose preservation was such that their presence was recognised only by the colour and structure of the layer. Wedge-shaped cores, knives, spears, arrowheads, various scrapers and skreblos, and abrading stones were lying on the floor of the dwelling and in a “workshop” somewhat remote from it.25

The art of the Ushki people was now more diverse, which, together with the confirmed existence of the bow and arrow, as well as the polished knives found for the first time, spoke of the high level of their culture, surpassing the degree of development of their neighbours. In 1966, Magadan archaeologists continued their research at Ushki Lake (Dikov A-1967). Excavations were carried out in a new locality – Ushki IV. The water here exposed and partially destroyed a small two-layer semi-subterranean dwelling in layer VI where there were central hearths with boulders around it, various lithics, pieces of ochre and hematite, sandstone slabs, and burnt bones of fish and birds (Dikov 1970a). For the first time in the Ushki Palaeolithic, bones of large animals were discovered, but their poor preservation did not permit determination of the species.

After the excavations of 1967, there came a time in the study of the Palaeolithic of Kamchatka when the accumulation of archaeological materials temporarily ceased to be a priority task. Thanks to systematic research on the shore of Ushki Lake, scholars managed to collect quite a variety of material related to household, manufacturing, and burial complexes, as well as over 1200 stone artefacts, not counting blades and flakes. All these data most of all now required a comprehensive analysis and synthesis. In this regard, the study of the Kamchatkan Palaeolithic in the late 1960s acquired the

The new materials were evaluated by Dikov (A-1967, p. 19; 1970a, p. 42) as more evidence of the “closest connection” of the Kamchatkan Palaeolithic with the Palaeolithic of Southern Siberia, Japan, and North

In one of the last summarising monographs (Dikov 1977a), the whole set of data obtained in 1967 was considered as material from cultural layer VI.

25 

42

Investigations of the Palaeolithic of Aldan River and Kamchatka Peninsula

form of exclusively laboratory studies. Their character, dynamics, and fruitfulness are reflected in Dikov’s publications and meeting reports, which became more frequent at that time (Dikov 1968, 1969a, 1969b; 1970b, 1970d, 1970e; see also Vasil’evsky 1969).

The early material complex corresponding to the first stage of the Ushki culture found separate parallels so far only in the synchronous complex of Araya in Japan and later ones in America (Dikov 1969b, 1970b). The late complex (the second stage of the Ushki culture), although it had some typological connections with the materials of the cultures of Southern Siberia, Transbaikalia, Japan, and America, in general now also seemed unique. It was assumed that it “... probably is a unique product of long-term local development ...” (Dikov 1969b, p. 104).

Acquaintance with the works mentioned above shows that one of the most important problems in the study of the Ushki Palaeolithic continued to be its dating. The lower chronological boundary—14,000 years—was documented by geological and palynological data and radiocarbon dates of layer VII (13,600 ± 250 BP and 14,300 ± 200 BP) already quite reliably. As for the upper limit, it remained controversial. Following recognition of cultural layer V as Late Palaeolithic, Dikov (1969a, 1969b) defined it also as Late Pleistocene. However, this chronology could not but leave doubts, since it was proved by the same stratigraphic, palynological, and archaeological evidence (Shilo et al. 1967) that until recently had acted as arguments in favour of the Early Holocene age of the same layer. It is clear that this problem also made debatable Dikov’s (1969b) conclusion that the end of the Palaeolithic of Kamchatka was dated to ca. 10,000 years ago, which could be justified so far only by traditional ideas about the Palaeolithic– Mesolithic boundary but not by local materials.

After the allocation of a new local culture, Dikov faced questions about its origin and the ways of the initial settlement of Kamchatka. The usual method of searching for the origins of cultural complexes by comparison of assemblages did not promise success, since the materials of layer VII with their clear specifics—stemmed points—did not have their prototypes or analogues in Northern Asia. Therefore, in solving these issues, Dikov paid special attention to the palaeogeography of Northeast Asia at the end of the Pleistocene. Based on the data of Nalivkin (1960), Flint (1963), Reshetov (1966), Hopkins (1959), and Péwé et al. (1968), Dikov concluded that at the time of the last glaciation (Grimaldi regression), the situation developed in such a way that “... the initial settlement of Kamchatka ... had to pass from the Aldan side through an interglacial corridor from the regions lying somewhere to the southwest of the Okhotsk Sea, through a land that then might have been in the area of its northern part” (Dikov 1970b, p. 32). From the southwestern region (Amur River basin), according to Dikov, there also was movement toward Japan. Therefore, the similarity of the Kamchatkan Palaeolithic with the Japanese materials is explained not by the migration of human groups from the Japanese Islands through the Kurile Islands to Kamchatka but by a common origin.

It seems that Dikov’s position regarding the completion of the Palaeolithic period in Kamchatka was not accidental. The emerging trend in Siberian Palaeolithic studies of the establishment of local cultures, which has already been mentioned above, spread in the late 1960s even into the field of study of the Kamchatkan Palaeolithic. Recognising the end of the Palaeolithic in Kamchatka as the Pleistocene–Holocene boundary, Dikov thereby clearly emphasised its chronological difference from the Palaeolithic of the Aldan River, which lasted, according to Mochanov, until the fifth millennium BC, and singled out a special Upper Palaeolithic “Ushki” culture different from the Aldan complexes in cultural terms. In more distant comparisons, it had now been considered by Dikov not only in terms of similarity with the synchronous cultures of Northern Asia but also in terms of its uniqueness and originality.

Thus, the analysis of the palaeogeographic situation turned Dikov to the study of the Far Eastern region, where by that time Late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic cultures of the Ustinovka type had been discovered (Okladnikov 1959, 1966, 1969). However, even in them, Dikov failed to find tools similar to Kamchatkan stemmed points, the clarification of the origin of which, in fact, was the central link in solving the problem of the origin of the Ushki culture. The early Ushki complex was also distinguished by its burin-like points, as well as the complete absence of wedge-shaped cores and artefacts on blades, so typical of the Primorye and Amur cultures.

The stone inventory of the Ushki cluster was the subject of special study. Those differences in the lithics of layer VII, on the one hand, and layers V and VI, on the other, which were noted earlier, but whose significance was not disclosed, now formed the basis for the identification of two “... definitely different cultural and historical stages ...” in the development of the Ushki culture (Dikov 1969b, p. 94). This conclusion became the first periodisation of the Kamchatkan Palaeolithic. The former lag of Kamchatkan archaeology from adjacent territories in the allocation of Palaeolithic stages was, therefore, eliminated.

It must be assumed that these data influenced the fact that by the very beginning of the 1970s, Dikov had radically revised a number of important provisions regarding the Kamchatkan Palaeolithic. The conclusion 43

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia about the monoculturality of the early and late Ushki complexes underwent revision. Now they began to be considered not as reflections of successive stages of the Ushki culture but as evidence of two independent complexes, genetically unrelated to each other and belonging, most likely, to different ethnic groups (Dikov 1970e). Recognising the absence of North Asian analogues to the finds from layer VII of the Ushki I site, Dikov stated that the “archaic” (later – the first) Ushki culture was “... a remnant fragment of some culture widespread in Northeast Asia, older than all known Upper Palaeolithic cultures of Siberia with wedge-shaped cores” (Dikov 1970e, p. 123). If we take into account the age known by that time for the wedgeshaped cores of Afontova Gora II as 19,800 ± 300 BP (GIN-127) (Abramova 1966b)26, then Dikov’s opinion becomes clear that this culture “... began to spread across Northeast Asia and farther to America about 30,000–20,000 years ago” (Dikov 1970e, p. 128).

Dikov’s interpretation of the ethnicity of these cultures looked particularly interesting and significant – an extremely complex issue, especially for such a distant time. He presumably associated the early Ushki culture with the Palaeoindian community, and the later one with the Palaeoeskimo–Aleut. Hence, it can be concluded that by the beginning of the 1970s Dikov outlined for the first time not only the cultural–chronological but also the ethnic scheme of the development of the Kamchatkan Palaeolithic. The discovery and research of the Palaeolithic on Kamchatka in the 1960s were received with great interest. They were the subject of discussions at the All-Union Meeting (Dikov 1965a) and the International Congress (Dikov 1970f). The results of the excavations at Ushki Lake were described as “truly sensational” (Averkieva et al. 1969), and their “exceptional importance” for solving Palaeolithic problems was recognised not only regionally but also on a USSR-wide scale (Boriskovsky 1969). Moreover, the development of a number of issues of American archaeology, in particular the problems of “... searching for the true ways ...” of peopling the New World, began to be seriously associated with the Ushki Palaeolithic (Laricheva 1966a, p. 102). The Ushki archaeological complex was included in the geological survey of the oldest sites in the USSR (Ivanova 1969), and it was listed on the Palaeolithic map of the USSR (Beregovaya 1972).

Having thus established the deep antiquity of the first Ushki culture, Dikov approached the problem of the initial peopling of the New World more broadly and at the same time more concretely than ever before. He proposed a new version of the hypothesis about the settlement of America. Its essence was the assumption that the South Patagonian Late Palaeolithic (8760 ± 300 BC) stemmed points from Fell’s Cave and the Palli Aike site, considered by many experts as derivatives of Clovis and Folsom type points, in fact, might be traces of the spread of the Ushki culture at an early stage of its development on the American continent (Dikov 1970e). This spectacular hypothesis, but certainly requiring additional arguments, was fundamentally different from the one that had been developed at the same time by Mochanov based on the materials of the Aldan Palaeolithic.

*** The above-mentioned history and results of the studies of Northeast Asian Palaeolithic in the 1960s give reason to conclude the following. The economic development of the eastern USSR that had unfolded since the late 1950s, the sharp increase in the scientific potential of the territories in this regard, and the organisation of the archaeological services in Yakutsk and Magadan eventually created favourable conditions for a qualitatively new stage of Palaeolithic studies in Northeast Asia.

Most of the ideas established by the early 1970s about the Kamchatkan Palaeolithic were commented on by Dikov most broadly in the chapter “The Palaeolithic of the Extreme Northeast of Siberia” in his Dr. Sci. dissertation, successfully defended in the spring of 1971 (Dikov 1971а, 1971b). Here he draws attention to the conclusion that Chukotka and Kamchatka were inhabited by humans not later than 27,000–25,000 years ago. From Dikov’s general concept it followed that at this time the first Ushki culture appeared in Kamchatka. Dikov (1971b, p. 14) described the creators of this complex as fishermen and “... probably hunters of large herbivores ...”. The presumptive nature of the second part of this conclusion was absolutely fair: the poor preservation of animal bones did not allow determining their species composition, and among hunting tools only small arrowheads were recorded.

The new period (1960–1969) was distinguished from the previous one by planned, systematic, and intensive research, the organisation of excavations by large swathes, the expansion of complex research methods through the use of palynology and radiocarbon dating, and fruitful cooperation with representatives of the natural sciences. A significant feature of the period under review was the concentration of fieldwork in the valleys of the Aldan and Kamchatka rivers. The study of the regions of the Aldan and Kamchatka, new to prehistoric archaeology, led to interesting and scientifically important discoveries. Palaeolithic sites containing original materials in the form of household, manufacturing, and burial complexes were found

26  According to the latest data, the age of Afontova Gora II site could be younger, ca. 14,000 BP (Astakhov 1999, p. 172).—Trans.

44

Investigations of the Palaeolithic of Aldan River and Kamchatka Peninsula

here. Having expanded the known distribution of sites in Northeast Asia, this information significantly supplemented the database of Palaeolithic research.

theoretical generalisations. In the dialectical unity of the empirical and theoretical knowledge, the share of the latter often prevailed, especially in such matters as the origin of ancient cultures and their chronology, dissemination, and areas.

Increase in the quantity of data was accompanied by qualitative growth. Many of the discovered sites turned out to be multilayered, with a clear stratigraphy of culture-containing deposits. It is difficult to overestimate the significance of this fact, because thanks to it, scientists for the first time were given the opportunity to identify pure cultural complexes and establish their relative chronology not by typological comparisons with well-studied but geographically distant materials, as was previously practiced, but on an objective stratigraphic basis. As a result, the materials from the Aldan and Kamchatka regions acquired a type value and became the reference for the cultural and chronological identification of surface and nonstratified finds.

The discovery of early sites on the Aldan and Kamchatka, the accumulation of rich archaeological collections, the highlighting of special Dyuktai, Sumnagin, and the first and second Ushki cultures, the coverage of issues of their origin, periodisation, and chronology, the establishment of connections with the cultures of adjacent territories and relationships within the nuclear regions, the first experiments to determine the boundaries of the distribution of these cultures, and the ethnic interpretation of Kamchatkan cultures – all this was the new, most important result of the second period of the Palaeolithic studies in Northeast Asia. It revealed the previously unknown diversity and complexity of the cultural processes that took place here and showed the fallacy of the previous concept of the uniformity of the Late Palaeolithic culture in Northern Asia. The “Siberian–Chinese” cultural province highlighted by Zamyatnin (1951) actually turned out not to be homogeneous but rather consisting of different local cultures even within its Siberian part.

The study of the Palaeolithic of the Aldan and Kamchatka regions was a process of active, intense, and sometimes dramatic search for solid concepts. The reconstruction of historical reality required not a simple description of the data but a comprehension and revision of a number of theoretical ideas that had developed by the early 1960s, and even those that appeared in the period under review.

A notable feature of the second period was the active involvement of the Aldan and Kamchatkan finds in the problem of the peopling of America. As a result, the new solutions presented for scientific consideration reflected the notable successes of Soviet archaeology. Thus, if by the beginning of the 1960s the Palaeolithic was the least developed part of the Northeast Asian archaeology, then a decade later it grew to the level of an independent scientific direction with its characteristic organisational principles, methods, and techniques of research, breadth of topics, and publication of special works.

The Palaeolithic of the Aldan and Kamchatka regions was studied against the background of the general Siberian Palaeolithic and in the closest relationship with it, taking into account the traditions and trends that had developed in the Palaeolithic studies of Northern Asia as a whole. This is reflected in the broad approach to determining the place and role of the Aldan and Kamchatkan complexes for the history of the entire Northeast Asia, and in the researchers’ focus not only to narrow empirical topics but also to broad

45

Chapter III Investigations of the Palaeolithic in Yakutia, Western Coastal Region of the Okhotsk Sea, Chukotka, and Kamchatka. Further Development of Concepts about the Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia (1970–1980) In 1968, the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences considered the development of research in the field of social sciences in light of the resolution of the Central Committee of the USSR Communist Party “On Measures for the Further Development of Social Sciences and Increasing Their Role at Building Communism” (Razvitie … 1968). Having given a positive assessment of the work of humanitarian institutions on the implementation of the resolution of the Central Committee of the Party, the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences outlined the main directions for further research, among which it said study of prehistoric cultures had been relevant. The importance of in-depth development of this topic was also emphasised at the XIIIth International Congress of Historical Sciences held in Moscow in 1970 (Zhukov and Rybakov 1975). Archaeological research in the USSR, including the Northeast, thus received new broad prospects and new opportunities.

were examined, completing the study of the whole site. Obviously, this affected the fact that there were fewer Palaeolithic finds than in previous years. However, in general, the Dyuktai archaeological material made up the most representative stratified collection of the Upper Palaeolithic in Yakutia (Mochanov 1977).

In the 1970s, the study of the Northeast Asian Palaeolithic, as before, was conducted mainly by the archaeologists from Yakutsk and Magadan. However, in comparison with the previous period, the scale of research had increased markedly. This led to the creation in 1970 of a new structural unit – the Laboratory of Archaeology in the IYaLI. In the same year, specialists at the Yakutsk State University (now Ammosov NorthEastern Federal University) joined the study of the Yakutian Palaeolithic. Growth of personnel was also noted in the Archaeology Laboratory at the SVKNII, which was to a certain extent facilitated by the creation in 1970 on the basis of the Far Eastern institutions of an independent Far Eastern Science Centre of the USSR Academy of Sciences (DVNTS).

The Ust-Mil II site was subjected to intensive excavations. At a depth of 2–2.5 m in the alluvium of the third terrace, individual stone artefacts were recorded, as well as bones of woolly rhinoceros, mammoth, horse, and bison. The most diagnostic artefact was the blank of a wedge-shaped core (Figure 16: 3). Single flakes and fossils of Pleistocene fauna were also found in the overlying sediments.

The Pleistocene deposits at the cave site were divided into three cultural horizons: upper – A, middle – B, and lower – C.1 Analysing them from a geological point of view, Mochanov came to the conclusion that they represent the floodplain alluvium of the first terrace. This judgement was regulated by the new radiocarbon dates of horizon A – 12,100 ± 120 BP (LE-907); and horizon B – 12,690 ± 120 BP (LE-860) and 13,110 ± 90 BP (LE-908). Taking into account these dates and the stratigraphic position, the age of the horizon C was set in the range of 14,000–16,000 years ago (Mochanov 1973b).

A particular success of the work at the VerkhneTroitskaya site was the discovery of a cultural layer, timed, according to Mochanov’s (1973b) observations, to the lower horizons of the alluvium of the first terrace. The layer contained Pleistocene fauna and flint tools – flakes, a scraper, two knives, and a miniature wedge-shaped core (Figure 17). The age of the finds was determined by radiocarbon dates: 17,680 ± 250 BP (LE906) and 18,300 ± 180 BP (LE-905). The finds that lay 0.8– 1 m below the dated ones seemed to be more ancient.

Yakutsk Research Programme Archaeologists of the IYaLI continued to study Palaeolithic sites within the framework of the planned five-year theme “The Oldest Cultures of Northeast Asia”. In 1970, the main forces of the PAE were concentrated on the Aldan (Mochanov 1971). The wellknown Palaeolithic sites were investigated first. A large amount of work was carried out at Dyuktai Cave. The excavation of the cave itself had ended back in 1968, and in 1970 the peripheral sections of the cave entrance

The main part of the Palaeolithic items of the VerkhneTroitskaya site was supplemented through surface collections in a sandbank under the site. Along with Neolithic remains, stone objects of Sumnagin and In 1974, geological (7a, 7b, 7c) and archaeological (VIIa, VIIb. VIIc) layer numbering were assigned to these horizons, respectively.

1 

46

Investigations of the Palaeolithic in Yakutia, Chukotka, and Kamchatka

Figure 16. Artefacts from the lower cultural layer (horizon C) of Ust-Mil II site (after Mochanov 1977, p. 37; modified). 1 – end scraper; 2 – blade; 3 – wedge-shaped core; 4 – angle burin; 5 – core preform; 6 – knife or spear preform; 7 – knife or spear; 8 – worked (modified) mammoth bone.

47

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia

Figure 17. Lithics from the Verkhne-Troitskaya site (after Mochanov 1977, p. 65; modified). 1 – wedge-shaped core; 2 – “Gobi” wedge-shaped core; 3, 5 – cores; 4 – scraper; 6, 8–9 – skreblos; 7 – angle burin; 10 – blade-like flake.

Dyuktai appearance were gathered here. Among the latter, bifacially worked flint spearheads and knives were recognised as the most indicative items (Mochanov 1973b).

Test pits and trenches placed by archaeologists near the quarry revealed new Palaeolithic artefacts (Figures 18– 19) as well as bones of rhinoceros, mammoth, bison, and horse. A knife, “quite similar,” according to Mochanov (1973b, p. 8), to one found in Dyuktai Cave, was the main argument in recognising the Ezhantsy site as belonging to the Dyuktai culture. Study of the stratigraphy of cultural deposits at the Ezhantsy site led Mochanov (1973b) to conclude that the finds extend mainly to the contact of the channel and floodplain alluvium of the second terrace, and therefore their age should be within the interval of 25,000–30,000 years ago.

After the work at Verkhne-Troitskaya, the PAE began to study the Ezhantsy site (Figure 2: 32). Information about it was obtained from the director of the Ust-Maya Museum of Local Lore, V.G. Prokopyeva, who showed Mochanov several flakes and crushed mammoth bones found while digging a quarry in the village of Ezhantsy (Lykhin 1970b).

48

Investigations of the Palaeolithic in Yakutia, Chukotka, and Kamchatka

Figure 18. Lithics from the Ezhantsy site (after Mochanov 1977, p. 52; modified). 1–4, 8–9, 14 – knife-like blades; 5 – scraper; 6 – wedge-shaped core; 7 – flake; 10 – ski spall; 11–13 – cores; 15 – turtle-back core.

It must be said that comparison of the materials from Maiorych and Alaska was very important. Behind it stood Mochanov’s former idea about the settlement of America through the Asian continent by representatives of the Dyuktai culture. That is why the Maiorych site, even in the absence of such “Americanoid” indicators as bifacial spearheads and knives, began to be considered as a link between the Palaeolithic sites of the Aldan and the sites of the “Palaeoarctic tradition” of America (Mochanov 1972a, 1972b).

The results of fieldwork in 1970 expanded the understanding of the nature of the material culture of the Dyuktai populations. Important data were obtained on the absolute chronology of Palaeolithic complexes. The deep antiquity of the Dyuktai culture, previously proved only theoretically, gradually began to gain factual grounds. However, no matter how successful the studies on the Aldan were, they could not solve the acute problem of the spatial distribution of Palaeolithic cultures in this region. Therefore, in order to check the very large scale of the spread of the Dyuktai and Sumnagin cultures outlined in the 1960s, the PAE expanded the geography of the research.

On the lower reaches of the Kolyma River, where its right tributary the Panteleikha River flows into it, the same PAE team recorded 14 diachronic sites: Pirs, Panteleikha I–IX, Zeleny Mys, and Komarok I–III. At the Panteleikha III site (Figure 2: 58), confined to a 20-m terrace, among the Neolithic remains lying on the surface, end scrapers on relatively massive flakes typical of the Sumnagin culture were found.

In 1970, the northwestern PAE team, headed by Mochanov, followed an exploration route along the Kolyma River. The first finds were made at the mouth of the Maiorych Creek (Figure 2: 52). Three flint flakes, a knife-chisel, a knife-scraper, and a wedge-shaped core lay directly on the exposed pebbles of the scattered surface of a 14-m terrace. In 1971, analysing the tools of the Maiorych site and finding close analogies to them in the Upper Palaeolithic complexes of the Aldan, Hokkaido, and Alaska, Mochanov (1972a) expressed the opinion that the Maiorych site, which is 12,000–18,000 years old, belonged to the Dyuktai complex.

It was noted above that since 1970, the Yakutsk State University (YaGU) had been studying the early sites of Northeast Asia. Organised in 1967 under the leadership of N.D. Arkhipov, the YaGU archaeological expedition chose the lower Olekma River basin as its research area in 1969. At first, the expedition successfully studied

49

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia

Figure 19. Lithics from the Ezhantsy site (after Mochanov 1977, p. 54; modified). 1–2, 4–5 – scrapers; 3, 6 – turtle-back cores; 7, 9 – pebble cores; 8 – core preform.

rock art, and in 1970 it discovered the first pre-Neolithic sites of the Olekma – Novy Leten A and Novy Leten B (Figure 2: 15).2

the best opportunity to explore this kind of “cemetery” in the north, in particular, in the well-known, thanks to the message of the permafrost expert Grigoryev (1957), “Berelekh mammoth cemetery” in the Ugamyt locale (Vereshchagin 1971).

The sites are located at the mouth of the Novy Leten River. At the first of them, located on the 18–20-m erosional terrace of the left promontory, a layer with mixed cultural remains was found, including wedgeshaped and “Gobi” cores, typical, according to Arkhipov (A-1971), of the Mesolithic of Yakutia. At the second site, located on a 10-m terrace on the right promontory, flakes and blades were collected from the surface.

In the summer of 1970, Vereshchagin had the opportunity to visit the Ugamyt locale as part of an interdisciplinary expedition of the Yakut Division, Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences, the Zoological Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences, and the SVKNII.3 Examining the slopes of the 12-m terrace (a yedoma4), he unexpectedly found two flakes in a landslide with a bone-bearing horizon, a fragment of a biface knife, and a large hammerstone. In the same place, he encountered split bones “with artificial scratches” (Vereshchagin 1971). Attempts to determine the in situ position of the bone-bearing horizon in the section of the terrace led geologists to the idea that “... it lay ... at a depth of 3.5–4 m from the surface of a gentle hill, a yedoma, eroded by the Berelekh River” (Vereshchagin 1971, p. 89).

In 1970, a discovery was made indicating that Palaeolithic humans had settled the entire territory of Northeast Asia up to the modern shores of the Arctic Ocean. We are talking about the discovery by palaeontologist N.K. Vereshchagin of the Berelekh site, the northernmost (71° N) Palaeolithic site in the world (for the time being. – Trans.) (Figure 2: 49) (see colour Plate 4). As a specialist in the study of Quaternary fauna, Vereshchagin was long attracted by large accumulations of the remains of extinct animals, including the so-called “mammoth cemeteries”. Of the different “cemeteries” he was especially interested in the “cryohydrogenic– alluvial” type of faunal clusters, to the greatest extent free from the anthropogenic factor. Vereshchagin saw

Vereshchagin, who had extensive experience in the Palaeolithic sites of the Desna, Don, Volga, and Pechora 3  In addition to N.K. Vereshchagin, geologists B.S. Rusanov, O.V. Grinenko and P.A. Lazarev, geomorphologist A.V. Lozhkin, permafrost scientist E.M. Katasonov, palynologist Z.V. Orlova, and microbiologist V.V. Korneev took part in the expedition. 4  A yedoma is the particular type of permafrost sediments consisting of loess-like silts with the remains of plants and animal bones, with massive ice-wedges.—Trans.

At present, these sites have been given names, respectively, Novy Leten II and Novy Leten I (Mochanov et al. 1983).

2 

50

Investigations of the Palaeolithic in Yakutia, Chukotka, and Kamchatka

Figure 20. Artefacts from the Berelekh site (after Mochanov 1977, p. 80; modified). 1, 10 – points (collected on the surface); 2–3 – blades; 4–6 – blade fragments; 7–9, 14–15 – stone pendants; 11, 22–23, 25, 27–28 – flakes; 12–13, 16, 18, 23, 30–31 – scrapers; 17, 20 – knife fragments; 19 – wedge-shaped core; 21, 24 – points; 26 – knife; 29 – spear point; 32 – chisel-like tool; 33 – spear point (collected on the surface).

rivers, appreciated the importance of the findings, concluding that “... traces of such a distant penetration into the north by prehistoric humans–mammoth hunters are noted for the first time ...” (Vereshchagin 1971, p. 92) and that “... such penetration of ancient hunters far beyond the Arctic Circle (above 71° N) allows us to assume the probability of Late Palaeolithic finds on the New Siberian Islands” (Vereshchagin 1972, p. 146).

only in the Aldan Valley but also far beyond its borders. The latter circumstance was particularly noteworthy and important since going beyond restricted regional studies and identifying ancient sites in areas many hundreds of kilometres away from each other marked the transition to a qualitatively new level of development in the Palaeolithic studies of Yakutia and adjacent territories. In 1971, the scope of the PAE work on the Aldan was somewhat reduced: only the Ust-Timpton I, UstMil II, Verkhne-Troitskaya, and Ezhantsy sites were studied. In cultural layers IV–VI of the Ust-Timpton I site, materials characterising the Sumnagin culture were again recorded. At the Verkhne-Troitskaya site,

Thus, the results of the study in 1970 of both the previously known Palaeolithic sites in Yakutia and those discovered for the first time turned out to be far from the final ones. On the contrary, they outlined a very promising continuation of fieldwork now not 51

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia collecting of surface materials and testing were carried out, which revealed additional inventory with a Dyuktai appearance. Palaeolithic artefacts, mostly similar to the previous year’s, were found at the Ezhantsy site in a stratigraphic situation disturbed by powerful cryogenic textures.

a willow ptarmigan (Lagopus lagopus L.), mammoth, wolf (Canis lupus L.), bean goose (Anser fabalis Latham), reindeer, and horse (Eguus lenensis Russ.), it contained flakes, two fragments of projectile points, and two small pendants made of a “white mineral”. According to Mochanov (1972b), blades, knives, scrapers, and wedge-shaped cores (Figures 20–21) were also found in the layer.5 On the slope of the terrace, away from the clearing, Vereshchagin found several more flakes and a spear tip from a mammoth tusk (Vereshchagin and Mochanov 1972, Figure 4).

The Ust-Mil II site was studied in a similar way. With all the smallness and undiagnostic character of the cultural remains found in the Pleistocene deposits, this site had now acquired special significance. The fact is that in the spring of 1971 for its lowest finds, attributed later by Mochanov (1975a) to the base of horizon C, a radiocarbon date of 35,400 ± 600 BP (LE954) was generated. It was controlled by two other dates – 12,200 ± 170 BP (LE-953) and 35,600 ± 900 BP (LE955), obtained for the upper cultural horizon A and for deposits without artefacts lying 1.5 m below horizon C, respectively. These dates showed that the Ust-Mil II site at this stage of research was the oldest archaeological locale in Northeast Asia and that its peopling, at least in the Aldan Valley, occurred at the beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic, long before the onset of the last (Sartan) glaciation.

Vereshchagin established that the “initial bone-bearing horizon” at the Berelekh location does not lie at the base of a 4-m thick Sartan loess, as geologists assumed, but at a depth of 2.55 m, and in deposits of alluvial origin. These determinations were supported by radiocarbon dates 11,830 ± 110 BP (LU-147) and 12,240 ± 160 BP (LU-149), characterising the age of deposits at a depth of 1.6 m and 2.55 m, respectively (Vereshchagin 1972; Vereshchagin and Mochanov 1972),6 as well as, probably, in the first date for the cultural layer of the site – 10,600 ± 90 BP (LE-988) (Mochanov 1972c). The alluvial character of the Berelekh terrace was also noted by Mochanov (1972b). However, unlike Vereshchagin, he determined the depth of the cultural layer at 2.5 m, thereby emphasising stratigraphic unity of the site and the bone-bearing horizon of the “cemetery”.

Continuing the programme of large-scale research of the territory of Northeast Asia, the PAE directed work on the Vilyui and Berelekh rivers and on the western coast of the Okhotsk Sea (Mochanov 1972b; Fedoseeva 1972).

The study of the Berelekh complex in 1971 led to two possibilities that exist to this day. According to one of them, expressed by Vereshchagin (1972, 1977a, 1977b) and Gromov (1974), the ancient people set up their camp at the mammoth “cemetery” at the time of the extinction of these animals or even their complete disappearance – 11,000–10,000 years ago. The first inhabitants of Berelekh “... apparently no longer found live mammoths and ate mainly hares, deer, geese, and willow ptarmigan. However, they used tusks for their needs, and maybe the frozen meat of dead mammoths” (Vereshchagin 1977b, p. 95). As for the large accumulation of bones at the site, according to Vereshchagin, it is associated with the mass death of Pleistocene animals on the upper reaches of the Berelekh River during floods, and their subsequent deposition in the bend of the river at the Ugamyt locale.

The Ust-Chirkuo site (Figure 2: 39), discovered in 1962 by Fedoseeva, was investigated on the Vilyui River. At that time, it was considered a two-layered Neolithic site (Fedoseeva 1968, pp. 106–125). In 1971, from six to 12 cultural layers were ascribed to Ust-Chirkuo. Fedoseeva (1972, p. 260), who led the excavations, determined that “... the finds from the lower layers are similar in appearance to the materials of the Sumnagin culture”. This conclusion marked a change in Fedoseeva’s views on the Early Holocene history of the region: from recognition of the existence of a special Mesolithic culture on the Upper Vilyui, different from Sumnagin (Fedoseeva 1970, p. 67), she reverted to Mochanov’s (1970a, p. 62) opinion about the entry of this territory into the Sumnagin cultural area. In the spring of 1971 in Leningrad, Vereshchagin acquainted Mochanov with the Berelekh finds, and in the autumn of the same year Mochanov and Fedoseeva undertook the first purposeful studies of the Berelekh site (Lykhin 1972). According to Vereshchagin (1972, 1977a), who re-examined the Berelekh in 1971, archaeologists cleaned the slope of the terrace near the bone-bearing locale and found a cultural layer at a depth of 1.5 m below the surface. Together with the remains of the bones of a hare (Lepus tanaiticus Gureev),

Information about the finds of scrapers and wedge-shaped cores is contradictory. There are no specified types of artefacts in the exhaustive description of the Berelekh site materials collected over all the years of its research (Mochanov 1977, pp. 76–87). 6  The stratigraphic position of samples LU-147 and LU-149, as well as their values, are unclear. For example, in the article by Arslanov et al. (1980) for the first sample the age is 12,230 ± 70 BP and a depth of 2.5 m; for the second sample – 12,000 ± 130 BP and a depth of 3.5 m are indicated. This circumstance makes us cautious about these dates used in geological, stratigraphic, and historical definitions. 5 

52

Investigations of the Palaeolithic in Yakutia, Chukotka, and Kamchatka

Mochanov (1977) adhered to a different version. In his opinion, based on the stratigraphic unity of the bonebearing and cultural layers, as well as on additional radiocarbon dates on wood samples from the cultural layer (12,930 ± 80 BP, GIN-1021; and 13,420 ± 200 BP, IM152), the Berelekh people lived simultaneously with mammoths, and their hunting activities played a role in the formation of the “mammoth cemetery”. Similar thoughts were expressed by Alekseeva (1976).

on the slopes of the Lanzhinsk Mountains stretching along the left bank of the Kukhtui River, he also collected archaeological material of different times in four places (see newspaper article “Drevnie kostry poberezhya” 1970). During the repeated examination, the archaeologist’s special attention was drawn to the third place—Kukhtui III (Figure 2: 61)—where “... in the deposits of the floodplain facies of the alluvium of a 25-m erosional terrace ...” he encountered “... bifacial spear points and knives that have close analogues among the materials of Dyuktai Cave” (Mochanov 1972b). Guided by these observations, Mochanov dated the site to the Upper Palaeolithic period and expressed the opinion that “... the Kukhtui finds connect the Dyuktai culture with the Palaeolithic sites of the Far East and Japan” (Mochanov 1972b, p. 251). The connection was established by the presence of bifaces.

It seems that these versions have both strengths and weaknesses. If we talk about the problems, then, having accepted the point of view of Vereshchagin and Gromov, it is difficult, for example, to explain the fact that specialised mammoth hunting tools were found at the Berelekh site – stone and bone spear points. And by contrast, viewing Mochanov’s opinion, it is difficult to understand why the vast majority of fossils in the cultural layer of the site are the bones of a hare and a willow ptarmigan, and the few bones of a mammoth differ sharply in the degree of preservation (they look much older) from all other osteological material (Vereshchagin 1977a).

In 1971, the YaGU expedition organised extended studies of the Novy Leten A and Novy Leten B sites (Arkhipov A-1972, 1972, 1973c). At the first of them, the entire thickness of culture-bearing sediments was divided into three tentative horizons (by disassembling the layer “on the shovel blade”7), since “... the study of stratigraphic sections of the site showed that it does not have a clear stratigraphy” (Arkhipov A-1972, p. 6). The site as a whole was characterised as a workshop. Its upper date was determined by the “waffle-stamp” pottery that existed in Yakutia in the second millennium BC. The lower chronological boundary—the “Mesolithic of Yakutia” (8000–5000 BC)—was distinguished, according to Arkhipov (A-1972, p. 7; 1972, p. 258), by part of the materials (wedge-shaped cores) of the second horizon, and the finds (wedge-shaped cores, semi-lunar knives, scrapers, and skreblos) from the third horizon.

After the Berelekh site was discovered, reports appeared in the press by Flint (1972) and Bader (1972) about an interesting image of a mammoth figurine on a fragment of a tusk acquired in 1965 by Flint from residents of Berelekh Village located ca. 30–40 km away from the “mammoth cemetery”. After giving an explanation and analysing the stylistic features of the animal image and the technique of its application to the tusk, made by an ancient artist who had repeatedly observed living mammoths, both researchers came to the conclusion about the Palaeolithic age of the drawing. The response to these views was a note by Gromov (1972), who, without excluding the possibility of the Upper Palaeolithic age of the find, noted that, judging by the unnaturally long legs and trunk of the animal, “... the artist painted not from a living but from a dead mammoth ...” whose lower part was hidden from the artist in the frozen ground of the cliff.

The Novy Leten B site was studied using the same excavation technique as at the previous site. Three cultural horizons were also identified here. The absence of pottery in the second and third horizons, and the presence of wedge-shaped cores in the first of them, led Arkhipov (A-1972, p. 10) to the idea of the possibility of dating them to “... pre-pottery time, i.e., the Mesolithic of Yakutia”.

The discussion on this issue persisted (Bader 1975; Bader and Flint 1977; Vereshchagin 1977a). Undoubtedly, a lot could be clarified if the drawing in question had an exact stratigraphic provenance. However, this issue remains unclear up to now. Some experts (Mochanov 1977) believe that the mammoth engraving comes from the cultural complex of the Berelekh site, others (Bader 1975), without excluding such a possibility, assume that it belongs to the place of the accumulation of bones at the Ugamyt locale or, “even more likely,” to another as yet unidentified place.

Against the background of emerging views about the Early Holocene history of Yakutia, Arkhipov’s conclusions seemed undoubtedly new and original. They quite definitely implied the existence in Yakutia of a Mesolithic stage, imprinted in the culture of the lower Olekma River, different, judging by the inventory, from the Sumnagin culture of the “Holocene” Palaeolithic. However, these conclusions were only postulated and not supported by justifications. The latter, however,

In 1971, Mochanov continued his research in the area of the town of Okhotsk, where in the autumn of 1970,

7  This means that the thickness of each horizon was equal to the length of a shovel blade (ca. 25 cm).—Trans.

53

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia

Figure 21. Ivory and bone artefacts, and image of mammoth from the Berelekh site (after Mochanov 1977, pp. 82, 84; modified). 1 – bone tool with cutmarks; 2, 7 – worked (modified) bones; 3 – sub-triangular knife; 4 – semi-lunar knife; 5 – oval knife; 6 – skreblo; 8 – image of mammoth on ivory plate, collected near the Berelekh site (out of scale).

could hardly be presented: Arkhipov did not have complete data, including artefacts, that he could allocate to cultural and chronological complexes even arbitrarily, let alone on the basis of their stratigraphic positions. The reason for the current situation was largely an imperfect excavation technique, which was later pointed out by Mochanov (1977, p. 74).

Kazakhstan, Southern Siberia, and Central Asia of two different cultures (with and without bifaces), evolving 40,000–35,000 years ago into Upper Palaeolithic “bifacial” and “Aurignacoid” cultures, he suggested that at the early stage of the Upper Palaeolithic in Northern Asia local cultures with biface spearheads and knives, scrapers, burins, and subprismatic and wedgeshaped cores existed (Mochanov 1973c). Approximately 25,000–22,000 years ago, according to Mochanov, two large “ethnocultural regions” (otherwise, “cultural provinces”) were being formed in the territory of Northern Asia: the western (“Malta–Afontova”) and the eastern (“Dyuktai”). Each of them consisted of a number of local cultures. The main difference between these

After 1971, again turning to the problem of the initial human settlement of America, Mochanov (1972c, 1973b, 1973c) concretised and further developed his previous concept concerning the general problems of the Palaeolithic of Northern Asia. Still asserting the idea of the existence in the Middle Palaeolithic of 54

Investigations of the Palaeolithic in Yakutia, Chukotka, and Kamchatka

Figure 22. Lithics from the Tumulur site, Palaeolithic cultural layer (after Mochanov 1977, p. 72; modified). 1–3 – wedge-shaped cores; 4–7 – bifacially-worked laurel-leaf points (or knives).

Levallois assemblages of Central Asia and Mongolia. Mochanov considered the issues related to the actual Dyuktai and Sumnagin cultures within the framework of the above general scheme of the development of the Palaeolithic in Northern Asia.

regions was that in the “eastern” cultures, bifacially worked spear points and knives were widespread, but in the “western” cultures they were absent. The border between the regions ran along the watershed of the Yenisei and Lena basins. In the south, they were limited by the “contact areas” of Upper Angara, Transbaikalia, Mongolia, and Northern China. “The area of pure cultures of Dyuktai appearance mainly covered the territory to the east of the Lena and north of the Amur as well as, obviously, Sakhalin and most of Hokkaido” (Mochanov, 1973b, p. 11).

The source base for the Dyuktai culture was represented by Mochanov (1973b) as the sites of the Aldan River (Ikhine I and II, Sumnagin III, Dyuktai Cave, Ust-Mil II, Verkhne-Troitskaya, Nizhne-Troitskaya, Ezhantsy, UstBilir II, and Ust-Dyuktai I), Indigirka River (Berelekh), and Kolyma River (Maiorych). For the first time, he attributed part of the artefacts from the sites of Ushki I, II, and IV to the same culture (leaf-shaped pointsbifaces and wedge-shaped cores).

In the “Dyuktai” people Mochanov saw the descendants of the oldest population of Siberia, genetically dating back to the creators of the culture of Kehe, Lantian, and Dingcun complexes in China with its characteristic bifacial choppers. The origin of the “Aurignacoid” cultures, i.e., the complexes of the Malta–Afontova region, as before, was associated with the Mousterian–

Based on the listed sites, the time of the Dyuktai culture’s existence was established within 35,000/33,000–10,500 years ago. Recognising the closest similarity of the 55

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia Dyuktai complex with the Palaeoindian cultures of post-glacial America located south of the ice sheets, differing, according to Mochanov, only in the absence of fluted points in the Dyuktai assemblage, and wedgeshaped cores among the ancient American complexes, he drew a detailed picture for substantiating such similarity.

this year by test trenches. Excavations and collection of surface material at the Berelekh site have added flakes, blade flakes with edge retouch, bone spear points, knives, and scrapers. The YaGU expedition worked on the Olekma River (Arkhipov and Alekseev A-1973). At Novy Leten A site, the excavation (10 × 5 m) revealed a mixed cultural layer with various stone artefacts deposited in each of the six tentative horizons. A new, fourth, horizon was allocated to the Novy Leten B site. It contained subprismatic cores, three scrapers of the same type as well as two wedge-shaped cores, two axes, an adze, and a “skreblo-like tool” (Arkhipov and Alekseev A-1973).

The formation of the Dyuktai culture, according to Mochanov, occurred 40,000–35,000 years ago in the territory lying between the Yellow River and Amur River. Its creators—people with proto-Americanoid traits—over the next 5000 years gradually settled the territories of Yakutia and Chukotka. Around 25,000 years ago, they penetrated for the first time through Beringia to Alaska and 23,000 years ago reached Central America. Here, behind the glacial barrier which separated Alaska from America at 24,000 years ago, “... about 12,000 years ago they created various complexes that are essentially local cultures of the Dyuktai region” (Mochanov 1973b, p. 14).

At the distance of 100 m north of Novy Leten B, on the same 10-m terrace, the archaeologists of YaGU placed another excavation, marking the third point – Novy Leten C.8 According to Arkhipov and Alekseev (A-1973), disc-shaped, wedge-shaped, and prismatic cores, flakes, blades and microblades, and scrapers, as well as isolated spear points, knives, punches, and axes, were recorded in five tentatively identified horizons.

The Dyuktai culture, which in the Sartan period covered not only Yakutia and Chukotka but also Alaska, disappeared in Northeast Asia about 10,500 years ago. It was replaced by the Sumnagin culture of elk and reindeer hunters, descendants of one of the near-Yenisei Malta–Afontova Upper Palaeolithic populations. Like the Dyuktai people, having settled the vast expanses of Northeast Asia, the bearers of the Sumnagin culture soon (about 8500–5500 years ago) began to occasionally cross the ice of the Bering Strait into Arctic America as far as Greenland (Mochanov 1973c).

Arkhipov discovered a new Palaeolithic site 8 km below the Novy Leten localities – Malaya Dzhikimda (Figure 2: 16). It was situated on a flat section of the 100–150-m terrace adjacent to the Olekma River. In an excavation 0.6 m deep, the expedition crew examined four tentatively identified horizons containing cultural remains. In the second and third horizons, overlain by a layer with pottery, there were flakes, blades and microblades, wedge-shaped and prismatic cores, and end scrapers on blades (including “with lugs”). Among the finds of the third horizon was an arrowhead. In the lower (fourth) horizon, there were flakes and blades.

The theoretical development of the problems of the Northeast Asian Palaeolithic, undertaken by Mochanov at the very beginning of the study of the oldest sites of the Aldan, found the greatest logical completeness in the above concept. It can be said that it was the result of his theoretical search, since it turned out to be the guiding force in the practical activities of Yakutsk archaeologists throughout the 1970s.

In the news about the Olekma sites, Arkhipov (1973d, p. 198) noted that the materials of the lower layers “... do not have analogies in the known Palaeolithic and Mesolithic cultures of Yakutia. The lower horizons of these sites may be synchronous with the lower strata of the Late Palaeolithic sites of the Yenisei River basin – Kokorevo I–III and Tashtyk I–II. This is especially evident in the coincidence of the shapes of the wedgeshaped and Gobi cores of the mentioned sites of the Olekma and Yenisei”. In other words, Olekma materials were compared with Afontova and Kokorevo cultural complexes dated to 15,000–12,500 years ago.

In 1972, the PAE studied the Ust-Mil II, Ezhantsy, and Berelekh sites. By the beginning of the excavations at Ust-Mil II, new radiocarbon dates were obtained: 23,500 ± 500 BP (LE-999) for horizon B; and 33,000 ± 500 BP (LE-1000) and 30,000 ± 500 BP (LE-1001) for horizon C. In light of these dates, which again show the deep antiquity of the site, its excavations seemed particularly necessary and important. However, the results of the work, despite the significant area of the excavation (about 100 m2), turned out to be quite modest: a pebble core and several flakes were found in horizon A, and only isolated flakes were discovered in horizon B.

It was very difficult to agree with such comparisons, especially considering that there were no “Gobi” cores in these Yenisei sites, with the exception, perhaps, of the Kokorevo III site, where wedge-shaped cores “similar in type to Gobi” were noted (Abramova 1970, p. 15). Analogues of wedge-shaped Olekma cores were

A few stone tools (flakes, pebble cores, burins) were identified at the Ezhantsy site, which was investigated

8 

56

Like Novy Leten B, this place is currently called Novy Leten I.

Investigations of the Palaeolithic in Yakutia, Chukotka, and Kamchatka

by no means localised only on the Yenisei, but they were widespread in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene sites of most of the studied areas of Siberia, including Yakutia. In addition, with this correlation of archaeological materials of the Olekma and Yenisei, only isolated Olekma artefacts could be dated, but not complexes as a whole, since they consisted of diachronic and multicultural remains. It was this circumstance that made them unlike the materials of the oldest cultures of Yakutia. However, the opinion about the uniqueness of the sites of the Olekma was preserved in 1973, when Novy Leten A and Malaya Dzhikimda were investigated (Arkhipov and Alekseev A-1974), and additional, but still unstratified, archaeological material was obtained.

set of palaeoecological aspects. An article by Mochanov (1973a) summarising all the data available at that time on Early Holocene sites of Northeast Asia is indicative in this regard. Mochanov attributed to the already mentioned Sumnagin locations the Alysardakh site, previously considered as a Neolithic (Mochanov 1969a), in whose materials prismatic cores and various tools on blades were now separated. He also included Buyaga site (Figure 2: 35), where in 1965 flint flakes and blades were found in the middle part of the 10-m high floodplain of the Amga River. The same circle of localities included the Yakimdzha II site surveyed in 1967 on the Maya River (Figure 2: 30), in whose mixed layer burins, insets, and scrapers made on blades were recognised as Sumnagin artefacts. As a result, the area of the Sumnagin sites encompassed the entire basin of the Middle Lena between 58° and 63° N. More than that, the idea of the Sumnagin people penetrating into Alaska and their participation in the formation of the proto-Eskimo ethnic community (Mochanov 1973a, p. 43) allowed Mochanov to assume that the Sumnagin habitat was on the scale of all of Northeast Asia. The sites of Tagenar VI (Taimyr Peninsula) and Panteleikha III were recognised as confirmation of this.

In 1973, the Novosibirsk archaeologist A.I. Mazin studied rock art in the valley of the Tokko River (a tributary of the Chara River), and presumably identified Palaeolithic images of bulls, horses, and deer (Mazin 1976). The Northern PAE team in 1973 conducted the final studies of the Berelekh site. By cleaning the terrace ledge and collecting surface material, new artefacts were acquired which, together with the finds of previous years, eventually made up a fairly diagnostic lithic complex. The Aldan PAE crew launched extensive excavations at the site of Tumulur (Figure 22). In the Late Pleistocene deposits of the first terrace, divided into three cultural layers, numerous faunal remains (mammoth, bison, horse, and reindeer) were found, accompanied by rare stone objects (flakes and pebbles with spalls removed). The Ust-Mil II site had been investigated for the last time. No Palaeolithic finds were made in the layer; however, wedge-shaped cores and skreblo-like artefacts similar to the Dyuktai culture were collected from the surface.

However, the question of the Sumnagin association of these sites seemed not indisputable. “When considering the stone inventory of Sumnagin sites,” Mochanov 1973a, p. 38) wrote, “it is clearly visible that none of them even have partially polished tools. Completely retouched flint tools are absolutely not found”. By contrast, in the lithic inventory of the Tagenar VI site, discovered and explored in 1967–1968 by Khlobystin (1969), there were traces of the use of polished artefacts, and fully worked flint tools were identified. The remark of Khlobystin (1973a, p. 15) is essential. He noted that “... the feature of the Tagenar complex that distinguishes it from the Sumnagin flint inventory is the peculiar method of working micro-insets by steep retouch”. As for the non-stratified Panteleikha III site, its end scrapers on massive blades, recognised as Sumnagin specimens, were also characteristic of the Neolithic industries of the cultures of the Lena region (Kashin 1983a). Naturally, this raised doubts about the conclusion regarding the uniform appearance of the Sumnagin culture throughout the vast territory of its distribution, and the assumption based on it about the settlement of this territory by an ethnically related population (Mochanov 1973a, p. 41).

A team led by Fedoseeva conducted a survey on the lower reaches of the Vitim River. In the place where Avdeikha Creek joined the Vitim River, the expedition discovered a new site, named Avdeikha (Figure 2: 6). Cultural remains (flint fragments and flakes, wedgeshaped cores, skreblos, and burins) lay directly on the surface along the edge of the 21–24-m terrace. A site of the Sumnagin culture—the Bolshaya Severnaya— was recorded below the town of Bodaibo (Figure 2: 7). The first blades and flakes were encountered on the towpath and the surface of the high floodplain of the Vitim River. The search for the cultural layer led archaeologists to a 15-m terrace, where an excavation in the covering sandy loam revealed a typical Sumnagin stone inventory.

Numerous (about 40) radiocarbon dates determined precisely the chronological framework of the Sumnagin culture to the first half of the ninth – end of the fifth millennia BC. At the same time, they made us think about the stratigraphic position of individual Sumnagin sites, in particular the Ust-Timpton I site.

It should be said that during these years, much attention was paid to the issues of the Sumnagin culture. They covered not only the archaeological but also a whole 57

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia It has already been noted above that absolute dates that appeared in 1970 for its lower layers immediately revealed the incompatibility of the profiles of UstTimpton I and Belkachi I sites on the high floodplain. The age of layers V and VI of the first site turned out to be older than the beginning of the accumulation of floodplain alluvium in the Belkachi profile. The chronological and archaeological parallels of layers III and IV of Ust-Timpton I with strata IV–XXIII of Belkachi I, as well as layers IX–XXXVIII of Sumnagin I, did not permit recognising these strata as confined to the alluvium of the “normal” first terrace. A problem arose, and while it was being solved, it was necessary to write about the stratigraphic position of the remains of the Sumnagin culture at all its sites: “Most often they are confined either to the lower horizons of the floodplain facies of alluvium of the high floodplain or to the covering sandy loams and loams of the abovefloodplain terraces” (Mochanov 1973a, p. 29). So, “most often” there was an unclear situation at Ust-Timpton I and, apparently, at Tumulur.

The new ranking of the terraces entailed a number of reassessments of the chronological order. The most ancient site was now recognised as Ezhantsy dated to 35,000 years ago. The age of Ust-Mil II (horizon C) was about 32,000–31,000 years ago; Ikhine I (lower layer) about 25,000 years old; Verkhne-Troitskaya and Nizhne-Troitskaya ca. 23,000–18,000 years old; Ikhine II and Dyuktai Cave about 15,000–11,000 years old; Ust-Timpton I (layers V and VI), Tumulur and Bilir I 10,500–9500 years old. The remaining Sumnagin sites were dated to ca. 9500–6000 years ago. The first three sites belong to the “pre-Dyuktai” stage of the Upper Palaeolithic, the subsequent Pleistocene sites are associated with the “Dyuktai,” and the rest, presumably, to the stage of the “Holocene” Palaeolithic (Mochanov and Fedoseeva 1974). Thus, comparing the available radiocarbon dates, by 1974 Mochanov had outlined the first working scheme for the periodisation of the Yakutian Palaeolithic. In 1974, the YaGU expedition carried out work on the Vilyui and Olekma rivers. The Vilyui crew, under Arkhipov’s leadership, explored the Ust-Chirkuo site. Excavations of the site were conducted according to tentatively (“on shovel blade”) selected horizons. According to Arkhipov (A-1975), in the lower part of the first and in the second cultural horizons were wedgeshaped “Gobi” and pencil-shaped cores, “ulu-like” knives, a stemmed lamellar arrowhead, scrapers “with lugs” adzes, and skreblos, all “typical of the Sumnagin Mesolithic culture”.

Soon, however, Mochanov came to the following idea: under the alluvial deposits of the Ust-Timpton I floodplain was a buried terrace, at the top of the alluvium of which lay cultural layers V and VI of UstTimpton I9. The position of the Sumnagin finds at the Tumulur site was similarly explained (Mochanov and Fedoseeva 1974, p. 29). The discovery of the (buried) first terrace of the Aldan River brought about massive clarifications of the existing stratigraphy and absolute chronology of the oldest sites of Northeast Asia10. The Upper Palaeolithic sites Verkhne-Troitskaya, Nizhne-Troitskaya, Ikhine II, and Dyuktai Cave began to be associated with the second terrace (and not with the first one, as before), and Ikhine I and Ezhantsy with the third terrace. The previous position (third terrace) was preserved only for the UstMil II site. To accept it as confined to the floodplain alluvium of the fourth terrace meant to make it older by more than 40,000 years, which would contradict the opinion about the impossibility of human settlement in Northeast Asia earlier than 40,000–35,000 years ago (Mochanov 1973b). It is noteworthy that the Berelekh site (Mochanov 1975a) also began to be connected to the terrace of one order of magnitude higher (the second one), which clearly manifested Mochanov’s conviction of the synchronicity and uniformity of the processes of terrace formation occurring in the valleys of the Aldan and Berelekh rivers. At the same time, it is important to note that the second terrace of the Aldan River, like the first one, began to be recognised as buried under Holocene alluvial deposits (Mochanov 1975a).

9 

The Olekma team, led by Alekseev (with the participation of Arkhipov), continued to study the Novy Leten B site (Alekseev A-1975). Assessing its lower chronological boundary based on finds from horizons III and IV (wedge-shaped and “Gobi” cores, a burinpunch, and skreblos), Arkhipov (1975) returned to the previous opinion about the Mesolithic age of the site. In 1974, the PAE investigated the sites of Ust-Timpton I, Tumulur, Ikhine II, Avdeikha, and Kukhtui III, and a new site near the Okhotsk Sea coast called Amka (Figure 2: 60). At the first two sites, new areas were excavated, which produced well-known Sumnagin complexes. At the same time, at Tumulur the discovery of a “cache” consisting of bifacially worked flint spearheads and knives was quite unexpected. When excavating Ikhine II, mostly mammoth, bison, woolly rhinoceros, and horse bones were still found. Among the isolated stone objects, there were flakes, blades, pebbles with spalls removed, skreblos, and insets (Figure 23). It is noteworthy that in this year ten radiocarbon dates ranged from 31,200 ± 500 BP to 24,330 ± 200 BP were obtained for the cultural deposits of the site. Two cultural layers containing identical stone industries and Pleistocene fauna were excavated at Avdeikha (Mochanov A-1977).

See more in Chapter IV and Figure 24.—Trans. See details in Chapter IV.—Trans.

10 

58

Investigations of the Palaeolithic in Yakutia, Chukotka, and Kamchatka

Figure 23. Lithics from the Ikhine II site (1, 3, 6–7, and 9 – from layer IIa; 2, 5, and 8 – from layer IIb; 4 – from layer IId) (after Mochanov 1977, p. 46; modified). 1 – knife-like blade; 2 – wedge-shaped core; 3 – knife; 4, 8–9 – worked (modified) pebbles; 5 – flake; 6–7 – skreblos.

The work of the Okhotsk PAE team at Kukhtui III was mainly focused on the study of the stratigraphy of the site. At the same time, isolated flakes were recorded in the lower horizon. During the survey along the Ulya River, the same crew discovered the site of Amka, located on an 8-m erosional terrace (Morokov 1975). During excavations, it turned out that the oldest artefacts in the form of a core, blades, and tools on blades lay in loam under Neolithic and Early Iron Age strata.

shaped cores belonged to the Sumnagin culture, since the absence of bifacial artefacts in it made on siliceous stone was recognised as one of its most distinctive features of Sumnagin complex. Another problem immediately arose – the stratigraphy of the site. Bifaces similar to Tumulur, according to the data available at that time, were found in alluvial deposits of only the second and third terraces, but not the first one, to which the Tumulur site was assigned. Both of these problems were reflected in the report presented at the conference in Novosibirsk by Mochanov and Fedoseeva (1975a), which no longer mentioned that the oldest Tumulur finds (10,500–9500 years ago) belonged to the Sumnagin culture or their occurrence in the alluvium of the first terrace. These characteristics were preserved only for the lower finds (from layers V and VI) at the Ust-Timpton I site. Of particular note is the discovery of the Amka site. Its oldest cultural remains were accepted as the first factual confirmation of the spread of Sumnagin culture as far as the Okhotsk Sea coast.

The results of the PAE’s work in 1974 made changes and additions to the knowledge about individual Palaeolithic sites of Yakutia and adjacent territories. Thus, radiocarbon dates for the Ikhine II site determined its age as being twice as old as previously assumed – 30,000 to 25,000 years ago. With this in mind, the geological interpretation of the site was revised: now it had become associated not with second terrace but rather with the third terrace of the Aldan. According to the new estimates, the age of Ikhine I was also increased to 30,000–25,000 years ago (Mochanov and Fedoseeva 1975a).

The publication by Mochanov (1975a, 1978a) of data on stratigraphy and an absolute chronology of Upper Pleistocene sites of Northeast Asia should be seen as

The bifaces of the Tumulur site were incompatible with the idea that its oldest complex with wedge-

59

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia a major event in Siberian Palaeolithic studies in the mid-1970s. Based on the results of the study of the Aldan sites, Mochanov found that the alluvium of the floodplain facies of the third terrace (16–18-m high) accumulated from 35,000 years ago (the Malaya Kheta stage of the Karginsk interstadial) to 23,000/22,000 years ago (the Lipovka–Novoselovo stage of the Karginsk interstadial); of the second terrace (12–13-m high) from 23,000/22,000 to 14,500/12,000 years ago (the last interstadials of the Sartan glaciation); and of the first terrace (9–10-m high) from 14,500/12,000 to 10,000/9500 years ago (the period of the first Holocene optimum).

• Avdeikha – upper part of the alluvium of the 22-m terrace of the Vitim River. Radiocarbon dates: 12,900 ± 300 BP (GIN-1022) and 15,200 ± 300 BP (IM-236); • Kukhtui III – alluvium (?) of the 25-m terrace of the Kukhtui River. Age was not set; • Chastinskaya – upper part of the alluvium (?) of the 10-m (11-m?) terrace of the Lena River. The estimated age is the second half of the Sartan glaciation. • A special place was occupied by the Ushki site alluvium on the 4-m terrace (first one – ?; buried – ?) of the Kamchatka River. The estimated age is 12,000–10,000 years ago.

Mochanov presented the position of the sites in the given geochronological scheme as follows (Figure 24):

The remaining Upper Pleistocene sites are assigned, according to Mochanov, to the covering deposits of different terraces (Novy Leten, Olenek,12 KyraKrestyakh,13 and Maiorych) or are represented by surface materials from the towpath (Markha,14 Chokurdakh,15 and Bochanut16).

Age, thousand years ago

• Ezhantsy – contact of floodplain and channel alluvium of the third terrace • Ikhine I (horizon B), Ikhine II (horizon C), Ust-Mil II (horizon C) – bottom of alluvium of the third terrace • Ikhine II (horizon B), Ust-Mil II (horizon B) – middle part of alluvium of the third terrace • Ikhine II (horizon A) – top of alluvium of the third terrace • Verkhne-Troitskaya, NizhneTroitskaya – contact of floodplain and channel alluvium of the second terrace • Dyuktai Cave (horizon C) – middle part of alluvium of the second terrace • Dyuktai Cave (horizon B) – upper part of alluvium of the second terrace • Dyuktai Cave (horizon A), Ust-Mil II (horizon A) – upper alluvium of the second terrace

ca. 35 34–31

Thus, summarising and comparing archaeological, faunal, floristic (Tomskaya and Savvinova 1975), stratigraphic, and radiocarbon data, Mochanov created for the first time an integral scheme of the periodisation of the Northeast Asian Upper Palaeolithic. Its main “construction tools” were undoubtedly numerous (about 30) radiocarbon dates, which made it possible to establish the age of archaeological complexes, to stratify the culture-bearing deposits of various geological bodies on the basis of a rigid chronological correlation, to reveal their dynamics, and to outline and characterise—taking into account the climatostratigraphic units identified by Kind (1974)—the boundaries of physical and geographic events.

31–24 24–20 20–18

16–15 15–13

In the field season of 1975, scholars from Yakutsk examined the sites of the Olekma, Aldan, Vitim, and Vilyui rivers. The YaGU archaeologists carried out

13–11,5

12  The Olenek site (Figure 2: 47) was investigated in 1967–1968 by the Olenek PAE crew under the leadership of I.V. Konstantinov. At that time, it was considered Neolithic (Konstantinov 1970). Later, Konstantinov (1975, p. 7) reported that “... there is one core of wedgeshape type among the surface material of the Olenek I site, which, according to Mochanov, completely falls out of the Middle Neolithic complex and, most likely, indicates the presence of an Upper Palaeolithic archaeological complex in this area”. 13  The Kyra-Krestyakh site (Figure 2: 31) was discovered during the archaeological exploration of the Maya River, conducted in 1967 by the Aldan PAE team under the leadership of Mochanov. In the outcrop of the 15-m terrace there were flakes, blades, a scraper, an inset, and a core. The last artefact, based on technical and typological indicators, was recognised as an analogue of Dyuktai items (Fedoseeva 1975). 14  In 1973, below the confluence of the Kyuskyunde River with the Markha River (Figure 2: 41), geologist A.N. Verkhovtsev discovered on the towpath a “rounded and lime-covered wedge-shaped core blank” and a fragment of a mammoth tooth (Fedoseeva A-1977, p. 57). 15  Information about the site has not been published. 16  In 1972, geologist A.P. Mazus found bones of bison, horse, rhinoceros, and musk ox with traces of hammering and polish in the coastal outcrops of Lake Bochanut (Figure 2: 54) (Mochanov 1977).

Determining the position of the Ust-Bilir II, UstDyuktai I, and Sumnagin III sites in this sequence was considered difficult, since “almost no work was carried out on them” (Mochanov 1975a, p. 20 ).11 In the same aspect, Mochanov characterised a number of sites located outside the Aldan River region: • Berelekh – upper part of the alluvium of the second terrace of the Berelekh River. Age 13,000– 12,000 years ago; 11  Later, the Ust-Bilir II and Ust-Dyuktai I sites began to be associated, as already noted, with covering deposits, which excluded the very possibility of searching for the location of these sites in the considered sequence of alluvial sediments.

60

Investigations of the Palaeolithic in Yakutia, Chukotka, and Kamchatka

Figure 24. The structure of Aldan River terraces and stratigraphic position of key Palaeolithic sites (after Mochanov 1977, p. 216; modified). 1 – sod; 2 – covering loam; 3 – horizontally laminated alluvial loams; 4 – horizontally laminated alluvial sandy loam; 5 – thin bands of loam; 6 – humic sandy loam (palaeosol); 7–humic loam (palaeosol); 8 – loam lenses; 9 – horizontally laminated silty sand and sandy loam with wood; 10 – horizontally laminated sand and sandy loam with wood; 11 – sands of different sizes; 12 – large-grained sand; 13 – pebbles and gravel with sand; 14 – ice vein; 15 – ice-wedge pseudomorphs; 16–bendings ice-wedge pseudomorphs; 17 – traces of solifluction; 18 – Upper Pleistocene Palaeolithic sites: 1 – Ezhantsy; 2 – Ust-Mil II; 3 – Ikhine I; 4 – Ikhine II; 5 – Verkhne-Troitskaya; 6 – Nizhne-Troitskaya; 7 – Dyuktai Cave; 8 – Tumulur; 9 – UstTimpton I, layers Vb–VI; 19 – Early Holocene Palaeolithic sites: 1 – Ust-Mil I–II; 2 – Verkhne-Troitskaya; 3 – Dyuktai Cave; 4 – Ust-Timpton I, layers IV–Va; 5 – Belkachi I, layers VIII–XXIII; 6 – Sumnagin I, layers XVII–XLIV; 20 – Neolithic sites; 21 – Bronze Age sites; 22 – Early Iron Age sites; 23 – vertical distribution of artefacts; 24 – supposed levels of artefact distribution.

purposeful work at Olekma to clarify the stratigraphy of the Novy Leten A and B, and Malaya Dzhikimda sites (Alekseev and Zykov 1976). It was found that the culturebearing deposits of all tentatively allocated horizons at Novy Leten A and Malaya Dzhikimda contain cultural remains of different periods, and their interpretation is possible only on the basis of comparative typological analysis. At the Novy Leten B site, four stratified cultural layers were identified, in the lowest of which there were flakes, blades, microblades, “turtle-back,” “Gobi,” and conical cores, and a combined tool in the form of a scraper-knife-reamer (Alekseev and Zykov A-1976, p. 11).

layer IV of the Ust-Timpton I site (Mochanov 1977, p. 211).

In the same area on the Olekma River, the PAE team discovered a new site – Teryut (Figure 2: 18). On a 20-m terrace under the sod, stone objects (prismatic cores and their blanks, knife-like blades, and flakes) were found, typologically resembling Sumnagin materials of

The Vilyui PAE crew continued the survey of the Ust-Chirkuo site, which was begun the previous year (Fedoseeva A-1976). Six cultural layers were distinguished in the pit of 1974 with the absolute date of the lowest layer (VI) of 7600 ± 80 BP (LE-996). In 1975,

Large-scale work was carried out by the PAE at Avdeikha. According to Mochanov (1976a, p. 266), “... in an area of about 900 m2, four cultural layers were uncovered, confined to the floodplain alluvium of a 25-m terrace. A significant number of knife-like blades, flakes, scrapers, skreblos, burins, and bifaces were found in all layers. Interesting is the series of wedge-shaped cores, numbering about 200 specimens. According to preliminary data, the age of the Avdeikha site is 17,000– 12,000 years”.

61

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia this layer was defined as layer III, containing typical Sumnagin material. Nine more cultural layers (IV–XII) were found below; the first seven strata contained a few stone artefacts; and in the last two layers, hearth charcoal was found.

tool were encountered beneath the 20-m terrace where Kuta Creek flows into the Markha River (Figure 2: 43). Fedoseeva (1977) noted the last Upper Palaeolithic location at the mouth of the Markha’s tributary, the Talanda River (Figure 2: 44), where she managed to find a quartzite pebble skreblo in an outcrop of a 20-m terrace.

Among the artefacts of layers IV–X, a transverse burin found in layer V attracted special attention (Fedoseeva A-1976a, Table VI: 11). Such items did not occur in the Early Holocene sites of the Aldan River but were typical of sites of the Late Pleistocene associated with the alluvium of a (buried) second terrace (Dyuktai Cave and Verkhne-Troitskaya). Obviously, this can explain the fact that the cultural deposits of the Ust-Chirkuo site were first divided into two geological bodies: alluvium of the high floodplain (layers I–III) and alluvium of a buried terrace (first or second) (layers IV–XII). It was assumed that the age of the lower cultural component may be Late Pleistocene (Mochanov 1976a; Fedoseeva 1976).

The Northwestern PAE team led by I.V. Konstantinov conducted exploration in the Anabar River basin, where, in addition to newly discovered Neolithic locales, a site found by geologist F.F. Ilyin 18 km above the village of Uryung-Khaya was studied (Figure 2: 46). Having published Ilyin’s surface materials, Khlobystin (1970, p. 176) attributed the Uryung-Khaya site (otherwise, Tebyulyakh) to the “Lena Neolithic”. However, additional collections of prismatic cores, blades, and microblades, as well as tools made on blades (insets, scrapers, gravers, and burins), brought Konstantinov (1980, p. 40) to conclude that the entire site’s complex belonged to the Sumagin Palaeolithic culture of the ninth–fifth millennia BC.

Since 1976, IYaLI archaeologists had begun to develop another five-year theme: “The Main Stages of Human Settlement and Development of Northeast Asia in the Epochs of Stone and Early Metals”. For the same period (1976–1980), a contract was signed with the construction company Vilyui Gesstroi: “Archaeological Research of the Flood Zone of the Vilyui GES-III”. This provided the PAE with the necessary material resources, which greatly contributed to the continuation of its successful work.

A separate group of the Eastern PAE crew conducted the first archaeological exploration of the Tompo River valley. A site was found on the edge of Tompo Village (Figure 2: 37), represented by a small assemblage from the covering deposits and surface collections. According to technical and typological indicators, it fully corresponded to the inventory of the Sumnagin culture (Kashin 1979).

In 1976, the Vilyui PAE team continued excavations at the Ust-Chirkuo site (Fedoseeva A-1977). Cultural layers I–X were studied. The stone artefacts taken from layer III confirmed the association of the layer with the Sumnagin culture. The materials of layer IV (flakes, blades, and oval pestle with a waist), though they turned out to be few, by taking into account the stratigraphic position and the previous year’s discovery of a “pencil-shaped” core, were now perceived as Early Holocene, belonging to the same Sumnagin culture. As for the finds from the underlying layers, Fedoseeva (1977) presented them as insufficient to judge their age and cultural affiliation.

The Aldan team, led by N.M. Shcherbakova, continued excavation of the Ust-Timpton I site. The most important result of these works was the discovery of new layers – VII–X. The cultural remains identified in them (Mochanov et al. 1983, Table 57) were few in number and therefore insufficiently informative. Nevertheless, their stratigraphic position under layer VI with the earliest remains of the Sumnagin culture (dated to 10,500 years ago) testified to their Upper Pleistocene age. New data on the Ust-Timpton I site very soon allowed the generation of new ideas. The artefacts from layers Vb and VI were recognised as Dyuktai, dated to 11,000– 10,500 years ago. The basis of the cultural identification of these layers was formed by using wedge-shaped cores, which began to be considered exclusively as a Dyuktai indicator. A new geological justification, coordinated with archaeology, had also appeared: cultural layer V began to be considered not as alluvial but as the topsoil horizon of the buried first terrace, whose formation began at the Pleistocene–Holocene boundary, i.e., about 10,500 years ago (Mochanov 1977, pp. 152, 191). Hence, the period of formation of the floodplain alluvium of the first Aldan River terrace

The findings of A.N. Verkhovtsev led Fedoseeva’s team to conduct a special archaeological survey in the Markha River valley in 1976. In the area of Verkhovtsev’s discovery of a wedge-shaped core, Fedoseeva found on the towpath in addition a skreblo, a fragment of a core, and a piece of jasper with spalls removed. Stone artefacts and Pleistocene fauna were recorded under similar conditions (Fedoseeva A-1977, Figure 39) opposite the island of Kharya-Ary at the Kharya site (Figure 2: 42). In addition, the split bones of a bison, horse, mammoth, and a large adze-shaped 62

Investigations of the Palaeolithic in Yakutia, Chukotka, and Kamchatka

was clarified – from 13,000–12,000 years ago (Kokorevo interstadial of the Sartan glaciation) to 10,500 years ago (Mochanov 1977, p. 219).

II, and possibly Ikhine I and II.18 From the point of view of material culture, it was defined, according to Mochanov, by wedge-shaped, pebble, and turtle-back cores, bifaces, and burins.

Wedge-shaped cores in the Sumnagin complex of the Tumulur site did not contradict Mochanov’s conclusion about the absence of such artefacts in the Sumnagin sites, since by that time Tumulur cores together with biface-blades were also attributed to objects of the Dyuktai culture. Their stratigraphic position (the top of the alluvium of the second terrace) and age (13,000– 12,000 years) were identified by analogy with the materials of the upper part of the Pleistocene deposits in Dyuktai Cave (Mochanov 1977, pp. 70–71).

The Sartan stage of the Dyuktai culture was characterised by materials from the sites of the Aldan (Dyuktai Cave; Ust-Dyuktai I; Verkhne-Troitskaya; Tumulur; and Ust-Timpton I, layers Vb and VI), Olekma (Novy Leten), Vitim (Avdeikha), Indigirka (Berelekh), and Kolyma (Maiorych) rivers; the western coast of the Okhotsk Sea (Kukhtui III); and Kamchatka (Ushki, part of the materials from layers V and VI). Regarding the complex from layer VII of the Ushki site, Mochanov expressed doubt about the in situ position of stemmed points (he suggested that they come from Neolithic layer III), giving it a unique cultural appearance.

Thus, wedge-shaped cores as well as bifacially worked spearheads and knives had now become a clear chronological indicator of the Pleistocene age for sites located within Northeast Asia. Guided by these criteria, one could doubt that the Ikhine I was the first Pleistocene site found in Yakutia and turn attention to the wedge-shaped core of the Gatamaiskaya site. However, the conclusion about Okladnikov’s discovery of sites in Yakutia no older than the Early Holocene (Mochanov 1982b, p. 97) was replaced, surprisingly enough, by the statement of his discovery of only Neolithic and later sites (Mochanov and Fedoseeva 1983, p. 3).

Defining the place of the Dyuktai culture in the Stone Age of Siberia, Mochanov again pointed out the existence of the “Malta–Afontova” and “Dyuktai” traditions in Northern Asia. The latter, in addition to the actual Dyuktai localities of Northeast Asia, was illustrated by sites of the Lake Baikal region (Voenny Gospital; UstBelaya, layer 16; Verkholenskaya Gora; and Ushkanka), Transbaikalia (Nyangi, Batoiskaya Yama, and Sokhatino IV), Amur Region (Kumary III and Osipovka); and the Primorye Province (Ustinovka). It has been suggested that this group of sites “... represents special local ‘Dyuktai’ cultures or variants of cultures” (Mochanov 1977, p. 227).

References have already been given above to Mochanov’s monograph Drevneishie Etapy Zaseleniya Chelovekom Severo-Vostochnoi Azii (The Oldest Stages of Human Settlement in Northeast Asia), published in 197717 and defended a year later as a Dr. Sci. dissertation. Its appearance marked an important milestone in the Palaeolithic research of Northern Asia. In fact, it was the first publication in which the materials of Palaeolithic sites of a large Siberian region were fully and comprehensively covered. In it, the artefacts of the key sites of the Dyuktai and Sumnagin cultures were studied; the periodisation, stratigraphy, and absolute chronology of these sites were given; and a range of issues related to the life and economy of the ancient population of the region, and the origin, development, and change of its culture in the pre-Neolithic period were considered.

The technological approach to cultural and historical phenomena has reduced the problem of the origin of the Dyuktai culture to the identification of a “bifacial” tradition in the sites of the regions neighbouring Northeast Asia that belong to pre-Dyuktai times. The commonality in the approach resulted in the commonplace of the conclusion: various “Dyuktai” cultures originate from several Middle Palaeolithic “bifacial” cultures of the Urals, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, and Northern China, whose appearance has yet to be clarified (Mochanov 1977, p. 234). Mochanov retained his previous conclusion about the penetration of a part of the Dyuktai people through Chukotka and Beringia 33,000–30,000 years ago to America, although he admitted (perhaps due to the significantly younger age of American antiquities established in the mid-1970s) that “... unfortunately, there is not enough evidence to confirm or refute this position” (Mochanov 1977, p. 237). Mochanov finds evidence of this kind of migration when comparing the Dyuktai culture with the Old Llano complex, the period

Mochanov stressed that the study of the Dyuktai culture was just beginning, and therefore “... only the most general preliminary characteristics can be given for it” (Mochanov 1977, p. 223). He saw the preSartan stage of the Dyuktai culture as especially poorly studied, represented by the sites of Ezhantsy, Ust-Mil

This book is translated and published by the Shared Beringian Heritage Program (see Mochanov 2009 in Translators’ Introduction).— Trans.

The question of the cultural affiliation of the last two sites “... due to the small amount of material collected at them ...” was considered as open for further investigations (Mochanov 1977, p. 224).

17 

18 

63

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia from 11,500 to 11,000 years ago. Trying to explain the absence of wedge-shaped cores among the Old Llano artefacts, he put forward the statement that “... since the beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic, the ‘Dyuktai’ tradition in Asia has been represented by two peculiar sub-traditions: one with bifaces and wedge-shaped cores and the other with bifaces but without wedgeshaped cores” (Mochanov 1977, p. 239).19 An example of the second sub-tradition was the Kukhtui III site. Sites of the Maiorych type (with wedge-shaped cores but without bifaces) were not considered.

The Olekma Palaeolithic was the subject of a report by Alekseev (1977) at a scientific-and-theoretical conference in Irkutsk. The speaker, who maintained close contacts with the PAE, informed about the typological isolation of the sites of Novy Leten A and Malaya Dzhikimda from mixed materials of the oldest (13,000–11,000 years old) Palaeolithic complex on the Olekma River, including disc-shaped and “Gobi” cores and bifacially worked knives and points of spears or darts. The age of the complex was proved by the presence of horse teeth20 in horizon V of the Novy Leten A, by the association of the finds with alluvium of the second terrace (Novy Leten A) and cover deposits (Malaya Dzhikimda) of the fourth terrace, and most important, by the results of a comparative analysis with the materials of the Dyuktai culture at the final stage of its existence.

About 10,500 years ago, the Dyuktai culture was replaced by the Sumnagin complex, which, according to Mochanov (1977, p. 249), “... belongs to the final stage of the Upper Palaeolithic, which coincides in Northeast Asia with the first half of the Holocene (10,500–6000 years ago)”. Its range, covering the entire territory of Northeast Asia, was determined by the sites of the Aldan, Vilyui, Amga, Maya, Lena, Vitim, Olekma, Indigirka, Kolyma, and Ulya rivers, and Taimyr Peninsula, as well as typological parallels with the materials of sites in Alaska, allowing prediction of its sites in Chukotka.

It should be noted that the archaeological argumentation of the absolute age of the Olekma complex looked quite convincing, with the exception perhaps of the correlation of “Gobi” cores, which, according to Mochanov (1975a, p. 28), existed on the Aldan no later than 20,000–18,000 years ago (Ikhine I, layer II; Verkhne-Troitskaya, surface collections). It was difficult to say whether this meant the peculiarity of the Olekma Palaeolithic or that the “Gobi” cores (and possibly some other artefacts) of the Novy Leten A and Malaya Dzhikimda were older than 13,000–11,000 years.

The absence of bifaces in the inventory of the Sumnagin culture gave Mochanov a reason to attribute it to the “Malta–Afontova” tradition. Not finding significant genetic relationship to any known Late Pleistocene cultures of the respective tradition, he suggested that “… obviously, somewhere there must have been a still undetected local “Malta–Afontova” Upper Palaeolithic culture older than 10,500 years, from which the Sumnagin culture originates” (Mochanov 1977, p. 250).

During the 1977 field season, the archaeologists of the YaGU and the IYaLI studied the pre-Neolithic sites located both in the territory of Yakutia and beyond its borders – in Chukotka and in the northern Khabarovsk Province.

The end of the Sumnagin culture, the level of development and the appearance of which remained, according to Mochanov (1977, p. 250), “... almost unchanged ... for more than four thousand years, from the ninth to the fifth millennia BC ...” was associated with the arrival in Northeast Asia at the turn of the fifth–fourth millennia BC of a new population from the south, which pushed part of the Sumnagin people to Alaska and assimilated the rest. The penetration of the Sumnagin people into Alaska was also allowed earlier than the fourth millennium BC, in connection with which the Gallagher Flint Station site (with radiocarbon date of 10,540 ± 150 BP) was indicated with the “multiplatform” cores, knife-like blades, unifaces, and flakes found on it (Dixon 1973). “We tend to think,” concluded Mochanov (1977, p. 253), “that it was the Sumnagin people who were one of the oldest ethnic components of the proto-Eskimo and proto-Aleuts, whose final form took place in the New World”.

The YaGU expedition under the leadership of Arkhipov continued the research of the Kurung site (Figure 2: 14),21 discovered in 1975 by Alekseev and Zykov (A-1976, 1976) and re-examined in 1976 by Zykov (A-1977). The works of the first two years showed that the site was located on the second terrace at an elevation of 14.5 m, and had four stratified cultural layers containing the remains of the Early Iron Age (layer I), Neolithic (layers II and III), and probably Mesolithic (layer IV). The lower complex (layer IV) was distinguished by the absence of pottery and the predominance of blades. Having found “... rough flakes and blades ...” in layer IV, Arkhipov (A1978, p. 10) shared the opinion of previous researchers, recognising the finds as Mesolithic, dating back to the ninth–fifth millennia BC. On the Aldan River, the Ust-Timpton I site was excavated by the Lena PAE team. The most interesting Palaeolithic Identified by P.A. Lazarev. In the publications of Alekseev (1978, 1980) it is called Kurung I; in the publications of Mochanov et al. (1983) Kurung II. 20 

Information on this issue has also been published in Canada (Mochanov 1978b). 19 

21 

64

Investigations of the Palaeolithic in Yakutia, Chukotka, and Kamchatka

Figure 25. Lithics from the Kurung site, layer VI (after Mochanov et al. 1983, pp. 79, 379; modified).

65

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia material was noted in a burned spot (hearth) of cultural layer VII. It contained animal bones, broken quartzite pebbles, flakes, blades, a chisel, and a scraper knife. These artefacts were previously attributed to the Dyuktai culture (Fedoseeva A-1978).22

according to Kozlov (A-1978, p. 6), a polished axe could have penetrated into layer II. Thus, in 1977 the PAE investigated mainly Early Holocene sites. The results of these works did not change the prevailing ideas about the appearance of the material culture of the Sumnagin people. However, they gave the first material grounds to assume that they had settled other territories including Western Chukotka. Such an assumption, however, needed serious verification, since the Sumnagin sites were determined here by the presence of blades and tools on them, which, as was known (see Dikov 1974a), were also typical of the Chukotkan Neolithic cultures.

The same team conducted a survey of the Kitchan site (Figure 2: 45), discovered in 1942 by Okladnikov (1945). The excavation (3 × 2 m) on a 25-m terrace revealed in its covering deposits stone objects of Sumnagin appearance located in and beside a hearth (Fedoseeva A-1978, Table 10). Blades, microblades, and lamellar flakes of the same culture were discovered by the Amga team in layer III of the Ust-Kyunkyu site (Figure 2: 34), located on a 6-m terrace of the Amga River. The Early Holocene age of the complex was determined by the technological tradition of the blades, and the stratigraphic position under the Early Neolithic remains of the Syalakh culture (Filippova 1978).

As for the research of the YaGU archaeologists, they distinguished the Mesolithic period on the Olekma River as synchronous with the Sumnagin Palaeolithic complex. A variety of wedge-shaped and small prismatic cores, points on massive blades, scrapers with “lugs,” blades with a beveled edge, and a punch found at the sites of Novy Leten A and Malaya Dzhikimda were recognised as its material expression. This also included the stratified inventory of layer V of the Bolshaya Kyuske site (Figure 2: 17)23, and layer IV of the Kurung site. Interestingly, this whole complex was compared with the materials of Early Holocene sites from two different regions – the upper Angara River and Yakutia (Alekseev 1978).

The Kolyma group of the Northern PAE team conducted additional collections of archaeological material at Panteleikha I–VII sites (Kistenev A-1978). Knife-like blades and an angle burin on a blade, found in mixed cultural remains from localities II and V, were perceived as confirmation of Mochanov’s (1977, p. 206) idea regarding the existence of traces of Sumnagin culture at Panteleikha I–VIII.

In 1978, field studies of pre-Neolithic sites declined sharply. Their excavations were carried out only on the Olekma River by the members of the Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography, YaGU (Alekseev A-1979).

Together with the Priozernaya group, this same team carried out the first archaeological exploration in the basin of the right tributary of the Kolyma River – the Maly Anyui River. By means of surface collections, the sites Tytyl I–V by the lake of the same name (Figure 2: 56), and the river sites of Yagodnaya II and III (Figure 2: 57), were discovered there. Along with Neolithic and possibly later items, blades and tools on blades were noted in their collections, which were interpreted as the remains of the Sumnagin culture (Mochanov et al. 1978).

During additional excavations of the Kurung site, it turned out that initially assigned as Mesolithic, cultural layer IV was not really such, since it contained netimpressed pottery typical of the Syalakh Neolithic culture. Underneath it, a new cultural layer V24 was discovered. Its stone inventory was attributed to the Late Palaeolithic on the basis of typology (Figure 25). A new geomorphological interpretation of the site—its location on the first terrace—was closely linked with the specified age of layer V. This assumption was based, judging by the subsequent statements of Alekseev (1980, pp. 32–34), on the fact that on the Aldan, the geologicalstratigraphic and cultural-chronological schemes of the Palaeolithic, which were completely perceived by him as tools for understanding Olekma antiquities, the cultural remains in alluvial deposits of the Late Pleistocene (13,000–11,000 years old) were predicted

The Eastern PAE crew continued excavation of the Amka site (Kozlov 1978, A-1978). In layer II (Sumnagin culture), blades, an inset, a chisel, a stemmed arrowhead, and a partially polished axe “with lugs” were found. The last two tools did not fit into the canons of Sumnagin artefacts, and therefore their presence was explained by the mixed nature of cultural remains in layer II (Kozlov A-1978). Obviously, the same could be said with respect to layer I, where along with the dominance of tools on blades (based on the practiced diagnostics – Sumnagin artefacts) Neolithic forms were noted and from where,

The site was discovered in 1975 by Alekseev and Zykov (A-1976) on the 10-m terrace of the Olekma River. In 1976, Zykov (A-1977) in a test pit under Early Neolithic layer IV found a layer V containing a pottery-free complex of blades and flakes. 24  Soon it was reassigned as layer VI. 23 

This report presents the final results of the Ust-Timpton I studies. It was written jointly with Mochanov.

22 

66

Investigations of the Palaeolithic in Yakutia, Chukotka, and Kamchatka

and placed precisely on the first terrace. However, with such a correlation, a priori implying the synchronicity and uniformity of the processes of terrace formation on the Olekma and Aldan rivers, the problem of the hypsometric discrepancy of the Olekma’s first terrace (14.5 m high) with the Aldan’s first terrace (9–10 m high) inevitably arose, which, obviously, was reflected (Alekseev 1980, p. 28) in the presumed nature of the connection of the Kurung site with the first terrace.

between these layers, according to which they were interpreted as the soil horizon of a buried first terrace, whose formation began immediately after 10,500 ± 100 BP (Mochanov 1977, p. 152). Judging by the dates, sedimentation of alluvial deposits containing all (?) pre-Neolithic layers occurred continuously, forming a sequence that does not have stratigraphic parallels in the Aldan River basin. In addition, the new set of dates showed that the chronological boundary of ca. 10,500 BP, taken as the end of the Dyuktai and beginning of the Sumnagin cultures, can most likely be placed not between cultural layers Va and Vb but rather between layers VI and VII.

The second pre-Neolithic site investigated in 1978 was the Ytylakh (Figure 2: 13), discovered on the 13-m terrace of the Olekma in 1975 by Alekseev and Zykov (A1976). Two years of excavations permitted establishing that the site has a single cultural layer and contained artefacts in the form of six flakes, 30 blades, and two insets on blades. Such a complex made it possible to attribute the site to the eighth–fifth millennia BC (Alekseev A-1979, p. 4).

The dates for layers V, VIII, X, and XII of the Ust-Chirkuo site turned out to be very important: 7200 ± 180 BP (IM475), 7650 ± 170 BP (IM-481), 8750 ± 200 BP (IM-479), and 8350 ± 150 BP (IM-476), respectively. They did not confirm the supposed Pleistocene age of the lower part of the cultural deposits and convincingly showed that they all belong to the alluvium of the modern high floodplain of the Vilyui River. Another fact was revealed behind these dates. Judging by the values for layers III and X, the almost two-metre thickness of the alluvium of the high floodplain formed between them in a little more than 1000 years. Such a rate of accumulation of flood sedimentation has not been observed in any section of the high floodplain of the Aldan. This testified to the differences in the processes of terrace formation on the Vilyui River (at least in the Holocene), and the need to take them into account in interregional geological, stratigraphic, and archaeological comparisons.

Considering the decisive importance of radiocarbon dates in the study of the Palaeolithic of Yakutia and adjacent territories, an important event in 1978 was the determination of a significant number of dates for a number of sites in Yakutia in the Laboratory of Geochemistry, Permafrost Institute of the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences (Kostyukevich et al. 1980). Thus, for the first time radiocarbon dates were obtained for the site of Ikhine I: 1930 ± 100 BP (IM451) for cultural layer I, and 16,600 ± 270 BP (IM-452) for layer II.25 The first of them turned out to be clearly too young; the second date, finding a correspondence with the palynological data (Tomskaya and Savvinova 1975), indicated a discrepancy with the ideas about the Karginsk age of layer II (Mochanov 1977, p. 218). The first date for the Palaeolithic layer of the Ezhantsy site—17,150 ± 345 BP (IM-459)26—showed half the age of the assumed one (Mochanov 1977, p. 58).

In the final year of the period under review (i.e., 1979), the YaGU specialists continued to excavate the Kurung site. Their new result was the allocation of cultural layer V with finds of the Sumnagin type (Alekseev 1980). The PAE’s Vilyui team in 1979 conducted reconnaissance work on the Upper Vilyui, based on Antipina’s (1980a, p. 48; 1980b) information, at the Ust-Syuldyukar site (Figure 2: 40), where “... a rich surface material was collected, which made it possible to determine a very broad chronological framework for this site: from the ninth–fifth millennia BC and up to the first millennium AD inclusive”.

As for a series of dates based on IM-453 – IM-456 samples from the Ust-Timpton I site – 8900 ± 200 BP (IM-456), layer Va; 9450 ± 300 BP (IM-455) and 11,150 ± 150 BP (IM-454), layer Vb; and 11,800 ± 200 BP (IM453), layer VII27, they generally correspond well to the entire radiocarbon column of the site. It is all the more important to note that the values of 9400 ± 90 BP (LE-896) for layer Va and IM-455 for layer Vb did not confirm the chronological gap of 1000 years

Interesting materials were obtained by the Amga crew of the PAE, which was the first to discover the multilayered Dyamalakh site (Figure 2: 36). Three cultural layers were revealed there in a clear stratigraphic sequence. Under layer II (Neolithic) lay stratum III containing “... a wedge-shaped, a pencil-shaped, and a prismatic core together with reindeer bones” (Kozlov 1980a, p. 53). This complex drew attention by combining diagnostic elements of two cultures: Dyuktai (a wedge-shaped

25  I express my sincere gratitude to V.V. Kostyukevich for the opportunity to become acquainted with the date of the IM-452 sample. 26  This IM date is not included in reports of the Laboratory of Geochemistry, Permafrost Institute.—Trans. 27  These IM dates are not included in Mochanov’s publications (see Mochanov 1977, p. 149).—Trans.

67

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia core) and Sumnagin (a pencil-shaped core) (Kozlov 1980b).

of Northeastern Siberia was discovered. The scraper was found on the rubble surface of a small saddle between the hills on the right side of the source of Shilo Creek flowing into the Degdekan, a left tributary of the Kulu River on the upper reaches of the Kolyma” (Dikov A-1971, p. 5; see also Dikov and Gerasimchuk 1971).

During the work of a Yana PAE team, the Kuranakh I site was found (Figure 2: 48). Among the surface materials of the 20-m terrace slope were a skreblo, a fragment of a skreblo, and a scraper. According to technical and typological indicators, the first artefact was attributed to the Sumnagin culture, which led to the conclusion that the Yana River basin was populated “... at least from the final stage of the Upper Palaeolithic ...” (Shcherbakova 1980a, p. 57; 1980b).

The excavations undertaken the following year at the mouth of the Detrin, where Maly Siberdik Creek flows into it (Figure 2: 50), established the presence of a site here of the “... very early Neolithic or even Palaeolithic ...” (Dikov and Dikova A-1972, p. 4); the site is called Siberdik. Researchers came to this conclusion after they found a pottery-free lithic complex with flaked tools, flakes, and a subprismatic core, with archaic working and splitting techniques, in the top of the alluvium of a 16-m terrace (Dikov and Dikova A-1972, 1972). The prospect of Palaeolithic research was also outlined in connection with the discovery of a coarse basalt flake at the mouth of Kongo Creek (Figure 2: 51).

The Northeastern PAE crew in 1979 was the first to survey the upper reaches of the Omolon River, south of 65° N. The site of Bolshoi Elgakhchan I was found to be among the Neolithic complexes28 (Figure 2: 55). In its mixed materials lying on the eroded surface of a 40-m terrace and typologically recognised as Sumnagin, a scraper, a adze-like-skreblo-shaped tool, and, possibly, knives on blades were found (Kistenev 1980, p. 75).

In 1971, after a five-year break, excavations of the Ushki I site resumed (Dikov and Dikova A-1972). In layer VI, two surface dwellings with stone implements characteristic of the late Ushki culture were examined. An unusual find was a sandstone slab with indentation pits, which, according to researchers, served as an amulet or a “lunar calendar” (Figure 26). In general, the assemblage seemed to correspond in terms of the nature of the finds to the Dyuktai Cave complex, and in terms of time to the Berelekh site (Dikov and Dikova 1972, p. 252). During the excavation of layer VII, along with the known objects of the early Ushki culture, bifacially worked spear points and knives were found for the first time. The results of the work in 1971 brought about the need for additional research both on the Upper Kolyma and at Ushki Lake. Therefore, in 1972 Dikov’s expedition visited these areas again.

At the same time, the PAE conducted reconnaissance in the Tugur–Chumikan District of the Khabarovsk Province. The most interesting materials were found at the Torom site (Figure 2: 59). The “... various types of bifacially retouched points of arrows and darts (?) ...” found there formed the basis of the opinion that the site belonged to the Dyuktai culture (Mochanov et al. 1980, p. 59). The Torom and other pre-Neolithic sites of Chukotka and northern Okhotsk Sea coast, discovered and studied in the 1970s by the PAE, were considered by Mochanov and his coauthors as evidence of the entry of Chukotka, Okhotsk Sea shore, and Kamchatka into the habitats of the Dyuktai and Sumnagin Palaeolithic cultures. Magadan Research Programme In the 1970s, systematic work on the study of the Palaeolithic in Northeast Asia was carried out by Magadan scientists. One of the driving factors of their activity was the construction of the Kolyma hydroelectric power station (GES), which determined the immediate survey of the flood zone and provided the archaeological service of the SVKNII with the necessary financial resources.

A few stone objects in the form of a spear (?), a skreblo, hammerstones, and pieces of quartz were found at the Siberdik site. Outside the excavation area, several items were collected, including two massive chopperlike tools. The pebble substrate and morphological features of all the tools caused them to be considered typologically similar to the Palaeolithic artefacts from Osinovka (Primorye Province), on the one hand, and the Pasika complex (British Columbia) on the other (Dikov and Dikova A 1973, p. 13).

In 1970, promising areas of Palaeolithic research were planned in the sector of the future reservoir, including at the mouth of the Detrin River (Dikov A-1971). “Somewhat away from the flood zone – in the Upper Kolyma basin ... a scraper typical of the Late Palaeolithic

During excavation of the Ushki I site, the finds of layer VII were limited to one stemmed point, several flakes and scrapers, and hearth spots. In layer VI, five different types of dwellings with faunal remains and stone industry were noted, located mainly near the hearths. A particularly interesting residential complex consisted of a semi-subterranean dwelling with a

28  In the 1980s, it was found that this site has an Upper Palaeolithic component (see Kiryak 1996, 2010 in Translators’ Introduction).— Trans.

68

Investigations of the Palaeolithic in Yakutia, Chukotka, and Kamchatka

Figure 26. Striated slab and a “lunar calendar” from the Ushki I site, layer VI (after Dikov 1979d, p. 66; modified).

corridor-like entrance and three levels of occupation. At all levels, there were hearth rings and burnt bones of animals and fish, as well as stone artefacts “... close to the Dyuktai Cave complex ...” (Dikov and Dikova 1973, p. 210). The special finds of the upper horizon of the dwelling, which later was defined as the “sorcerer’s dwelling,” were the “fortune-telling” scapula of a bison lying in front of a hearth, and at the entrance a bright green stone “... to protect the entrance from evil spirits ...” (Dikov A-1973, p. 29). In the middle horizon were traces of half-burnt nettle stalks – “mats” – and a dog burial with the use of red ochre.

leaf-shaped bifacially worked points, pointed bifaces on flakes, skreblos, and end scrapers on massive blades. Analogues of choppers in layer III were also noted in layer II, undoubtedly Neolithic, judging by the fragment of pottery found in it. It followed from this that the “Palaeolithic appearance” of individual artefacts did not yet guarantee their truly Palaeolithic age, which in fact was reflected by Dikov’s (1974b, p. 198) conclusion “... on the late existence of archaic Palaeolithic chopping tools in Northeast Asia in the very Late Palaeolithic and even in the Early Neolithic”. In 1973, the first excavations were carried out at the Kongo site, which led to the discovery of a cultural layer in the upper part of the loose sediments of a 12-m erosional terrace. They gave “... a very ancient (possibly Late Palaeolithic or Early Neolithic) set of artefacts – choppers in combination with knife-like blades, without pottery and polished tools” (Dikov A-1974, p. 63).

According to Vereshchagin’s (1979, p. 18) determination, a domestic “husky-like” dog had been buried, which testified to the very early (in the Late Palaeolithic) domestication of dogs by “... the ancestors of the true dog breeders of the Eskimo–Aleut and Itelmen” and the high level of their economy and culture (Dikov 1979a, p. 15). It should be assumed that, speaking of a high level of culture, Dikov meant not only material but also spiritual culture, since the grave of a dog was undoubtedly a ritual burial, revealing the complex world of religious beliefs of the inhabitants of the Ushki settlement.

Excavations of layers V–VII of the Ushki I site continued at Ushki Lake (Dikov A-1974). Four dwellings with circular hearths, stone tools, and objects of art— pyrophyllite beads and pendants—were found in layers V and IV. Of great interest were the scattered and poorly preserved remains of two dog skeletons found in layer VI with an artfully created shovel made of mammoth tusk lying nearby. An enigmatic find in the semisubterranean dwelling of layer VI was a small artificial depression with poorly preserved bone remains of an animal or human. With them was probably a burial inventory: a wedge-shaped core, blades, leaf-shaped arrowheads, pyrophyllite pendants, a belt of polished sandstone pebbles, and a green glauconite slab (Dikov A-1974). In layer VII, three hearth spots were studied,

In 1973, the Kolyma team of the SVKNII continued to study the Siberdik site (Dikov A-1974). The excavation revealed three cultural layers. The stratigraphic position and cryogenic deformations of the lower layer (no. III) gave reason to attribute it to the period “... preceding the beginning of warming in the Early Holocene, probably, to the very end of the Sartan glaciation or to the very beginning of the Holocene” (Dikov 1974c, p. 197). There were choppers in the layer, 69

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia around which scrapers, burins, and pyrophyllite beads were occasionally found.

Lake, Campus, Akmak, Denali, and others (Dikov 1973b, 1973c, 1973d, 1974a, 1974c).

Based on the results of the three-year studies in the Kolyma GES flood zone, Dikov and Dikova (1975a, pp. 68, 70) identified the “Siberdik culture” dating back to the Palaeolithic, “... with a special, previously unknown appearance ...” represented by the lower layer of the Siberdik and Kongo sites. Its characteristic feature, according to the researchers, was the combination in the stone inventory of “... an ancient pebble industry of choppers with a young industry of knife-like blades, bifacially worked stone knives, and leaf-shaped projectile points”. Noting a similar combination of technical and typological features in the material complexes of Kumary III in the Amur River basin (30,000–25,000 years ago) and Pasika on the Northwest Coast of North America (12,000 years ago), they gave a well-defined assessment of the place and significance of the Siberdik culture, concluding that on the upper reaches of the Kolyma “... a remnant fragment of the oldest technology in Northeast Asia was found, which penetrated there and farther to America from the south along the Pacific route” (Dikov and Dikova 1975a, p. 68).

In 1974, at the Archaeological Department of the SVKNII, the North-East Asian Interdisciplinary Archaeological Expedition (SVAKAE) was created under the leadership of Dikov. Keeping the main directions of research, it continued to work on the Upper Kolyma and at Ushki Lake (Dikov A-1975). Residential and workshop areas with anvils, hammerstones, and finished lithic artefacts were excavated in layer III of the Siberdik site (Figures 27– 28). According to the new data, it was found that “... the lower layer of the Siberdik site belongs to post-glacial times” (Dikov and Dikova 1975b, p. 201; Dikov 1976b) and contains the remains of a “relict” (i.e., remnant) Palaeolithic (Dikov A-1975, p. 1). Interesting results were obtained by repeated excavations of the Kongo site. Traces of hearths and choppers, projectile points, knives, scrapers, and blades located next to them were noted in the previously discovered cultural horizon (Figures 29–30). One metre below these finds lay a chisel and a flake – evidence of the existence of a second, more ancient, cultural layer. According to the type of artefacts and the method of their manufacture, the upper complex was compared with the inventory of the lower layer of the Siberdik site, which served as the basis for their synchronisation (Dikov and Dikova 1975b, p. 201).

To the north and east of the Upper Kolyma, the possibility of the spread and long-term existence of such technology was obviously excluded. In any case, in Chukotka, whose Palaeolithic remained unknown, the early history and the lithic complexes reflecting it were predicted to be similar to Kamchatka. “It is very likely,” Dikov believed (1974a, p. 23), “that in Chukotka as well as in Kamchatka during the Sartan period, before 15,000 years ago, a culture of hunters armed with the same darts and arrows, with stemmed points which were found in the seventh layer of the Ushki site, flourished”. Its Palaeoindian ethnicity was proved by the similarity of Kamchatkan biface and stemmed points to the same artefacts of Clovis, Fell’s Cave, and Palli Aike in America (Dikov 1973b, 1973c). By analogy with Kamchatka, it was assumed that about 10,000 years ago, a “... completely different Palaeolithic culture ...” spread in Chukotka, known from the materials of layers V–VI of the Ushki site, Dyuktai Cave, and probably Shilo Creek (Dikov 1974a, p. 23). The features distinguishing this culture from the previous one (the widespread use of wedge-shaped cores and small knife-like blades; the absence of stemmed points and their replacement with elongated leaf-shaped ones; the emergence of labret-like artefacts and mushroom-shaped pendants; new types of dwellings; and significant development of fishing) formed the basis of the conclusion that its ancestors belonged to the proto-Eskimos and protoAleuts, who migrated after the Palaeoindians at the very end of the Sartan glaciation along Beringia to Alaska and left sites there such as Teklanika, Healy

At Ushki Lake, attention was again given to the Ushki I site. In each of layers V and VI, there was one dwelling with stone tools that did not go beyond the already known finds of the late Ushki culture. In layer VII, a slightly deepened two-room dwelling with an area of more than 100 m2 was recorded for the first time. Stemmed points, leaf-shaped knives, skreblos, scrapers, burins, sandstone slab abraders, and stone pendants were found. Among the remains of animal bones was a relatively well-preserved elk horn, chopped off at the base (Dikov A-1975). A special task was given this year to the study of the new site of Ushki V, which was conducted jointly with geoscientists and palynologists in order to obtain more accurate information about the geology, stratigraphy, and palaeoecology of both this site and all sites on the southern shore of Ushki Lake. The stratigraphy trenches and pits placed at Stone Cape showed that the Ushki sites are not connected with the above-floodplain terrace, as it seemed before, but rather with the edge of the fluvioglacial plain cut by the Kamchatka River, buried under pyroclastic material of volcanic origin. The cultural layers and soil horizons in the pyroclastic

70

Investigations of the Palaeolithic in Yakutia, Chukotka, and Kamchatka

Figure 27. Lithics from the Siberdik site, layer III (after Kashin 2003, p. 194; modified).

71

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia Interesting work was carried out in 1975 by the South Kamchatkan team, which surveyed the southern tip of Cape Lopatka (Figure 2: 67). On the scattered dunes that overlap the bedrock with an elevation of 8–10 m above sea level, various stone artefacts were collected, including a disc-shaped core, chopper, and skreblo. Based on the “clearly Palaeolithic appearance” of these items, Dikova (A-1976, p. 16) was the first30 to suggest the existence of a Palaeolithic layer at the site of Lopatka IV, perhaps adjacent to dune blowouts. The Kolyma team from SVAKAE conducted final excavations at the Kongo site. Their main result was the discovery of the cultural layer III (Dikova 1976a). There were no finds in cultural layer I within the excavation of 1975. In layer II a household complex was discovered, consisting of six carbonaceous spots and objects scattered around them: choppers, skreblos, pointed flakes, blades, and a wooden rod-like artefact31. Three burned spots with choppers, skreblos, blade flakes, a graver, a conical core, a hammerstone, and wooden points similar to arrowheads were recorded in layer III. Dikov (A-1976, p. 35) identified the Kongo site as final Palaeolithic. The lower age limit of the site had been previously placed at the end of the Sartan glaciation (Dikov 1976a, p. 233).

Figure 28. Lithics from the Siberdik site, layer III (after Kashin 2003, p. 195; modified).

In 1976, excavations of Palaeolithic sites were not carried out by Magadan archaeologists. This time was devoted to a detailed analysis and systematisation of all the archaeological material accumulated from Kamchatka, Chukotka, and Kolyma (including Palaeolithic items), clarification of its geological and stratigraphic position in light of the latest research (Dikov and Titov 1976),32 investigation of the lithology and palynology of cultural deposits (Dikov et al. 1976), radiocarbon dates (Shilo et al. 1976, 1977), and the construction of a historical sequence of prehistoric sites and cultures of the Northeastern USSR on the basis of these data.

cover were considered in this case as evidence of intermittent and uneven accumulation of volcanogenic material (Dikov and Titov 1976)29. In the course of geological and stratigraphic work at Ushki V, exactly the same sequence of cultural layers was revealed as at the other Ushki sites. At the same time, flint and obsidian flakes were found in cultural layer V; in layer VII a flake from a core and a stemmed point located in the area of a partially excavated dwelling (Dikov et al. 1976).

The results of these interdisciplinary works were covered in the first (source) part of a major monographic study by Dikov (1977a). Having briefly noted the history and methodology of the excavations, Dikov for the first time introduced the whole set of data obtained from the sites of Ushki I, II, IV, and V, Siberdik, and Kongo.

In 1975, after reconnaissance work at Ushki V, fullscale excavations were launched (Dikov A-1976, 1976a). During the examination of layer V, a surface dwelling was found with a central hearth and a burnt mass of fish and mammal bones, as well as artefacts. Finds similar in composition and nature were made in layer VI, examined in a small section of the trench. The remains of three surface dwellings in the form of charcoalenriched spots, hearths, concentrations of ochre, postholes, and stone objects (flakes, blades, scrapers, a knife, a stemmed point, and beads and pendants) were found in the most ancient cultural layer VII.

30  The location of Lopatka IV was studied in 1972, 1973, and 1975. Based on the results of the first two years of research, only the “archaic” nature of part of the surface material was noted (Dikov and Dikova 1973; Dikova 1974, 1976a). 31  In published accounts (Dikov 1977a, 1979d), there is no information about wooden artefacts from the Kongo site.—Trans. 32  At this time, the numbering of the Upper Palaeolithic layers of the Ushki settlements was clarified. In the previously designated layer V, two horizons were identified: Va and Vb. Layer VI now corresponded to layer Va (dated to 10,360 ± 350 BP, Mo-345), which in some cases was divided into two horizons: VIa (former layer V) and VIb (former layer VI) (Dikov 1979d, p. 54). At the same time, the stratigraphy of cultural deposits at the Kongo site was clarified, where not three but only two cultural layers began to be distinguished.

This paper was translated into English (see Dikov and Titov 1984).— Trans.

29 

72

Investigations of the Palaeolithic in Yakutia, Chukotka, and Kamchatka

Figure 29. Lithics from the Kongo site, layer III (after Kashin 2003, p. 192; modified).

The oldest household and material complexes of these multilayered settlements were characterised as clear and sufficiently informative evidence of the existence of distinctive and highly developed cultures in Northeast Asia: the early Ushki and late Ushki Upper Palaeolithic, and the Siberdik Remnant Palaeolithic.

cultural and chronological diagnostics of non-stratified archaeological collections of adjacent territories. An important point was the information of the reference complexes with radiocarbon dates, including the latest ones: 10,760 ± 110 BP (MAG-219), layer VI of Ushki I; 8790 ± 150 BP (MAG-231), layer Va of Ushki V; 7865 ± 310 BP (MAG-184), 8020 ± 80 BP (KRIL-250), and 8480 ± 200 BP (KRIL-249), layer III of Siberdik; 8655 ± 220 BP (MAG-196), layer I of Kongo; and 9470 ± 530 BP (KRIL314), layer II of Kongo.

Dikov emphasised the fact that these cultures were represented by sites with exceptionally clear stratigraphy, which made them the basis for the 73

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia

Figure 30. Lithics from the Kongo site (after Dikov 1977a, p. 383; modified).

In 1977, Dikov’s expedition undertook new excavations of the Ushki I site (Dikov A-1978). The remains of dwellings and stone tools found in layer VI, in general, repeated the results of previous years. At the same time wooden poles, sandstone slabs with images of a hut and a mammoth (see Dikov 1979d, colour inset between pp. 60 and 61), and horse teeth recorded here revealed themselves as new interesting materials on questions of the types and design features of the dwellings of the Ushki people, on their inner and surrounding world.

and Early Neolithic periods. It is noteworthy that a few days earlier some of these localities were visited by the PAE staff from Yakutsk who found in similar mixed materials the remains of the Sumnagin Palaeolithic and younger Lena River-related cultures (Mochanov et al. 1978, 1980). Interesting finds were recorded by geologist Y.A. Kolyasnikov in southern Chukotka, on the middle reaches of the Inaskvaam River (Figure 2: 63). Among the heterogeneous and diachronic stone objects collected by him from the surface at the Inaskvaam I and Inaskvaam II sites located on the 15–20-m terrace, the most ancient, comparable, according to Dikov (1978, A-1979), with some artefacts from layers VI and VII of the Ushki sites, including a wedge-shaped

In 1977, an employee of the Magadan branch of the All-Union Society for Protection of Cultural Heritage, M.A. Kiryak, collected surface material from eight places on Lake Tytyl on Chukotka. According to Dikov (1978), Kiryak managed to discover sites of Mesolithic 74

Investigations of the Palaeolithic in Yakutia, Chukotka, and Kamchatka

core, an artefact resembling a ski-shaped spall, an arrowhead, and burin points. These finds meant that the Palaeolithic of Chukotka, which for a long time was only implied in the context of a hypothesis of the peopling of America through Northeast Asia and due to the lack of data modelled on materials from neighbouring territories, became a reality and a subject of scientific study.

fact of the spread of Sumnagin culture to the territory of Western Chukotka (Kiryak 1979, p. 51). At the same time, there was a discovery in the valley of the Kurupka River on Chukotka (Figure 2: 65). There, on the surface of a ledge on the left-bank terrace with an elevation of 15–20 m, geologist G.I. Kazinskaya collected stone artefacts including items dating back to the Upper Palaeolithic (Dikov and Kazinskaya 1980, p. 25).

In 1978, the Sredne-Kamchatka crew of SVAKAE surveyed new parts of the Ushki I sites (Dikov A-1979, 1979b). In cultural layer VII, the remains of a surface dwelling with a stone inventory typical of the early Ushki culture were found. In layer VI of the late Ushki culture, it was possible to identify traces of three surface dwellings, one of which was distinguished by a particularly large area (15 × 8 m) with a corridor-like entrance and two hearths. It was in this dwelling that the finds of a bone dagger, a fish geoglyph, traces of animal skins, a bison tooth, and three miniature labrets were associated, which most vividly complemented the entire complex of the stone industry of layer VI. In general, the new Ushki materials confirmed the conclusion that the Palaeoindian culture of layer VII differed from the proto-Eskimo–Aleut layer VI, which, according to Dikov (A-1979, p. 20), was influenced by the Dyuktai culture.

Archaeology of Northeast Asia is indebted to the observation and inquisitive mind of geologists who discovered the Urtychuk site in the northern Okhotsk Sea region (Figure 2: 62). Stone tools of Late Palaeolithic or Mesolithic times were collected here. A more accurate dating of the site was complicated by the composition of the finds, which nevertheless eventually led to the assumption of the discovery of a new pre-Neolithic culture in northeastern USSR (Dikov and Savva 1980, p. 66). In the last year of the period under review (1979), SVAKAE studied the intracontinental regions of Kamchatka and Eastern Chukotka (Dikov 1980a). The Central Kamchatkan crew carried out the final33 work on the Stone Cape of Ushki Lake. The total area of the excavations exceeded 2000 m2 that year. In cultural layer VII, whose supposed antiquity was confirmed by a new radiocarbon date of 14,300 ± 800 BP (MAG-550), a surface dwelling with hearths and stone objects in the form of stemmed points and core-like and choppershaped tools, as well as flat beads, were studied. In layer VI, the remains of two dwellings (one was two-layered) with typical hearths with stone rings were found. The total number of dwellings in layer VI thus reached 23. In the case of their simultaneity, the reasonable idea arose that the largest Palaeolithic settlement in the world had been found in Kamchatka (Dikov 1979d, p. 54). However, a number of facts contradicted the recognition of the synchronicity of dwellings: the absence of any regularity of location; the overlap of one dwelling with another; the multilayering of some dwellings; and the structural and typical diversity obviously corresponding to different habitation seasons.

The Chukotka–Kolyma team of SVAKAE conducted surveys of sites discovered by Kolyasnikov. Of the stone objects collected at the Inaskvaam I site, a “Siberian”-type skreblo looked the most archaic. Palaeolithic artefacts were taken from beneath the sod at the Inaskvaam II site. All these materials confirmed parallels with the industry of layers VI–VII of the Ushki cluster (Dikov 1979b; Dikov and Kolyasnikov 1979). A group of Lake Tytyl localities were additionally studied by the West Chukotkan crew of SVAKAE (Kiryak A-1979; Dikov and Kiryak 1982). The surface collections carried out at the Tytyl I–VII sites again showed the heterogeneous and diachronic composition of the finds. Some of them had close analogies in the complexes of the Sumnagin Palaeolithic culture, as a result of which they were assigned “... to the initial stage of the Holocene, to the Mesolithic” (Kiryak 1979, p. 43). Contradictions in the assessment of the stage of development of early culture at Lake Tytyl did not arise in this case since, relying on the concept of “Mesolithic” on the geochronological criterion (the Pleistocene–Holocene boundary), Kiryak considered the Sumnagin culture as Mesolithic. Determination and dating the early Tytyl complexes by identifying them with the materials of Sumnagin sites, Kiryak at the same time opposed attempts of Yakutsk archaeologists to see in the similarity of the compared collections the

The East Chukchi team examined the Kurupka I site (located by Kazinskaya). Cleaning, digging test pits, and collecting surface material revealed the non-stratified nature of its cultural remains. A Palaeolithic set of artefacts was distinguished from the later finds by technical and typological features that approached the 33  In 1980, preparatory work was launched on Stone Cape, providing for a new cycle of studying the site (see Dikov A-1981).

75

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia assemblages of Yakutia, Kamchatka, and Alaska dated to less than 18,000 years ago(Dikov 1980b).

(“Kamchatkan–Japanese”) component in the British Mountain culture was also indicated by other artefacts (microblades flaked from cores similar in type to corescrapers, and biface knives and points), indicating the second wave of migration of Upper Palaeolithic groups from Asia to America (Laricheva 1975, p. 58; 1976, p. 140). Comprehending these data from the viewpoint of the question of the origin of the culture of layer VII at Ushki, Dikov expressed a hypothesis of “opposite meaning” about the probability at the beginning of the Sartan period of episodic migrations of the population from America to Asia, due to the “repulsive force” of the Canadian continental glacier, and the existence at that time of a “single Siberian–American cultural area,” covering the northeastern USSR, Beringia, and Alaska, inhabited by bearers of a culture like British Mountain, which gave rise to the early Ushki culture (Dikov 1979d, pp. 43–47).

In addition to the work on Kurupka I, the same team made a reconnaissance along the Ioniveem River, where it discovered the new Palaeolithic sites of Chelkun II and Chelkun III (Figure 2: 64). Located 150–200 m from each other, these sites contained artefacts made of siliceous shale lying on the surface of an 8-m terrace near the mouth of the Chelkun River, a left tributary of the Ioniveem River. The homogeneity of the source material, the composition, the nature of manufacture, and the typology of artefacts caused Dikov (1980b, p. 8) to consider them as a combined Chelkun complex with particularly informative primitive stemmed-like points. The search for technical and typological analogues of the Chelkun assemblage led Dikov to the inventory of the Sedna Creek site, discovered in northern Alaska in 1964 by Schlesier (1967) and dated to about 18,000 years ago.34 Based on the parallels found, Dikov (1980b, p. 8) concluded:

Based on the questionable material of the British Mountain culture (Beregovaya 1967; Laricheva 1975), this unusual hypothesis certainly needed to be confirmed by data from the territory of Northeast Asia. Therefore, it is natural that the Chelkun complex immediately acquired special significance. Although it did not clarify the problem of the directions of early Sartan migrations (it could equally be used to substantiate them both from America to Asia and vice versa), its very discovery, taking into account the early Ushki complex, made the assumption of the existence in the Chukotkan–Kamchatkan part of Asia of a special Upper Palaeolithic cultural area with bifaces and without wedge-shaped cores quite acceptable. It is curious that this assumption coincided with Mochanov’s idea about the existence in certain areas of Northeast Asia of a Dyuktai sub-tradition, which was contained in the Kukhtui III industry – with bifaces but without wedge-shaped cores.

... in the extreme east of the Chukchi Peninsula, archaeological sites have been discovered, which, if we adhere to the accepted dating of the British Mountain culture, are somewhat older than the dated one of about 14,000 yearold early Ushki culture (layer VII of the Ushki I site) with its more perfect stemmed points. And if this is so, perhaps it was on the basis of cultural traditions common to the two Chelkun sites and the British Mountain culture that the early Ushki culture developed, and the Chelkun archaic stemmed points are prototypes of the Palaeolithic Ushki ones from layer VII. If we take into account that the issue of the origin of the early Ushki culture remained unclear for a long time due to the absence of stemmed points older than the Ushki ones in the Palaeolithic of Asia, it seems necessary to note that Dikov outlined its solution before the Chelkun complex was found. Having finally recognised, shortly before the discovery of the Chelkun assemblage, the isolated position of the Ushki stemmed points in Asia, he drew attention to the geographically close North American cultural sites of British Mountain (Sedna Creek, Kogruk, Engigshiak, and Katakturuk River Lookout) of the time of 20,000–13,000 years ago. Interest was aroused primarily by the stemmed points of Sedna Creek, whose similarity with Ushki’s was first noted by Laricheva (1975, p. 57). In her opinion, the Asian

Dikov’s (1979d) monograph, wherein the problem of the origin of the early Ushki culture found a concrete solution for the first time, was the second (interpretative) part of a fundamental study summarising the longterm field and laboratory studies of prehistoric cultures from northeastern USSR. Generalised and described in detail earlier (Dikov 1977a), the source base received in the 1979 book the deepest and most comprehensive analysis and was systematised and comprehended at a high theoretical level. In the part devoted to the Palaeolithic, Dikov for the first time carried out an attempt to generalise the interpretation of the early Ushki, late Ushki, and Siberdik cultures. The provisions and conclusions published in previous works regarding these cultures had not only retained their significance here but had also been further developed in a number of cases along the path of concretisation and expansion.

34  Data on the Sedna Creek site belonging to the British Mountain culture were published by Laricheva (1975, 1976).

76

Investigations of the Palaeolithic in Yakutia, Chukotka, and Kamchatka

Thus, Dikov highlighted the Ushki culture, the first of the oldest complex discovered in Northeast Asia, as a truly Palaeolithic one, which stadially (and in Kamchatka – completely) preceded the Dyuktai culture (Dikov 1979d, p. 38). Its originality was now emphasised not only by the uniqueness of the inventory but also by the large double dwellings typical only of it, and without stone rings around hearths.

noteworthy due to the Chukotkan sites of Inaskvaam II and Chikaevo, in whose materials, as in the Ushki component of layer VI, there were wedge-shaped cores. However, due to the mixing of assemblages at Chukotkan sites, this culture and its development within the Late Pleistocene – Early Holocene were characterised exclusively by the Ushki complexes of layers VI and V, corresponding respectively to the “early” (Pleistocene) and “final” (Holocene) stages of development.

More specifically, the conclusion was formulated about the complexity of the economy of the early Ushki people, which included fishing, hunting, and gathering. The argumentation was undoubtable, although Dikov had to operate with rather complex material. For example, only the burnt fish bones testified to fishing and, consequently, the methods of catching them could only be seen as going beyond the use of specialised tools. By contrast, practically only spearheads, dart points, and arrowheads testify to the presence of hunting. There were no reliable remains of hunted prey, with the exception of a fragment of an elk antler found in a double dwelling at Ushki I. A single grinding stone indirectly points to plant gathering and processing.

The turning point of the time period in which the late Ushki culture developed was taken into account by Dikov rigorously, influencing the solution of individual issues, sometimes even regardless of the actual data. Thus, the isolation of small family-production groups (paired families) assumed among the late Ushki people was associated with “... a crisis state of transition from hunting mostly large pachyderms to hunting smaller herd animals,” which in turn explains “... obvious signs of a seasonality of settlement on the shores of Ushki Lake” (Dikov 1979d, p. 57). Meanwhile, the Ushki materials do not contain material evidence of a “crisis state” of hunting, and Dikov believed that the objects of hunting by both early and late Ushki people were the same animals: elk, reindeer, bison, and horse (Dikov 1979d, pp. 38, 57).

Of great interest from the viewpoint of further development of ideas was Dikov’s (1979d, p. 33) remark about the development of Levallois technique by early Ushki people, which “... seems to be indicated by a blade close to the Levallois”. The lack of categorical judgement was probably explained by the rather problematic attribution of this blade to the Levallois, especially considering that no other signs of this technique had yet been found at the Ushki sites. Apparently, such an idea arose in Dikov’s mind under the influence of the peculiar atmosphere of Siberian Palaeolithic studies, in which, starting from the second half of the 1960s, the so-called “Levallois problem” began to be discussed at an increasing pace.

Dikov turned significant attention to the question of the origin of the late Ushki complex. Judging by the aspiration to determine its genetic and cultural ties, previous attempts to solve this problem obviously did not suit him. Having again examined a wide range of analogies to the Ushki artefacts, he concluded that this Kamchatkan Late Palaeolithic complex was genetically related to the Palaeolithic of the Aldan River basin and the Angara–Yenisei cultural region (Dikov 1979d, p. 67). At the same time, it was clarified that “... the closest typological connection of the Kamchatkan Late Palaeolithic with the Dyuktai on the Aldan should be considered ... as partly genetic ...” and not be reduced to Mochanov’s opinion about the presence in Kamchatka of the actual Dyuktai culture. In the composition of the late Ushki culture, “... the role of the local preceding culture of the Ushki layer VII should also be taken into account ...” (Dikov 1979d, p. 72).

In the course of developing the idea of a close connection between the early Ushki culture and the problem of the peopling of America, Dikov pointed out new analogies to the Kamchatkan stemmed points at Marmes Rockshelter (Northwest USA) and, possibly, at the Trail Creek site (Alaska). Taking into account the age of the these sites (13,000–11,000 years ago) and palaeoclimatic conditions that contributed to the formation of an ice-free corridor at that time, he expressed the opinion that it was then or somewhat earlier that the first migrations of representatives of the Ushki culture could have taken place to the western regions of the United States (Dikov 1979d, p. 50).

Dikov also turned attention to the traditional topic of the connection of the Late Palaeolithic of Kamchatka with the Palaeolithic of Alaska. Relying on the similarity of Kamchatkan wedge-shaped cores, skishaped spalls, microblades, and bilaterally worked points and knives with similar items in the Denali and Akmak complexes, he expressed the belief that “... the Ushki Late Palaeolithic culture can be considered with full confidence to have spread to Alaska at the end of the Pleistocene” (Dikov 1979d, p. 74).

Dikov approached the issues of the late Ushki culture in a broad and multifaceted way. From the previously unpublished materials, the expansion of its range is

77

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia The Siberdik culture was defined on the whole as a transitional complex from the Palaeolithic to the Neolithic. According to the combination of the data of radiocarbon chronology, stratigraphy, and artefacts, three stages were distinguished in its development: early, late, and final. The first stage was characterised by the lower Kongo layer (9470 ± 530 BP); the second by the upper Kongo layer (8655 ± 220 BP) and Siberdik layer III (8480 ± 200 BP and 8020 ± 80 BP); and the third by Siberdik layer II (6300 ± 170 BP). Dikov stated that “... in the course of the development of the Siberdik culture, there are no sharp changes in the stoneworking technique ... ,” and only the presence of a wedge-shaped core in Siberdik layer III (Figure 28, second row) permits us to consider its first two stages in essence still Palaeolithic (Dikov 1979d, p. 97).

region, as well as with government support for further diversity of humanitarian research, including the field of prehistoric archaeology. In this regard, in the academic centres of regional archaeology—Yakutsk and Magadan—the number of researchers and field teams engaged in Palaeolithic topics was growing; a new complex archaeological expedition (SVAKAE) was being created; and excavations in industrial construction zones were being deployed on a large scale. The oldest sites in Northeast Asia became for the first time objects of study by university scholars. Close contacts were being established with specialists from disciplines unrelated to archaeology and with the local population, whose discoveries of new early sites were immediately incorporated into scientific research. Palaeolithic studies were emerging in the form of development of five-year interdisciplinary archaeological programmes that coincided in terms with plans for the development of the national economy, and this clearly showed their close relationship. All this in general determined a new level of organisation of Palaeolithic research in the third period, different from the previous ones.

The Upper Kolyma “Holocene” Palaeolithic was considered not only as the final one but also as a remnant, testifying to “... extraordinary stability ... of the oldest technological tradition of manufacturing pebble tools in the Far Eastern zone of Northern Asia, and of the important role played by this region in its spread to America” (Dikov 1979d, p. 98).

With all the noted new phenomena in the organisation of research, they at the same time inherited from the past the systematic, planned, and large-scale fieldwork characteristic of the survey in traditional areas – the valleys of the Aldan and Kamchatka rivers. The continuation of the study of the key sites in these regions contributed to obtaining a more complete knowledge of the cultures previously allocated on their basis.

Thus, the genetic connection with the Palaeolithic of America was established by Dikov for all stages and forms of evolution of the Kamchatka–Kolyma Palaeolithic. He paid special attention to this issue, not only on the pages of the aforementioned publications in Russian but also in presentations abroad (see Dikov 1975c, 1978b). Great interest among international experts was aroused by Dikov’s (1979c) report at the XIVth Pacific Science Congress in Khabarovsk, where he made the final provisions on the Palaeolithic of the Northeastern USSR, set out in a two-volume monograph. There was also a report by Dikova (1979b), who connected the pebble industry of the Lopatka IV site in southern Kamchatka with a similar industry in the cultures of North America, and expressed on this basis the idea of human migration in the Late Pleistocene from Asia to America along the islands of the Pacific Ocean. However, operating with general provisions and categories, she, unfortunately, did not provide strong evidence of the Palaeolithic age of Lopatka IV, and therefore it remained unclear whether this site was really Palaeolithic or “post-Palaeolithic,” as Dikov (1979d, p. 105) believed.

An important feature of the third period was the significant expansion of the geography of fieldwork. As a result, new areas with Palaeolithic sites were discovered – the valleys of the Vitim, Olekma, Maya, Amga, Tompo, Vilyui, Markha, Anabar, Olenek, Yana, Berelekh, and Kolyma rivers; Chukotka; and the northern and western Okhotsk Sea coastal regions (Figure 2). These results, obtained in the process of continuing the implementation of the plan for the complete study of these regions, and the compilation of its archaeological map, for the first time gave factual grounds to understand Palaeolithic human development in the entire Northeast Asia. In terms of their significance, the Palaeolithic sites discovered and partially studied in the third period turned out to be far from equivalent. Some of them were in clear stratigraphic conditions and contained relatively abundant archaeological and, in some cases, faunal material. Others, more numerous, represented single surface finds or artefacts from mixed layers, whose Palaeolithic affiliation was established only typologically. This source base, with the exception of the original materials from the Siberdik culture, had

*** An overview in this chapter allows us to conclude that the investigation of the Northeast Asian Palaeolithic in the third period—1970 to 1980—was a direct continuation of previous studies. It was carried out under exceptionally favourable conditions created by the ongoing active socio-economic and cultural development of the 78

Investigations of the Palaeolithic in Yakutia, Chukotka, and Kamchatka

preserved in historical and cultural interpretations the fundamental importance of the reference sites of the Aldan and Kamchatka.

of archaeological aspects, ideas about the Dyuktai, Sumnagin, and early and late Ushki cultures were being refined and improved, including on such fundamental issues as origin, time of existence, area of distribution, typology, social structure, ethno-cultural ties, and place and significance among the synchronous cultures of Northern Asia and North America. A fundamentally new issue in Palaeolithic studies of this period was the discovery of the Siberdik culture.

In the 1970s, excavation methods were further improved in conditions of permafrost and the presence of volcanic ash layers. In interdisciplinary studies, radiocarbon dates were becoming increasingly important. A special research technique that arose in the second period, but formed as an independent method only in the third one, was a way to solve some problems of the Asian Palaeolithic based on American archaeology. The application of this method made it possible, in particular, to predict the pre-Sartan age of the Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia; to identify the “index tools” in lithic assemblages; to distinguish the subtraditions of the Dyuktai culture; to propose a unique solution to the origin of the culture of Ushki layer VII; and to outline the ethnic characteristics of the cultures.

A distinctive feature of the 1970s was the significant increase in the number and quality of academic and popular science publications. Among them, for the first time there were articles devoted to certain issues of the Palaeolithic (Dikov 1970a, 1979a). At the end of the period, fundamental monographs (Dikov 1977a, 1979d; Mochanov 1977) were published35, introducing into scientific circulation the plethora of archaeological, geological, palynological, faunal, and radiocarbon information accumulated during the entire study of the Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia. On the basis of the implementation of a set of sources, theoretical concepts were finalised in them, revealing both general patterns and special features of its development. In terms of methods, breadth of coverage, and depth of the problems under consideration, these and other publications of this period raised the scientific development of the Palaeolithic themes of the region to a modern level, thereby overcoming the historically established lag behind the study of the Palaeolithic of neighbouring territories.

The substantive side of the scientific and theoretical research of the third period was the verification, clarification, and further development of the ideas about the Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia that had developed by the end of the second period. In the field of Palaeolithic geology and stratigraphy, the clarification of the geological-geomorphological position of a number of sites (Ust-Timpton I, Tumulur, Ikhine II, Ushki, and others), the establishment of the fact of the buried low terraces (first and second) of the Aldan River, the creation of a geological and stratigraphic scheme of the Palaeolithic of this area, and its use as a geochronology tool for sites of almost all of Northeast Asia, are indicative in this regard. This kind of research was based mainly on radiocarbon dates, which in the 1970s determined a steady trend toward the older age of the Palaeolithic in the territory under consideration, up to ca. 35,000 BP. In terms

Palaeolithic studies of Northeast Asia turned out to be characterised by all the features of a developed science, including the multivariance of solving many of the studied problems. This led to the fact that a debatable, polemical situation naturally arose in the investigation of the prehistory in the region under consideration.

These books are now translated into English and available from the Shared Beringian Heritage Program, U.S. National Park Service (see Dikov 2003, 2004; Mochanov 2009 in references to Translatiors’ Introduction).—Trans.

35 

79

Chapter IV Some Research Problems of the Northeast Asian Palaeolithic In a situation of differing opinions, the question of sites belonging to Karginsk times is particularly debatable. One of them is the Ust-Mil II site, the cultural horizons C and B which are dated by Mochanov (1977, p. 36), respectively, to 35,000–31,500 and 31,500–25,000 years ago.2 Based on data from Tseitlin (1979, pp. 229, 234, 238), horizon B belongs to the beginning of Sartan time (25,000–20,000 years ago), and horizon C refers to the top of periglacial alluvium formed in the period 33,000– 30,000/29,000 years ago. However, Tseitlin was inclined to associate horizon B not with the third terrace, like Mochanov (see Figure 24), but with the second terrace, thus calling into question the validity of Mochanov’s statement about the completion of accumulation of alluvium in the third terrace and the beginning of accumulation of alluvium in the second terrace on the Aldan 23,000–22,000 years ago. According to Tseitlin (1975а, p. 32; 1979, p. 21), such geological processes occurred about 30,000 years ago. With regard to UstMil II, this point of view assumes either the inaccuracy of radiocarbon dates or the fact that the boundary of channel and floodplain deposits of the third terrace recorded in the section by Mochanov on a chronological level of 35,000 years ago is not accurate. In connection with the first part of the dilemma, attention is drawn to Abramova’s (1979c, p. 12; 1984, p. 325) remarks about the possible inconsistency of radiocarbon dates with their position in the section of Ust-Mil II. The movement of datable material (wood and bone) from older sediments and hence the unreliability of the Karginsk dates of Ust-Mil II, as well as the Ikhine II and Ezhantsy sites, are also suggested by foreign experts (Hopkins 1985; Yi and Clark 1983, 1985). It is impossible to exclude these assumptions before new studies, since in these sections there are indeed traces of geological processes (tectonics, erosion, solifluction, and cryogenic deformations) that contribute to the penetration of re-deposited materials into the alluvial strata with artefacts. The extent to which such processes can be carried out is evidenced by the case of the transportation of the corpse of the Kirgilyakh mammoth from the deposits of the third terrace to the sediments of the second terrace (Titov 1982).

Touching upon a number of problems studied and discussed at the boundary of the 1970s and 1980s, let us turn first to the problem of chronology as the key issue in any archaeological research. From the previous chapters and published remarks (Abramova 1979b, p. 13; Boriskovsky and Khlobystin 1981, p. 315; Derevianko 1983, p. 100; Kashin 1983b, p. 116), it follows that with all the interdisciplinary approach to its solution, Palaeolithic scholars of Northeast Asia rely mostly on radiocarbon dates. However, the primacy of these values is not recognised by all specialists. The attitude toward them, especially individual ones, is most often characterised by a high degree of criticality. Considered only as additional information, they are accepted only if they are indisputably consistent with geological, palynological, archaeological, and other indicators (Okladnikov 1974, p. 322; Larichev 1978, p. 105; Abramova 1979a, pp. 98–104; 1979b, pp. 162–163; Lazukov 1981, p. 17). The radiocarbon dating of individual sites and cultures of the Northeast Asian Palaeolithic proposed by Mochanov (1977) and Dikov (1979d) do not find universal recognition. Along with their acceptance (e.g., Dolukhanov 1979; Boriskovsky 1980; Gvozdover and Lazukov 1981; McBurney 1976; West 1981), other points of view are expressed. Thus, Derevianko (1975, p. 5) dated Ust-Mil II and Ikhine I sites between 22,000 and 28,000 years ago. Kirillov (1975, p. 38) suggested a date of about 20,000 years ago for the latter site. Abramova (1984, p. 326) assigned the time of the Ust-Mil II, Ikhine I and II, and Verkhne-Troitskaya sites to the second half of the Sartan glaciation. The oldest, in her opinion, is probably only the site of Ezhantsy – 15,000 to 20,000 years ago. Against a Sartan age for Dyuktai sites were Okladnikov (1981, p. 109), Aigner (1985), and Hopkins (1985). Dikov (1979d, p. 19) proposed the age of the Dyuktai culture at “... a maximum of 18,000, and most likely from 14,000 to 10,000 years ago”. A similar opinion was held by Yi and Clark (1985), who were supported by F. Ikawa-Smith and W. Workman. Mochanov (1982a, p. 35) estimated the antiquity of Palaeolithic finds on Ushki Lake in the range from 11,500 to 9000–8500 years ago. The Maiorych site was attributed to a later (Early Holocene) time by Dikova (1976b, p. 8). Dikov (1979d, p. 89) dated layers Va–VI of Ust-Timpton I to the same period.1

The palynological data used to confirm these determinations by both Mochanov (1977, p. 214; Mochanov and Savvinova 1980, p. 16) and Tseitlin In the same book, in Table “D,” horizon C is synchronised with the Konoshchelye cooling (33,000–30,000 years ago), and horizon B is synchronised with the Lipovka–Novoselovo warming (30,000–22,000 years ago) of the Karginsk interstadial.

2 

The updates on chronology of the Northeast Asian Palaeolithic can be found in a book by Pitul’ko and Pavlova (2016) (see citation in the Translators’ Introduction).—Trans. 1 

80

Some Research Problems of the Northeast Asian Palaeolithic

(1979, p. 229) do not bring the desired clarity to the age of the site. It is important to note here that the data of palynology reveal a contradiction between radiocarbon dates and chrono-zones of climatostratigraphic units identified by Kind (1974): deposits dated by radiocarbon in the range of 30,000–23,000 years ago (Lipovka–Novoselovo warming) contain a palynological complex that corresponds to cold climatic conditions, while sediments with dates from 35,500 BP to 33,000 years ago (Malaya Kheta warming) are characterised by periglacial and glacial palynological complexes (Tomskaya and Savvinova 1975, p. 33; Tomskaya 1981, p. 165).

(third and second) (Mochanov 1973b, p. 8) to the idea of placing them in the body of the third terrace, remain unreported. Meanwhile, such a representation is extremely necessary, because probably only it could explain the sharp disparity of the stratigraphic contexts of both sites located practically in the same area of the Aldan Valley. It is quite difficult to clarify the geological position and age of Ezhantsy in terms of its fauna, since “... during Sartan times in Northeast Asia the same species of animals existed as in the Karginsk interglacial. In the first half of Sartan times, only the woolly rhinoceros disappears” (Mochanov and Savvinova 1980, p. 26). If we consider that the same rhinoceros existed on the Aldan 14,000 (15,000) years ago (Tseitlin 1979, p. 262), and in the northern regions (Berelekh site) probably up to the Pleistocene–Holocene boundary, then such a task would be practically unsolvable.

The cultural remains of Ust-Mil II site are few and obscure in appearance. This limits substantially the possibility of dating the site on its own archaeological basis. As a chronological indicator, only the typical wedge-shaped core3 described by Mochanov (1977, p. 37) (see Figure 16: 3)4 is of interest among the finds from horizon C. According to most experts (Okladnikov 1974, p. 337; Okladnikov and Vasil’evsky 1980, p. 71; Abramova 1979d, p. 179; 1986, p. 13; Konovalov and Kirillov 1983, p. 16; Markin 1986, p. 150), such forms appear in the Palaeolithic of Northern Asia no earlier than the Sartan glaciation. Obviously, this could have indicated a younger age than Karginsk for Ust-Mil II if it were not for one circumstance that was not attended to before. The fact is that the Ust-Mil II core is heavily patinized, which sharply differs from the rest of the inventory in horizon C. It is possible that it does not belong to this complex. Another detail is also significant: completely covering the negatives of the scars on the sides and the pressure platform, the patina does not spread only to the negative scars of flaking on the upper part of the blade connected to the front and the blade scar on the front itself, which makes the latter look “fresh”. Consequently, the artefact was not used as a core immediately after manufacture but rather after a time sufficient for the patinization of flint. Both of these circumstances make it necessary to exercise great caution when using the Ust-Mil II core in cultural and chronological interpretations.

Palynological indicators contradict the idea of the accumulation of the cultural strata of Ezhantsy in the Karginsk interstadial and the existence of the site during the Malya Kheta optimum. Based on the conclusions of palynologists Tomskaya and Savvinova (1975, p. 34), Ezhantsy spore-and-pollen spectra are “typical of glacial deposits” and “indicate cold climatic conditions” during human habitation. Abramova (1979c) considered materials on the archaeology of Ezhantsy in chronological aspect. Having carried out a comparative analysis of the technical and typological indicators of the Ezhantsy inventory at the intra- and interregional levels, she stated that “... there is not a single form that would not be represented in the Palaeolithic sites of Siberia that are 15,000–20,000 years away from the hypothetical age of the Ezhantsy ...” and, consequently, “... the inventory of the Ezhantsy site does not fall out of the circle of sites of the Sartan period” (Abramova 1979c, p. 12). It is noteworthy that this conclusion is consistent not only with the palynological data but also with the radiocarbon date of the main cultural layer of Ezhantsy – 17,150 ± 345 BP (IM-459).

Mochanov (1977, p. 51) dates the Ezhantsy site to an age of 35,000 years ago. The starting point in dating is the conclusion that the site is associated with the alluvium of the third terrace (see Figure 24), which will then allow him to use radiocarbon dates of Ust-Mil II. However, this initial conclusion is not substantiated. In particular, the factual data on Ust-Mil II and Ezhantsy, which led Mochanov from thinking about the connection of these sites with different terraces

At the Ikhine I site, cultural layers I–III are dated by Mochanov (1977, p. 41), respectively, to “the very end of the Pleistocene,” 30,000–25,000 and 35,000 years ago.5 The dating of the Karginsk layers originates, as at Ezhantsy, from an unproven statement about their association with the alluvium of the third terrace, followed on this basis by the involvement of radiocarbon dates of the Ust-Mil II and Ikhine II sites. According to Tseitlin (1979, p. 233), Ikhine culture-containing strata do not correspond to the structure of the third terrace

3  Unfortunately, the low quality of the photo of this artefact (see Kashin 2003, p. 161, Figure 12) makes it impossible to reproduce it here.—Trans. 4  See also Mochanov and Fedoseeva (1996a, p. 176, Figure 3–8: a).— Trans.

In Mochanov (1977, p. 4), layer I is dated to the end of the Pleistocene, and layers II–III are older.—Trans.

5 

81

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia and are younger (late Sartan), in the range of 13,000– 12,000 years ago.

conditions and the inconsistency of radiocarbon dates (11,900 ± 130 BP, SOAN-841; and 26,110 ± 200 BP, SOAN1138) leave the question of the age of this site open (Abramova 1984, p. 318). In the Primorye Province, the “Gobi” type is also typical of sites of the second half of the Sartan glaciation and up to the Holocene (Vasil’evsky and Kashin 1983; Vasil’evsky 1985). In the Upper Lena region, the earliest “Gobi” forms were found in Makarovo I site (lower horizon) and probably in Makarovo II site (horizon II), having a Late Pleistocene (Tseitlin 1979) or Early Holocene (Aksenov 1970, 1974; Medvedev et al. 1975) age. Within Northeast Asia (on the Olekma River), they are present in the inventory of the Novy Leten A and B sites with estimated ages of 11,000–13,000 years (Alekseev 1980, 1987). It is noted that the very principle of the production of narrowfaced cores appeared in Northern Asia no earlier than the Sartan time (Markin 1986, p. 150). All these facts, in comparison with the core from Ikhine I, cast doubt on the Karginsk date of the site, and it makes it younger to match the set of geological (according to Tseitlin), palynological, and radiocarbon data.

Despite the different chronological estimates, both researchers agree on one thing – linking the oldest cultural horizons of Ikhine I to the warm periods: Malaya Kheta (layer III) and Lipovka–Novoselovo (layer II), according to Mochanov; and Kokorevo, according to Tseitlin. Meanwhile, palynological materials indicate that the cultural deposits of Ikhine I accumulated during the cold climatic conditions of the glacial period (Tomskaya and Savvinova 1975, p. 35). In this regard, special attention is drawn to the date of layer II of Ikhine I – 16,600 ± 270 BP (IM-452)6, coinciding with the coldest Gydan stage of the Sartan period. The archaeological material from Ikhine I is poor and represented mainly by flakes. The determinations of most of the selected tools and blanks are doubtful (Abramova 1979c, p. 7). We can add to this that the interpretation of pecked diabase pebbles (Figure 7, B: 1–2)7 as “knife blanks” of the Dyuktai biface type (Mochanov 1977, p. 43) does not agree with the fact that all knives of the Dyuktai culture are made of siliceous rocks, not diabase. The lack of information that can shed light on the age of the site is removed to some extent by the presence of a core in layer II (Figure 7, A: 8)8, which, according to strict criteria (Medvedev et al. 1974, p. 70), belongs to the “Gobi” type. As a specific form given by the production technology, this type of core does not have the chronological and territorial scope that is characteristic of wedge-shaped and especially edge-faceted cores, and therefore “the “Gobi” core is quite representative both chronologically and culturally. When finding the lower chronological boundary of such artefacts, it can be seen that in the Angara River region, judging by the early complex of Krasny Yar I (Medvedev 1966), “Gobi” cores appear about 20,000 years ago. They are found in this territory and in sites of the Late Pleistocene – Early Holocene: Verkholenskaya Gora I (layer III), Cheremushnik, Sosnovy Bor (layer III), and Kamenka III (Aksenov 1966, 1980; Aksenov and Medvedev 1967; Medvedev et al. 1971; Lezhnenko 1971; Tseitlin 1975b). In Transbaikalia, similar artefacts are known in sites from the second half of the Sartan period: Sanny Mys (horizon 3–5), Amagolon (layer III), and Ikaral (Shamsutdinov 1966; Okladnikov 1971; Okladnikov and Kirillov 1980; Kirillov 1975, 1979; Konstantinov 1982b; Tseitlin and Aseev 1982). They also exist in Sokhatino IV site (Okladnikov and Kirillov 1980); however, the ambiguity of geological

The age of Ikhine II remains debatable as well. The radiocarbon dates for this site (Mochanov 1977, pp. 47–49) are insufficiently coordinated. In some cases, this raises doubts about the genuine connection of radiocarbon-dated samples with cultural remains (Abramova 1979c; Yi and Clark 1985; Hopkins 1985); in others – certainty in the unreliability of dates (Dikov 1979d, p. 18) and their selectivity (Mochanov 1977, pp. 47–49; Tseitlin 1979, p. 234). Based on the radiocarbon dates and their stratigraphic position, Mochanov connects all horizons of cultural layer II of Ikhine II with the sediments of the entire floodplain alluvium of the third terrace (see Figure 24) deposited during the period 35,000–22,000 years ago. Tseitlin (1979, p. 22) considered the same culturecontaining sequence (with the exception of horizon IIa) only as part of the alluvium that completed at 33,000–30,000/29,000 years ago the formation of the floodplain facies of the third terrace. At the same time, Tseitlin (1979, p. 234) believed that “... the description of Mochanov obviously does not record a break, which should be in the section of the Ikhine II site between the horizons IIb and IIa,” where, according to Tseitlin’s (1979) general scheme, the boundary of the deposits of the third and second terraces is located. However, the complexity of the issue lies not only in the presence of these two dissimilar concepts but also in the fact that neither of them is linked to the evidence that the top of the channel alluvium at Ikhine II is 5 m lower than that at Ikhine I. This contradicts the suggested location of Ikhine I and Ikhine II on the same third terrace (Mochanov 1977, pp. 39, 44) (see Figure 24), and also the opinion that the deposits at Ikhine I can

This date is not included into reports of the Laboratory of Geochemistry, Permafrost Institute.—Trans. 7  See also Mochanov and Fedoseeva (1996b, p. 191, Figure 3–19: f, g).— Trans. 8  See also Mochanov and Fedoseeva (1996b, p. 191, Figure 3–19: b).— Trans. 6 

82

Some Research Problems of the Northeast Asian Palaeolithic

be correlated to the upper part of the once complete (but subsequently eroded) section of alluvial sediments at Ikhine II (Tseitlin 1979, p. 234).

the Verkhne-Troitskaya site looks contradictory, since, judging by the radiocarbon dates, the lower one metre stratum of floodplain alluvium of the third terrace at Ust-Mil II accumulated in no more than 1000 years. However, the problem of the age of Verkhne-Troitskaya lies not so much in the noted fact (where it is difficult to control possible local peculiarities) as in establishing the true stratigraphic position of the artefacts. The ambiguity in this question is emphasised by Tseitlin’s (1979, p. 230) observations who, unlike Mochanov, does not place the position of the finds at the contact with the channel alluvium of the second terrace, but rather connects them with periglacial deposits of the same terrace. According to Tseitlin (1979, p. 238, Table 16), the age of the Verkhne-Troitskaya site is 15,000–17,000 years.

In Tseitlin’s concept, faunal indicators are very actively involved in determination of the age of Ikhine II site. Preference for the most ancient radiocarbon dates (30,200 ± 500 BP and 31,200 ± 500 BP), and a corresponding understanding of the geology of the site, follow from recognition of the faunal complex of horizons IIb–IIe, which comes from the suggested periglacial type of fauna, established by a single Arctic fox bone (“... for the Aldan area, the form of a periglacial environment ... ;” see Tseitlin 1979, p. 234) from horizon IIb. Perhaps, to be fair, such an ecological assessment, nevertheless, needs a more reliable justification, since even for areas of the Aldan region that are more southern than Ikhine II, the same author admits the possibility of the Arctic fox’s existence both in interglacial and interstadial conditions (Tseitlin 1979, p. 237).

Clarification of the age for the Verkhne-Troitskaya site is extremely important since it is used as a stratigraphic and chronological reference point in the assessment of many other sites, including Dyuktai Cave. Guided precisely by Verkhne-Troitskaya parallels, Mochanov (1977, p. 32) “stretches” the chronology of the culturecontaining Pleistocene strata in the entrance area of Dyuktai Cave up to 23,000 years ago, whereas Tseitlin (1979, p. 226) believes that only the upper part of the sedimentation in the second terrace is present there, and whose age is determined by radiocarbon dates from 12,000 to 14,000 BP. Boriskovsky (1980, p. 119) accepts the same age.

The spore-and-pollen diagrams of Ikhine II are identical to those of Ikhine I, and they give reason to suggest the same age of these sites (Mochanov and Savvinova 1980, p. 15). However, the question arises: either, according to palynological data, the early Ikhine I–II horizons should be considered as belonging to Sartan time (Tomskaya and Savvinova 1975, p. 35) or they should be placed in the Karginsk interstadial (Mochanov and Savvinova 1980, p. 15). The archaeological collection of Ikhine II is small and does not contain an adequate number of chronologically significant elements. The definition of the wedgeshaped core (Figure 23: 2)9 may be controversial, since this object is similar to a simple fragment of hornfels.10

Based on materials from Dyuktai Cave, another problem arises related to the dating of the Sumnagin culture, with the possible Sartan stage of its development. According to Tseitlin’s (1979, p. 226) definition, the layer containing the artefacts of this culture is represented there by the late Sartan palaeosol of the second terrace and, therefore, its age is in the range of 10,800–12,000 years ago. As a result, the time of the appearance of the Sumnagin culture has not yet been precisely established and, taking into account the dates (Mochanov and Fedoseeva 1982b, p. 157), refers to the period from 12,000 to 9500 years ago. Did the Sumnagin culture coexist with the Dyuktai culture or follow it directly (or with a chronological gap)? The answer to this question is directly dependent on the certainty in this problem.

The problem of absolute chronology also persists with respect to later sites. According to Mochanov (1977, p. 69), the age of the Verkhne-Troitskaya site is 23,000/22,000–18,000 years. The upper limit is determined by the date 18,300 ± 180 BP (LE-905); the lower boundary is established by the assumption that the initial one metre thickness of the floodplain alluvium of the second terrace could have been accumulated over 4000–5000 years. The latter conclusion raises understandable doubts (Abramova 1979c, p. 7). No special studies of sedimentation dynamics have been conducted on the Aldan terraces. There is only a general tendency to reduce the time of formation of terraces from older to younger (Mochanov 1977, p. 212; Tseitlin 1979, pp. 21, 226). In this light, the dating of

The Maiorych site is of great importance for solving the problem of the peopling of America, according to Mochanov (1972a). However, the dating of the site is still determined to be within a very wide range – from 23,000/22,000 years ago to 12,000 years ago (Mochanov 1977, p. 92), and even somewhat younger (Dikova 1976b, p. 8). The complexity of the issue lies in the fact that the site has no clear stratigraphy, or faunal remains and radiocarbon dates, and the actual archaeological

9  See also Mochanov and Fedoseeva (1996b, p. 194, Figure 3–21: e).— Trans. 10  Unfortunately, due to the low quality of the photo of this item (see Kashin 2003, p. 162, Figure 13) it is impossible to reproduce it here.— Trans.

83

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia material is poor. The latter is aggravated by the fact that Mochanov’s (1977, p. 91, Table 29: 3)11 typological definition of one of the three morphologically expressed artefacts – the “wedge-shaped core”, which is essentially the only evidence of a Pleistocene age for Maiorych, is being revised (Khlobystin 1981, p. 25).12

cluster, including buried terraces. Cultural remains, in his opinion, were located there in soil – pyroclastic sediments that overlap the fluvioglacial deposits (see colour Plate 6). It is significant that all these opinions are confirmed by palynological materials. The archaeological aspect is also complicated. The artefacts that define the appearance of the early Ushki Palaeolithic culture—stemmed points (Figure 14: 2–7, 9–16) and points with shoulders at the base—as well as stone grinding techniques, types of dwellings, and other indicators, have no analogues in the sites of Siberia, Japan, or America (Vasil’evsky 1973, p. 126; Derevianko 1983, p. 100; Abramova 1984, p. 327). Some researchers (see Mochanov 1977; Mochanov and Fedoseeva 1982a) tend to explain the originality of the Ushki complexes by their mixing, which occurred, in their opinion, as a result of permafrost deformations and erosion of cultural layers as well as the presence of dwellings and cache pits in them. In particular, the belief was expressed that the stemmed points were re-deposited into the Palaeolithic layer VII from the Neolithic layer III (Mochanov 1977, p. 224). This version, however, contradicts the other observations at the Ushki sites. According to Titov (1980, pp. 145, 150), in the Ushki sections “... there were no traces of erosion, redeposition, permafrost deformations, etc.... All cultural layers are clearly separated by sterile layers of volcanic ash, and the possibility of uncontrolled mixing of cultural layers is completely excluded here”. The same thoughts are expressed by Ponomarenko (1985, p. 19), considering “... completely groundless ... Y.A. Mochanov’s attempts to find traces of permafrost deformations of the cultural layers in the Ushki site”. In the same connection, the stratigraphy of Ushki is examined in detail by Dikov (1979d, pp. 38–41). The facts presented by him testify to the integrity and nonmixed nature of the Ushki assemblages.

The question of the dating of the Kukhtui III site seems to be equally difficult. According to Mochanov’s (1977, p. 9) conclusion, “... the age of the Kukhtui III site still remains unclear”. At the same time, Mochanov believes that “... based on the stratigraphy of the site and the typology of stone tools ...” the lower Kukhtui complex can be tentatively dated to the end of the Pleistocene. It should be noted that it is not possible to give an objective characteristic of the geological position of the lower complex (in particular, the genesis of the culture-containing sediments is unclear), and the lack of typological development leads to the appearance of subjectivity. The Kukhtui complex is compared with either the materials of the Dyuktai sites from the Aldan region (Mochanov 1977, p. 90), or the Mesolithic Maltan complex (dated to 7490 ± 70 BP) in the upper Kolyma River region based on technical and typological indicators (Dikov 1979d, p. 103). The problem of the age of the Ushki cluster requires additional study. In most cases, it is solved by radiocarbon dates: 14,300 ± 800 BP (MAG-550), 14,300 ± 200 BP (GIN-?)13, 13,600 ± 250 BP (GIN-167) for layer VII; 10,860 ± 400 BP (MAG-400), 10,760 ± 110 BP (MAG219), 10,360 ± 350 BP (Mo-345), and 10,360 ± 220 BP (MAG-401) for layer VI; and 8790 ± 150 BP (MAG-231) for layer V. Attempts to date the Ushki complexes on the bases of geological, stratigraphic, and palynological grounds are still inconclusive since there is a significant difference of opinion in the interpretation of these data, depending on the heuristic ideas of researchers. Thus, Mochanov (1975a, p. 26), by analogy with the Aldan geochronological scheme, connects the Palaeolithic horizons of the Ushki site14 with the alluvium of the eroded and buried first terrace, and he dates them in the range of 10,000–12,000 years ago. Adhering to his concept of the development of terraces, Tseitlin (1979, pp. 253, 256) refers the same horizons to deposits of the buried second terrace, and dates them within the interval of 12,700–15,000 years ago. From Titov’s point of view (Titov 1980; see also Dikov et al. 1976), there are no alluvial terraces at all in the area of the Ushki

In addition to the above, there are a number of other sites (Olenek, Talanda, Torom, Kyra-Krestyakh, and Tytyl II) whose Pleistocene age can only be assumed so far tentatively, since it is established exclusively by single artefacts typical of both the Palaeolithic and later times. Another problem is determined by the fact that in the study of the Northeast Asian Palaeolithic, researchers have come to a contradictory cultural and historical plurality: the Palaeolithic of the region is represented, in one case, by the Dyuktai and Sumnagin cultures (Mochanov 1977); in the other case, by the Dyuktai, early Ushki, late Ushki, Siberdik, and Ust-Timpton complexes (Dikov 1979d). The problem, therefore, lies in the legitimacy of the allocation of the last four cultures in establishing their real identity and difference from the Dyuktai and Sumnagin assemblages.

11  See also Mochanov and Fedoseeva (1996c, p. 223, Figure 4–4: a).— Trans. 12  Khlobystin (1998, p. 24) considered it as an utilised scraper.—Trans. 13  According to Mochanov (see Mochanov and Savvinova 1980, p. 24), this date was not listed in the register of the Laboratory of Absolute Age, Geological Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences. 14  After 1977, Mochanov (1982a, p. 35; Mochanov and Fedoseeva 1982a, p. 37) came to the conclusion that locales I, II, IV, and V of the Ushki cluster represent a single site.

84

Some Research Problems of the Northeast Asian Palaeolithic

There seems to be no need to prove that when comparing archaeological cultures it is not enough to rely on a single feature; the whole set of available data should be taken into account. When including the Ushki complexes of layers V–VII in the circle of sites of the Dyuktai culture, Mochanov quite rightly points out a common feature for them – the bifacial nature of projectile points and knives. The programme of analogies can also be expanded due to wedge-shaped cores and skreblos (Mochanov 1977, p. 224, Table 30). However, showing great interest in the integrating elements, Mochanov ignores those characteristics that distinguish the compared complexes. Meanwhile, the early Ushki complex (Ushki I and V, layer VII) is different from the Dyuktai not only by the questioned stemmed points but also by the burin points, the absence of wedge-shaped and pebble cores, burins and insets on blades, distinctive double dwellings, and the complexity (fishing, hunting, and gathering) of the economy. The late Ushki complex (Ushki I, II, IV, and V, layers V–VI) is different from the Dyuktai by prismatic and conical cores, chisel-shaped points, polished slate knives, abrading tools, various scrapers (including those with a fully retouched back), labret-shaped artefacts, the absence of pebble cores, transverse and lamellar burins, dwellings with a corridor-like entrance, and the complexity of the economy. Probably, Mochanov’s concept would not have raised objections (see Okladnikov 1981, p. 3) if he had been able to prove that the listed dissimilarities are insignificant and not culture differentiating.

later cultures (Mochanov et al. 1980, p. 58). It is difficult to say how correct such an opinion is, and whether it is dictated solely by theoretical ideas (none of the authors of the mentioned publication has ever visited the sites of Siberdik and Kongo), especially since the researcher of these sites, Dikov, testifies to their impeccable stratigraphy, excluding the mixing of finds. Meanwhile, this question is of fundamental importance. Since recognising the non-mixing of cultural remains we, following Dikov (1979d, p. 98), will find their obvious difference from the Sumnagin complex, which does not contradict the allocation of the Siberdik culture. The Ust-Timpton culture of the Holocene Palaeolithic (10,650 ± 80 BP – 8060 ± 70 BP) is distinguished by the materials from layers VI, Vb, and IVb of the Ust-Timpton I, and layers XIX and XVIII of the Belkachi I site, which, unlike the Sumnagin, contain wedge-shaped cores (see Dikov 1979d, p. 89). Artefacts are accepted as wedgeshaped cores from layer IVb of Ust-Timpton I and layer XVIII from Belkachi I (Mochanov 1977, Table 48: 4; Table 54: 24; Table 56: 2). Mochanov (1977, pp. 136–160; see also Mochanov et al. 1983, p. 29) considers them to be prismatic cores and unclear forms from layer XIX of the Belkachi I, where, based on available data (Mochanov 1977, pp. 137–139), there are no cores or core blanks at all. Against the background of these source differences and uncertainties, the finds of layers VI–Vb of the UstTimpton I site seem to be the most suitable for analysis. It was noted above that until 1976 these materials were associated with the Sumnagin culture of the Early Holocene (10,500–9500 years ago), and afterwards – with the Dyuktai culture of the terminal Pleistocene (11,000–10,500 years ago). With this opportunity to substantiate one or the other conclusion, in our opinion, the transitional nature of the materials is manifested, which makes it possible to consider them a special cultural complex. The finds of layer Va of the Ust-Timpton I site can probably be attributed to it.

The noted contrasts may turn out to be inaccurate in some elements, since a clear understanding has not yet been achieved not only about the chronology but also about the cultural characteristics of individual sites. There is uncertainty regarding the sites of Ezhantsy, Ust-Mil II, and Ikhine I and II, which relate to the Dyuktai culture (Mochanov and Fedoseeva 1975a, p. 51) and to proto-Dyuktai (Mochanov 1975a, see: “Skhema periodizatsii ...”), and again to the Dyuktai, but only presumably (Mochanov 1977, p. 223). The lack of clear opinions on this issue is also reflected in the fact that while some researchers include these sites in the Dyuktai culture (Dolukhanov 1979; Boriskovsky 1980; McBurney 1976; West 1981), others reasonably object or express doubts (Abramova 1979c; Dikov 1979d; Powers 1973; Aigner 1985; Yi and Clark 1985).

The main feature of this complex, its unifying principle, is the combination of technical and typological features of the Dyuktai and Sumnagin cultures in it. It cannot be called Dyuktai, because there are no bifacially worked knives or projectile points in it. On the contrary, there are typical Sumnagin artefacts—blades with a notch, end scrapers on microblades and small blades, and an axe—completely unknown in Dyuktai assemblages. There is no possibility of considering it Sumnagin, since unifacial and bifacial flint processing techniques co-exist in it, and there are Dyuktai types of artefacts – in layer Va there was a transverse burin (Mochanov 1977, Table 65: 14) and specific skreblos (Mochanov 1977, Table 64: 11–12), and there are no axes “with lugs” or tools on microblades. If this complex had not been identified in stratified conditions, it would most likely

A controversial situation, whose solution depends on additional stratigraphic studies, also occurs with regard to the allocation of the Siberdik culture. Developing the idea of the distribution of the Sumnagin culture in the Early Holocene of the entire Northeast Asia, Mochanov (1977) initially showed no interest in the materials of the sites of Siberdik and Kongo but then in 1980 defined them as mixed, containing the remains of Sumnagin and 85

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia have been recognised as mixed, containing artefacts of the Dyuktai and Sumnagin complexes of different times.

the Tolbaga, Sanny Mys, Kunalei, Sokhatino, Tangi, and Amagolon Palaeolithic cultures are distinguished (Konstantinov 1982a, p. 40), the results are similar. To any archaeological complex of this scale corresponds a tribe with certain cultural traditions inherent only in it (Grigoryev 1969, p. 206). However, the question arises: what, in this case, is behind the Dyuktai and Sumnagin cultures, and how does one explain their internal homogeneity in colossal spaces covering different landscape and climate zones, and coastal and continental regions?

The combination of features from both cultures in a single assemblage is dynamic. From layer VI to layer Va, there is a tendency towards a gradual reduction (degeneration?) of artefacts typical for the Dyuktai culture and an increase (development?) in forms belonging to the Sumnagin culture. The same trend can be traced in the ratio of tools on flakes and on blades (see Mochanov 1977, p. 192, Table C): in layer VI, the first ones (the Dyuktai index fossil) predominate; in layer Vb, their numbers are equal; and in layer Va, the second ones (the Sumnagin technical indicator) prevail.

We agree that “... the degree of objectivity in the identification of an archaeological culture both in terms of identifying its features and in terms of defining its boundaries ...” (Matyushchenko 1973, p. 28) depends on the degree of study. By the beginning of the 1980s, Northeast Asia turned out to be poorly investigated in Palaeolithic respect, and this is rightly noted by many experts (Laricheva 1976, p. 74; Mochanov and Fedoseeva 1976, p. 515; Dikov 1979d, pp. 6, 90; Haynes 1973, p. 193; Ackerman 1979, p. 45). The northern and eastern territories have been examined especially unsatisfactorily, where, with rare exceptions (Berelekh, Kongo, Siberdik, and Ushki), few sites have been excavated at a level beyond clean-ups, test pits, or (most often) surface collections of mixed artefacts. The materials obtained in this way, scarce and detached from contexts, make it difficult to understand the real nature of the sites, their cultural, functional, or temporal identity. The unreliability of cultural determinations is also defined by the orientation towards single indicators, which, however, are not cultural indices.

The Ust-Timpton complex is still one of a kind, and therefore it is premature to establish an independent archaeological culture on its basis alone. Additional data are needed to indicate its repeatability within certain chronological and territorial limits. This will allow, in turn, saying more likely that the Ust-Timpton complex serves as a link between the Dyuktai and Sumnagin cultures, determining their genetic connections (Dikov 1979d, p. 89). The question of the relationship of cultures cannot be solved without a clear idea of the place of each of them in the system of archaeological periodisation. Meanwhile, the situation here is far from clear. For example, some researchers consider the Sumnagin culture to be Palaeolithic (Mochanov 1973a; Mochanov and Fedoseeva, 1976; Larichev 1980), others – to be Mesolithic (Formozov 1970; Zykov 1972; Khlobystin 1973a, 1973b, 1981; Dikov 1977b, 1979d; Grishin and Matyushin 1978). It is indisputable that this is a particular expression of the “Mesolithic turmoil,” which, unfortunately, persists in archaeology up to now due to the lack of a single terminology and common criteria for distinguishing the transition from the Palaeolithic to the Neolithic (Mochanov 1969a; Medvedev 1971, 1980; Formozov 1970; Derevianko 1973; Matyushin 1976; Dikov 1979d) (see also edited volumes: MIA, No. 126; and KSIA, Issue 149).15

The peripheral sites Ushki I, II, and IV, Kukhtui III, Torom, and Olenek (Mochanov 1977; Mochanov et al. 1980) are recognised as factual evidence of the Dyuktai ecumene covering the entire territory of Northeast Asia. However, as noted above, the Dyuktai identity of the Ushki sites is highly controversial. For Kukhtui III, unity with the Maltan culture is not excluded. Arrowheads from mixed surface finds at the Torom site, attributed to the Dyuktai complex, are possibly associated with it or its traditions. The Neolithic site of Olenek is included in the Dyuktai circle based on one item (a symmetrical burin) from the surface collections, and this is clearly not enough for the cultural characteristics of the site. As for the Sumagin ecumene, within the same boundaries as the Dyuktai culture, no sites of the Sumagin complex have been recorded in Kamchatka. East of the Lena River basin, all of them are distinguished by the most common features – the presence of blades and tools on blades in materials from mixed sites. (The history of the study of layer IV at the Kurung site shows how unreliable this practice is; see Chapter III.) The southern boundary of the Sumnagin sites so far passes only along the latitudinal extent of the Aldan River. At

Many questions remain regarding the territories occupied by the Dyuktai and Sumnagin cultures, which are unprecedented in their scale (over 5,000,000 km2). In Europe, Late Palaeolithic cultures covered areas from 50 to 200 km2 (Grigoryev 1968, p. 8; Gvozdover 1981, p. 146). There are no similar calculations for Northern Asia, but judging, for example, by Transbaikalia, where It is appropriate to note here that the inclusion of Sumnagin culture sites in this study is dictated not only by the unresolved “Mesolithic” problem but also by the consideration that without the involvement of these sites, coverage of the history of the development of Palaeolithic studies in Northeast Asia would be incomplete.

15 

86

Some Research Problems of the Northeast Asian Palaeolithic

the Shishkino site, which defines the boundary of this culture on the Upper Lena, in addition to the blades, a scraper and a skreblo common to the Late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic cultures of Siberia, there is a “... core of disc-shaped form ...” (Okladnikov 1948a, p. 6), which does not fit into the technical and typological norms of the Sumnagin industry. The northwestern boundary is established along the sites of Taimyr Peninsula (Khlobystin 1973a, 1973b, 1981) with materials similar to those of the Early Neolithic. Okladnikov (1981, p. 111) considers the areas of Lena River cultures proposed by Mochanov as unreasonable. The same opinion on Chukotka is expressed by Biske (1978, p. 75), and for the Okhotsk Sea coast by Lebedintsev (1989, p. 18). Grishin and Matyushin (1978, p. 284) believe that in the process of further research in the territory of Northeast Asia “... new cultures and their local variants, new chronological stages can be identified”. According to Dikov’s research, such cultures are already distinguished: early and late Ushki in Kamchatka, and Siberdik in the Upper Kolyma region. As Dikov (1979d, pp. 20, 104) emphasizes, their fundamental difference from the Dyuktai and Sumnagin cultures does not confirm the boundaries of the latter complexes. From the problem under consideration, it follows that in order to confirm their concept, the PAE archaeologists need more reliable and more specific arguments than the idea of the presence of the Dyuktai and Sumnagin cultures on the American continent, which promotes these interpretations.

cannot be derived from the technique of hand choppers of Acheulean appearance, and she notes the absence of sites with bifaces at the beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic in Siberia, which contradicts Mochanov’s hypothesis. It is more legitimate, Abramova (1975, pp. 24, 27; 1979b) believes, to identify in the Upper Palaeolithic of Siberia “South Siberian,” “Central Siberian,” and “Northeast Siberian” cultural regions, the last of which could combine “... the Dyuktai archaeological culture with others that are here or will be discovered in the future”. A similar idea is expressed by Dikov (1979d, p. 74), uniting the sites of the Aldan and Kamchatka into the “Northeast Asian” Late Palaeolithic cultural area, which is different from other cultures of the North Asian zone. Like Abramova, he is critical of the classification of the sites of Northern Asia into “Malta-Afontova” and “Dyuktai”. Dikov draws attention to the special “Pacific” cultural area recognised by other scholars (e.g., Okladnikov 1964b, 1966; Larichev 1970; Vasil’evsky 1968, 1973a, 1973b, 1973c; Chard 1969), where, in his opinion, their own technological traditions, including bifacial ones, developed in the Upper Palaeolithic. “In the extreme Northeast of Asia (in particular, in Kamchatka), in Alaska and, probably, in Primorye,” writes Dikov (1979d, p. 20), “other biface traditions and cultures oppose the Dyuktai tradition: the Ushki Layer VI in Kamchatka, the Siberdik culture in Kolyma, the British Mountain culture in Alaska, and, possibly, Kumary III in the Amur River basin, which have convergent sources of origin independent of the ‘Dyuktai culture’ ”.

By the beginning of the 1980s, the problem of the origin of the Palaeolithic cultures in Northeast Asia rose sharply. If we talk about the Dyuktai culture, then its origin has not been precisely established. According to Mochanov (1977, p. 235), its genesis should be sought in the bifacial Middle Palaeolithic cultures of the Urals, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, and North China. This point of view is supported and specified by Matyushin (1973, p. 142; 1976b, p. 465), who sees the basis of the Dyuktai culture in a complex with bifaces from the Early Palaeolithic Mysovaya site in the Southern Urals. Medoev (1979) compares the materials of the Dyuktai culture with the Levallois–Acheulean complex of a workshop site at Lake Kudaikol (East Kazakhstan). However, the very concept of dividing the Palaeolithic of Northern Asia into two cultural and technological traditions—the unifacial “Malta-Afontova” and the bifacial “Dyuktai”—which determines the direction of the search for the source of the Dyuktai culture, is sharply criticised. Abramova (1973a, 1973b, 1975, 1981), considering it unacceptable and pointing to the methodological inconsistency of the analysis and division of Palaeolithic sites only by the presence of the technique of bifacial stone processing, emphasises that the Late Palaeolithic technique of bifacial points

The complexity of the problem is obvious. This is not the case when, without additional facts and theoretical developments, it is possible to determine the correctness of one disputing party and the erroneous judgements of the other. In order to solve the problem of the origin of the Dyuktai culture, it is first necessary to have a clear idea of its character at an early stage of development, i.e., to remove the uncertainty when, on the one hand, it is recognised as necessary to clarify the cultural identity of the most ancient sites of the Aldan, while on the other hand these sites are already accepted as Dyuktai (Mochanov and Fedoseeva 1982b, pp. 158, 160). Another important point is to clarify the reality of the existence in Northern Asia at 35,000–25,000 years ago of cultures from the “Dyuktai” tradition with bifacially worked spearheads and knives (Mochanov and Fedoseeva 1982b, p. 160). Reliable evidence of this kind is not yet available. This makes it difficult to solve the problem of the origin of the Dyuktai culture, and enables us not only to accept the concept of Mochanov but also to believe in the assumption that the origins of this complex lie in cultural traditions that later resulted in the bifaces of the Yenisei and Angara sites. The possibility of the latter does not exclude, in our opinion, the widespread use of the Yenisei bifacial 87

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia

Figure 31. Bifaces from the Berelekh site (after Kashin 2003, p. 206; modified).

whose pre-pottery complexes already appear to be the starting point for the culture of layer VII of Ushki (Vasil’evsky 1973a, p. 127).

technique, whose influence can be traced, for example, in the cultures of Northern China (Larichev 1981, p. 39), as well as the spear point from Tarachikha site, which bears the closest resemblance to a similar artefact from Berelekh (Figure 31: 1), found in 1980 by Vereshchagin.16

According to Dikov (1979d, p. 72), two main cultural sources participated in the formation of the late Ushki complex: the East Siberian (sites of the Yenisei, Angara, and Aldan rivers) and the local source. The first of them is proved by separate typological analogies of the stone inventory, especially close in Dyuktai Cave, which allows some researchers (Mochanov 1977; Mochanov and Fedoseeva 1980) to consider the culture of the Kamchatkan Palaeolithic to be Dyuktai proper. The argumentation of the second source is contradictory: the skreblos, scrapers, and bifacial knives of the late Ushki culture, cited as examples of a genetic connection, are also considered as not necessarily coming from the previous local culture (Dikov 1979d, pp. 65, 72). Moreover, a number of analogies with the cultures of the Pacific region (including such specific forms as wedge-shaped cores made by the Horoka technique) are considered as evidence of only “contact connections” but not directly of their participation in the formation of the Kamchatkan culture (Dikov 1979d, p. 73).

The problem of the origin of the Sumnagin culture is solved in different ways, but to the same extent only in general terms. Mochanov (1977, p. 250) believes that “... obviously, somewhere there must have been a local ‘Malta–Afontova’ Upper Palaeolithic culture of an older age than 10,500 years, from which the Sumnagin culture originates. So far, the latter has the closest similarity to the Kokorevo culture of the Yenisei”. Astakhov (1973, p. 195) writes about the possibility of the Yenisei origin of the Sumnagin culture. At the same time, Mochanov (1977, p. 250) admits the penetration of Sumnagin people into Northeast Asia from Transbaikalia, which is supported by Khlobystin (1981, p. 88). Dikov solves this issue differently. He believes that the Sumnagin culture has an autochthonous origin, going back through the Ust-Timpton complex to the Dyuktai culture (Dikov 1979d, p. 189). The early Ushki culture is derived by Dikov (1979d, p. 46) from the British Mountain substrate with stemmed points which are prototypes for the Ushki complex. However, attempts to link Kamchatkan points with Alaskan ones are considered unconvincing (Derevianko 1983, p. 100) and even curious (Mochanov 1982a, p. 36). A search is being conducted in the Pacific cultural area,

In this regard, it is impossible not to turn attention to the research of Vasil’evsky (1973a, 1973b, 1976), who emphasises the primary role of pre-pottery complexes of Japan in the origin of the late Ushki culture. In general, Vasil’evsky (1973а, p. 136) states that “... the formation of the Upper Palaeolithic Ushki complex should obviously be seen as a result of contacts and merger of Palaeolithic cultures of two different origins:

I express my sincere gratitude to N.K. Vereshchagin for the opportunity to use this material.

16 

88

Some Research Problems of the Northeast Asian Palaeolithic

the continental Siberian (Dyuktai culture) and the Pacific region (Ustinovka culture plus pre-pottery complexes of Northern Japan with the traditions of the Sakkotsu–Araya type)”.

Haynes 1976, p. 435), that do not provide a basis for speaking of the similarity of the Clovis culture with any Asian complexes, including Dyuktai. The highly specialised projectile points of the Palaeoindian Clovis and Folsom cultures do not have prototypes and analogies either north of the Canadian ice sheet in America17 or in Eurasia. Therefore, many scientists, especially those who recognise the pre-point stage in the Palaeolithic of America, are increasingly inclined to think that attempts to derive the pointed tools of these cultures from outside are futile, and they consider the assumption of their independent, convergent origin more realistic (Abramova 1973a; Arutyunov 1976; Larichev and Laricheva 1976; Bryan 1979). Laricheva (1970, 1975, 1976, 1979) carries out this idea especially consistently in her research. She does not exclude close contacts of the Dyuktai (or the Ushki) culture with the Palaeoindian complexes of America but limits them both in time and space. In her opinion (Laricheva 1976, p. 193), such contacts can be traced only at the end of the Upper Palaeolithic, not earlier than 12,000 years ago, and mainly with the Denali–Akmak complex only in Alaska. Laricheva (1976, p. 76; 1979, p. 130) believes that the Northeast Asian Palaeolithic sites cannot solve the problems of the initial human settlement of America, since they are much younger than American sites of the pre-point stage.

A mosaic pattern of views is observed in the issue of the ethnic content of the prehistoric cultures. Thus, the Dyuktai (Mochanov 1977; Mochanov and Fedoseeva 1980), early Ushki (Dikov 1977c), and Siberdik (Dikov 1979c) cultures are associated with Palaeoindian populations. The Sumnagin (Mochanov 1973a; Mochanov and Fedoseeva 1980) and the late Ushki (Dikov 1977c) complexes are identified with protoEskimos and proto-Aleuts. The symbiosis (layers VI– VII) of the Ushki cultures is characterised by the protoAleut affiliation (Vasil’evsky 1973a). The complexes of layer V of the Ushki sites are considered a proto-Itelmen culture (Vasil’evsky 1973a). Such a state of the problem is quite natural, since in the absence of Palaeolithic anthropological remains in the territory of Northeast Asia, its solution is based mainly on archaeological data whose interpretation, as one can see, is far from unambiguous. The complexity of the problem also lies in the fact that it concerns the population of that period, which is many millennia away from the Neolithic and Bronze Age when ethnic features of peoples first began to appear in archaeological materials (Okladnikov 1941; Levin 1958; Chernetsov 1969; Gurvich 1975).

In light of the above, Dikov’s (1979d, pp. 47–53) assumption about the influence of the early Ushki complex on the cultures of Western North America and Patagonia is controversial. To a certain extent, this is also facilitated by the lack of a consensus on the fundamental issue of this hypothesis – the comparability of the stemmed points of Kamchatka and America (Vasil’evsky 1973a, p. 127).

In conclusion, a few words about the problem of connections between the cultures of Northeast Asia and America. “Now,” writes Mochanov (1977, p. 236), “there is almost no doubt that from Northeast Asia (from Yakutia through Chukotka and Alaska) the initial human settlement of the New World took place”. Mochanov connects this event with Dyuktai populations armed with bifacially worked stone points and knives, which, starting from 33,000–30,000 years ago, began to periodically penetrate following the mammoth fauna to Alaska and farther to the southern regions of North America where they initiated the culture of Clovis points, dated to 11,500–11,000 years ago (Mochanov 1973b, 1973c; 1976b, 1977). At the same time, Mochanov (1977, p. 237) admits that “... unfortunately, there is insufficient evidence to confirm or refute ...” the assumption about early Dyuktai migrations.

Not only Dikov but also other archaeologists (see Abramova 1973a, p. 26; Laricheva 1976, p. 192) have noted connections between the late Ushki and the Denali–Akmak complexes. According to Dikov (1979d, p. 74), it may not even be about “connections” but about the direct spread of Kamchatkan culture to Alaska. More remarkable is the position Vasil’evsky takes on this issue. Sharing Mochanov’s (1973b, p.14) idea about the incorporation of Alaska at the final stage of the Upper Palaeolithic into the region of the Dyuktai complex, he believes that the comparison of the late Ushki culture with the Denali–Akmak complex reveals more differences than similarities. Vasil’evsky (1968, 1973a, 1973b) finds the closest proximity to Kamchatka antiquities in the materials of Anangula (Aleutian Islands), Ustinovka (Primorye), and pre-pottery

Mochanov sees indicative material confirming Dyuktai genetic roots in the Clovis culture, where bifacial spearheads and knives, skreblos, scrapers, burins, and large knife-shaped blades are correlated by him with those of Dyuktai. Differences are also noted here: the absence of fluted points in the Dyuktai, and lack of wedge-shaped cores and microblades among the Old Llano complex (Mochanov 1977). However, it is precisely these differences, according to a number of experts (e.g., Larichev and Laricheva 1976, p. 127;

This contradicts data published later in West (1996, pp. 497–511).— Trans.

17 

89

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia complexes of Northern Japan, united by a common origin.

The problems noted above, the nature of their discussion, and the rich range of alternative solutions indicate the active state of Palaeolithic studies of Northeast Asia at the turn of the 1970s–1980s; the process of in-depth development of Palaeolithic studies of the region had begun. At the same time, these very problems show that their breeding ground in many cases was still an insufficiently developed factual base, equally devoid of informative and geographically comprehensive archaeological sites and a lack of well-developed and unified methods of analysing sources. This includes uniform criteria for evaluating the stone industries; the presence of contradictory (or ambiguous) data from related disciplines (geology, palaeontology, palynology, and dating); cultural and historical reconstructions based on controversial materials from the American Palaeolithic; and lack of coordination between the Yakutsk and Magadan research programmes. These circumstances, constraining regional Palaeolithic studies, determined the range of urgent tasks that were supposed to be solved by subsequent research.

In the context of these views, the polemic of the judgement about the connection of the Sumnagin culture with Anangula is clearly manifested (Astakhov 1973, p. 196; Mochanov and Fedoseeva 1973, p. 198). Ideas about the settlement of Anangula, on the one hand, from the Far Eastern region along the islands of the Pacific Ocean (Vasil’evsky 1973a, p. 45), and on the other from the Yenisei region or Transbaikalia along the continental territories of Northeast Asia (Mochanov 1977, p. 253), are mutually exclusive. If the first route is confirmed by anthropological studies (Alekseev 1981), then the second one is excluded by the existence of the Maltan culture on the Upper Kolyma, which served as a “barrier” to the advance of the Sumnagin bearers to America (Dikov 1979c, p. 192). ***

90

Conclusion Reviewing all the material presented and the conclusions formulated for each chapter, we can summarise the content of this book as follows.

late Ushki. In the process of their identification and comprehensive study, views on the uniformity of the North Asian Palaeolithic were being reassessed, and their own regional cultural-chronological and ethnocultural schemes were beginning to be developed. The concepts created during this period on regional materials extend to almost the entire territory of Northeast Asia, which clearly shows the dominance of theoretical constructions over actually established realities.

By the end of the 1970s, a special field of knowledge— Palaeolithic studies of Northeast Asia—was finally formed and established in archaeology. The history of the creation of scientific ideas about the ancient population of the region turned out to be quite complex and diverse. According to the nature of the studies, the level, methods, and results of the research, three periods were distinguished in it.

The study of the Northeast Asian Palaeolithic in the third period (1970–1980) took place under the most favourable conditions of organisational, personnel, and financial support, with closer contacts with representatives of the natural sciences. Research focuses were shifted to the tasks of verifying, clarifying, and improving the ideas developed in the previous period. Going beyond the traditional research areas leads to the creation of a base of new sources, to the allocation of a new, Siberdik, culture. At the same time, the small number and non-stratified collections of the majority of new localities retain the reference value of the sites in the Aldan and Kamchatka regions studied during this period. It is their materials that form the basis of generalising monographs and individual articles that appeared at the end of the period, in which the scientific development of Palaeolithic topics brings studies in Northeast Asia to modern status.

The first period covers the interval of 1940–1959 and is associated with the activities of A.P. Okladnikov. For a long time preceding his expedition, scientists had been developing confidence in the settlement of Northeast Asia by Palaeolithic humans, but only Okladnikov first managed to prove this with irrefutable facts. Despite the small amount of identified archaeological material, often unstratified and fragmentary, he created the first cultural and chronological model of the development of Palaeolithic communities on the Lena River, revealing it in broad socio-economic aspects. The method of cultural and historical constructions used in this case— the projection of the character and features of the “Siberian” Palaeolithic onto the Lena region—was due not only to the limitations of Lena sources but also to the ideas existing at that time about the uniformity of cultural processes in a large area of Northern Asia. With this approach, the first information about the Northeast Asian Palaeolithic could not have a significant impact on the already existing knowledge about the Palaeolithic of Siberia as a whole, and only with factual certainty indicated a new vast region and a high level of biological and cultural adaptation of the earliest people to its harsh natural and climatic conditions.

The developing nature of knowledge about the Palaeolithic of the region, its level and condition were actively determined by the assessments and attitudes of specialists. Here there is not only recognition of the developed provisions but also polemics, discussions, and the expression of other points of view. The issues of chronology, origin, areas, relationships of regional cultures, their ethnic content, and links with American complexes are most ardently discussed. The debates show that the study of specific historical problems of the regional Palaeolithic is significantly complicated by an insufficiently developed source base – especially for the northern and eastern parts of Northeast Asia, the lack of unified methods for analysing existing data, and the use of controversial materials in cultural and chronological schemes and periodisations. Overcoming these constraining factors has become an urgent task and a condition for the success of current and future studies of the Late Palaeolithic in Northeast Asia.

The second period (1960–1969) is associated with the organisation and activities of the archaeological facilities in Yakutsk and Magadan, which undertook research in the valleys of the Aldan and Kamchatka rivers. As a result of extensive and systematic excavations, a qualitatively new base of sources was created there, provided with geological and stratigraphic information, and palaeontological, palynological, and radiocarbon data. The new knowledge acquired a reference value and formed the basis for the identification of previously unknown cultures: Dyuktai, Sumnagin, and early and

91

Plate 1. The Lena River in Central Yakutia (photo by A.A. Galanin).

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia

92

Plate 2. The Vilyui River, with camp of geologists on the island (photo by A.A. Galanin).

Colour Plates

93

Plate 3. The gorge in the Druchak River valley, Northeastern Siberia (photo by I.E. Vorobei).

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia

94

Plate 4. The view of the Berelekh site; arrows indicate suggested places of archaeological excavations in 1971 and 1974 (photo by V.V. Pitulko).

Colour Plates

95

Plate 5. A view of Ushki Lake and the channel of the Kamchatka River; the green area (willow bushes) on the left side of the lakeshore is the location of the Ushki I site (photo by N.A. Krenke).

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia

96

Colour Plates

Plate 6. A cross-section of deposits at the Ushki cluster, near the Ushki I site; light layers near the top are volcanic ashes, and dark layers below are palaeosols (photo by N.A. Krenke).

97

References Nauchny Kongress. Komitet L. Sotsialnye i Gumanitarnye Nauki. Tom 2, p. 179. Moscow: VINITI. Abramova, Z.A. (1981). G.P. Sosnovsky (1899–1941) i problemy paleolita Severnoi Azii (G.P. Sosnovsky (1899–1941) and problems of the Palaeolithic of Northern Asia). Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 1: 109–117. Abramova, Z.A. (1983). Paleoliticheskaya stoyanka Tarachikha na Yenisee (Palaeolithic site of Tarachikha on the Yenisei River). Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR 173: 43–50. Abramova, Z.A. (1984). Pozdny paleolit aziatskoi chasti SSSR (Late Palaeolithic of the Asian part of the USSR). In: Boriskovsky, P.I. (ed.), Paleolit SSSR, pp. 302–346. Moscow: Nauka. Abramova, Z.A. (1986). Klinovidnye nukleusy v paleolite Severnoi Azii (Wedge-shaped cores in the Palaeolithic of Northern Asia). In: Lyubin, V.P. (ed.), Paleolit i Neolit, pp. 11–16. Leningrad: Nauka. Ackerman, R. (1979). Perspektivy izucheniya tekhnologii kamennoi industrii severnoi chasti SeveroZapadnogo poberezhya (po materialam stoyanki GHB–2, yugo-vostochnaya Alyaska) (Prospects for studying the technology of the stone industry of the northern parts of the Northwest coast (based on the materials of the GHB-2 site, southeastern Alaska)). In: Vasil’evsky, R.S. (ed.), Drevnie Kultury Sibiri i Tikhookeanskogo Basseina, pp. 42–47. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Aigner, J.S. (1985). Comments on Dolitsky А.В., Siberian Palaeolithic archaeology: approaches and analytic methods. Current Anthropology 26: 369. Aksenov, M.P. (1966). Stoyanka Cheremushnik (k voprosu o meste badaiskoi kultury v kamennom veke Pribaikalya) (The Cheremushnik site (on the question of the place of the Badai culture in the Stone Age of the Lake Baikal region)). In: Okladnikov, A.P. (ed.), Sibirsky Arkheologichesky Sbornik, pp. 23–37. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Aksenov, M.P. (1970). Kompleks nizhnego kulturnogo gorizonta stoyanki Makarovo na Lene (Complex of the lower cultural horizon of the Makarovo site on the Lena River). In: Larichev, V.E. (ed.), Sibir i Ee Sosedi v Drevnosti, pp. 43–52. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Aksenov, M.P. (1980). Arkheologicheskaya stratigrafiya i posloinoe opisanie inventarya Verkholenskoi Gory I (Archaeological stratigraphy and layer-by-layer description of the inventory of Verkholenskaya Gora I site). In: Aksenov, M.P. (ed.), Mezolit Verkhnego Priangarya. Chast 2, pp. 45–93. Irkutsk: Izdatelstvo Irkutskogo Universiteta. Aksenov, M.P., and G.I. Medvedev (1967). Novye dannye po doneoliticheskomu periodu Priangarya (New

Published Sources Abramova, Z.A. (1966a). O lokalnykh razlichiyakh paleoliticheskikh kultur Angary i Yeniseya (On local differences between the Palaeolithic cultures of the Angara and the Yenisei). Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 3: 9–16. Abramova, Z.A. (1966b). Lokalnye osobennosti paleoliticheskikh kultur Sibiri (Local features of the Palaeolithic cultures of Siberia). In: Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Doklady i Soobshcheniya Arkheologov SSSR na VII Mezhdunarodnom Kongresse Doistorikov i Protoistorikov, pp. 46–55. Moscow: Nauka. Abramova, Z.A. (1970). Paleolit Yuzhnoi Sibiri (Palaeolithic of Southern Siberia). In: Larichev, V.E. (ed.), Sibir i Ee Sosedi v Drevnosti, pp. 9–16. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Abramova, Z.A. (1973a). K voprosu o kulturnykh svyazyakh Azii i Ameriki v pozdnem paleolite (On the issue of cultural links between Asia and America in the Late Palaeolithic). Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR 137: 22–27. Abramova, Z.A. (1973b). K voprosu o kulturnykh svyazyakh Azii i Ameriki v pozdnem paleolite (On the issue of cultural connections between Asia and America in the Late Palaeolithic). In: Doklady Sovetskoy Delegatsii na IX Mezhdunarodnom Kongresse Antropologicheskikh i Etnograficheskikh Nauk (Chicago, Sentyabr 1973) (separate brochure). Moscow: Nauka. Abramova, Z.A. (1975). Arkheologicheskie kultury v verkhnem paleolite Severnoi Azii i yuzhnosibirskaya kulturnaya oblast (Archaeological cultures in the Upper Palaeolithic of Northern Asia and the South Siberian cultural region). In: Derevianko, A.P. (ed.), Sootnoshenie Drevnikh Kultur Sibiri s Kulturami Sopredelnykh Territory, pp. 19–29. Novosibirsk: Institut Istorii, Filologii i Filosofii SO AN SSSR. Abramova, Z.A. (1979a). Paleolit Yeniseya. Afontovskaya Kultura (Palaeolithic of the Yenisei. The Afontova Culture). Novosibirsk: Nauka. Abramova, Z.A. (1979b). Paleolit Yeniseya. Kokorevskaya Kultura (Palaeolithic of the Yenisei. The Kokorevo Culture). Novosibirsk: Nauka. Abramova, Z.A. (1979c). K voprosu o vozraste aldanskogo paleolita (On the question of the age of the Aldan Palaeolithic). Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 4: 5–14. Abramova, Z.A. (1979d). Klinovidnye nukleusy v pozdnepleistotsenovykh – rannegolotsenovykh stoyankakh Severnoi Azii i Alyaski (Wedge-shaped cores in the Late Pleistocene – Early Holocene sites of Northern Asia and Alaska). In: XIV Tikhookeansky

98

References

data on the pre-Neolithic period of the Angara region). Izvestiya VSORGO 65: 153–165. Alekseev, A.N. (1977). Paleolit Olekmy (The Palaeolithic of the Olekma River). In: Saveliev, N.A. (ed.), NauchnoTeoreticheskaya Konferentsiya (Sektsiya Arkheologii), pp. 20–21. Irkutsk: Irkutsky Gosudarsvenny Universitet. Alekseev, A.N. (1978). Rannie arkheologicheskie kompleksy Olekmy (Early archaeological complexes of the Olekma River). In: Tezisy Dokladov Yubileinoi Konferentsii Molodykh Uhenykh Yakutii. Sektsiya 1, pp. 40–42. Yakutsk. Alekseev, A.N. (1980). Paleolit nizhnei Olekmy (Palaeolithic of the lower Olekma River). In: Mochanov, Y.A. (ed.), Novoe v Arkheologii Yakutii, pp. 28–34. Yakutsk: YF SO AN SSSR. Alekseev, A.N. (1982). Istoriya arkheologicheskogo izucheniya Olekmy (History of the archaeological study of the Olekma River). In: Problemy Arkheologii i Perspektivy Izucheniya Drevnikh Kultur Sibiri i Dalnego Vostoka (Tezisy Dokladov), pp. 91–93. Yakutsk: Izdatelsvo Yakutskogo Gosudarsvennogo Universiteta. Alekseev, A.N. (1987). Kamenny Vek Olekmy (The Stone Age of Olekma River). Irkutsk: Izdatelsvo Irkutskogo Universiteta. Alekseev, A.N., and I.E. Zykov (1976). Issledovaniya na Olekme (Research on the Olekma River). In: Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya 1975 Goda, pp. 213–214. Moscow: Nauka. Alekseev, V.P. (1981). Aleuty Komandorskikh ostrovov (somatologicheskie nablyudeniya) (Aleuts of the Commander Islands (somatological observations)). In: Gurvich, I.S. (ed.), Traditsionnye Kultury Severnoi Sibiri i Severnoi Ameriki, pp. 6–33. Moscow: Nauka. Alekseeva, E.V. (1976). Mamonty vymerli ili byli istrebleny? (Were mammoths extinct or exterminated?). Priroda 6: 98–107. Andreev, G.I., and Y.S. Grishin (1961). Nauchnaya konferentsiya po istorii Sibiri i Dalnego Vostoka (Scientific conference on the history of Siberia and the Far East). Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 1: 312–316. Antipina, N.V. (1980a). Novye arkheologicheskie pamyatniki Verkhnego Vilyuya (New archaeological sites of the upper Vilyui River). In: Problemy Arkheologii i Etnografii Sibiri i Tsentralnoy Azii, pp. 48– 49. Irkutsk: Irkutsky Gosudarsvenny Universitet. Antipina, N.V. (1980b). Novye arkheologicheskie pamyatniki Verkhnego Vilyuya (New archaeological sites of the upper Vilyui River). In: Mochanov, Y.A. (ed.), Novoe v Arkheologii Yakutii, pp. 41–45. Yakutsk: YF SO AN SSSR. Antropova, V.V. (1949). K istorii arkheologicheskogo izucheniya Kamchatki (On the history of the archaeological study of Kamchatka). Sbornik Muzeya Antropologii i Etnografii 11: 380–394. Argunov, V.G. (1982). Istoriya izucheniya kamennogo veka Severo-Zapadnoi Yakutii (The history of the

study of the Stone Age in Northwestern Yakutia). In: Mochanov, Y.A. (ed.), Problemy Arkheologii i Perspektivy Izucheniya Drevnikh Kultur Sibiri i Dalnego Vostoka, pp. 7–9. Yakutsk: Yakutsky Gosudarstvenny Universitet. Arembovsky, I.V. (1936). Rechnoi bobr v proshlom Vostochnoi Sibiri (River beaver in the past of Eastern Siberia). Izvestiya Irkutskogo Nauchnogo Muzeya 2: 118–127. Arembovsky, I.V. (1940). Ob ostatkakh deyatelnosti bobra iz postpliotsenovykh otlozheny r. Maly Patom (On the remains of the activity of the beaver from the post-Pliocene deposits of the Maly Patom River). Sbornik Trudov Irkutskogo Gorno-Metallurgicheskogo Instituta 2: 70–73. Arembovsky, I.V., and L.N. Ivaniev (1956). Ivan Dementyevich Chersky kak pervy issledovatel paleolita (Ivan Dementievich Chersky as the first researcher of the Palaeolithic). In: Obruchev, S.V. (ed.), I.D. Cherskiy (Neopublikovannye Statyi, Pisma i Dnevniki), pp. 55–60. Irkutsk: Irkutskoe Knizhnoe Izdatelstvo. Arkhipov, N.D. (1972). Raboty Olekminskoi ekspeditsii (Works of the Olekma expedition). In: Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya 1971 Goda, pp. 258– 259. Moscow: Nauka. Arkhipov, N.D. (1973a). Istoriya Stanovleniya i Razvitiya Arkheologicheskoi Nauki v Pribaikalye (XVIII v. – 1940 g.) (The History of the Formation and Development of Archaeological Science in the Baikal Region (XVIIIth century – 1940)). Unpublished Cand. Sci. dissertation. Moscow: Institut Arkheologii AN SSSR. Arkhipov, N.D. (1973b). Istoriya Stanovleniya i Razvitiya Arkheologicheskoi Nauki v Pribaikalye (XVIII v. – 1940 g.) (The History of the Formation and Development of Archaeological Science in the Baikal Region (XVIIIth century – 1940)). Synopsis of Cand. Sci. dissertation. Moscow: Institut Arkheologii AN SSSR. Arkhipov, N.D. (1973c). Po zelenym kholmam Olekmy (Along the green hills of Olekma). Sotsialisticheskaya Yakutia, 1 April. Arkhipov, N.D. (1973d). Issledovaniya v Yuzhnoi Yakutii (Research in Southern Yakutia). In: Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya 1972 Goda, p. 198. Moscow: Nauka. Arkhipov, N.D. (1975). Issledovaniya v Yakutii (Research in Yakutia). In: Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya 1974 Goda, p. 189. Moscow: Nauka. Arseniev, V.K. (1929). Lednikovy period i pervobytnoe naselenie Vostochnoi Sibiri (The Ice Age and the prehistoric population of Eastern Siberia). Zapiski Vladivostokskogo Otdela RGO 3(2): 273–296. Arslanov, K.A., N.K. Vereshchagin, V.V. Lyadov, and V.V. Ukraintseva (1980). O khronologii karginskogo mezhlednikovya i rekonstruktsii landshaftov Sibiri po issledovaniyam trupov mamontov i ikh 99

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia arkheologicheskikh dannykh (Some issues of palaeogeography of the Urals and Northeastern Europe in the light of archaeological data). Materialy po Izucheniyu Chetvertichnogo Perioda SSSR 2: 140–149. Bader, O.N. (1956). Nekotorye problemy pervobytnoi istorii Urala (Some problems of the prehistory of the Urals). Uchenye Zapiski Molotovskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta 2(3): 45–57. Bader, O.N. (1972). Khudozhnik risoval s natury (The artist painted from nature). Priroda 8: 95–96. Bader, O.N. (1975). Paleoliticheskaya gravirovka iz Indigirskogo Zapolyarya (Palaeolithic engraving from the Indigirka Arctic). In: Okladnikov, A.P., and A.P. Derevianko (eds), Arkheologiya Severnoi i Tsentralnoi Azii, pp. 30–33. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Bader, O.N., and V.E. Flint (1977). Gravirovka na bivne mamonta s Berelekha (Engraving on a mammoth tusk from the Berelekh). In: Starobogatov, Y.I. (ed.), Mamontovaya Fauna Russkoi Ravniny i Vostochnoi Sibiri, pp. 68–71. Leningrad: Zoologichesky Institut AN SSSR. Bandi, H.-G. (1965). Urgeschichte der Eskimo. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer. Beregovaya, N.A. (1948). Drevneishie kultury Alyaski i vopros o zaselenii Ameriki (The oldest cultures of Alaska and the question of the peopling of America). Sovetskaya Etnografiya 4: 204–219. Beregovaya, N.A. (1960). Paleoliticheskie Mestonakhozhdeniya SSSR (Palaeolithic Localities of the USSR). Moscow & Leningrad: Izdatelstvo AN SSSR. Beregovaya, N.A. (1967). Drevneyshie kulturnye traditsii Amerikanskoi Arktiki i ikh svyazi s SeveroVostokom Sibiri (po raskopkam 1955–1964 gg.) (The oldest cultural traditions of the American Arctic and their connections with Northeast Siberia (according to excavations in 1955–1964)). In: Krushanov, A.I. (ed.), Istoriya i Kultura Narodov Severa Dalnego Vostoka, pp. 85–102. Moscow: Nauka. Beregovaya, N.A. (1972). Otkrytiya paleolita v SSSR (1958–1968 gg.) (Discoveries of the Palaeolithic in the USSR (1958–1968)). Materialy i Issledovaniya po Arkheologii SSSR 185: 227–243. Berezin, N.I. (1936). Spravochnik po Paleolitu SSSR (Handbook of the Palaeolithic of the USSR). Moscow & Leningrad: Izdatelstvo AN SSSR. Bernshtam, A.N. (1950). Monografiya po drevnei istorii Yakutii (Monograph on the ancient history of Yakutia). Letopis Severa 1: 296–300. Betak, J.F. (1965). The epi-Palaeolithic Siberian origins of Canadian Arctic habitation and American Indian dwellings. In: Abstracts of the VIIth INQUA Congress, USA. Denver, CO: INQUA. Biske, S. F. (1978). Chetvertichnye Otlozheniya Krainego Severo-Vostoka SSSR (Quaternary Deposits in the Far Northeast of the USSR). Novosibirsk: Nauka.

“sputnikov” (On the chronology of the Karginsk interglacial and the reconstruction of the landscapes of Siberia based on the study of the corpses of mammoths and their “companions”). In: Ivanova, I.K., and N.V. Kind (eds), Geokhronologiya Chetvertichnogo Perioda, pp. 208–213. Moscow: Nauka. Artsikhovsky, A.V. (1960). Razvitie arkheologii i etnografii (Development of archaeology and ethnography). In: Nechkina, M.V. (ed.), Ocherki Istorii Istoricheskoi Nauki v SSSR. Tom II, pp. 614–632. Moscow: Izdatelstvo AN SSSR. Arutyunov, S.A. (1976). Ot redaktora (From the editor). In: Laricheva, I.P., Paleoindeiskie Kultury Severnoi Ameriki, pp. 3–6. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Arutyunov, S.A., and D.A. Sergeev (1969). Drevnie Kultury Aziatskikh Eskimosov (Uelensky Mogilnik) (Ancient Cultures of Asian Eskimos (Uelen Burial Ground)). Moscow: Nauka. Astakhov, S.N. (1966a). O putyakh pervonachalnogo zaseleniya chelovekom doliny Yeniseya (On the ways of the initial human settlement of the Yenisei River valley). In: Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Doklady i Soobshcheniya Arkheologov SSSR na VII Mezhdunarodnom Kongresse Doistorikov i Protoistorikov, pp. 56–67. Moscow: Nauka. Astakhov, S.N. (1966b). Poseleniya Afontovoi Gory i Ikh Mesto v Paleolite Sibiri (Settlements of Afontova Gora and Their Place in the Palaeolithic of Siberia). Synopsis of Cand. Sci. dissertation. Leningrad: Institut Arkheologii AN SSSR. Astakhov, S.N. (1973). Paleolit Yeniseya i problema proiskhozhdeniya tak nazyvaemogo epigravetta Severnoi Ameriki (Palaeolithic of the Yenisei and the problem of the origin of the so-called Epigravette of North America). In: Kontrimavichus, V.L. (ed.), Beringiyskaya Susha i Ee Znachenie Dlya Razvitiya Golarkticheskikh Flor i Faun v Kainozoe, pp. 194–196. Khabarovsk: DVNTS AN SSSR. Astakhov, S.N. (1999). Paleolit Yeniseya. Paleoliticheskie Stoyanki na Afontovoi Gore v g. Krasnoyarske (The Palaeolithic of the Yenisei River. The Palaeolithic Sites at the Afontova Gora in the City of Krasnoyarsk). St.-Petersburg: Evropeisky Dom. Auerbakh, N.K. (1930). Paleoliticheskaya Stoyanka Afontova Gora III (Palaeolithic site of Afontova Gora III). Novosibirsk: Obshchestvo Izucheniya Sibiri i Ee Proizvoditelnykh Sil. Averkieva, Y.P., S.A. Arutyunov, and Y.V. Bromlei (1969). VIII Mezhdunarodny kongress antropologicheskikh i etnograficheskikh nauk (VIII International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnographic Sciences). Sovetskaya Etnografiya 1: 3–11. Azatyan, A.A., M.I. Belov, N.A. Gvozdetsky, L.G. Kamanin, E.M. Murzaev, and R.L. Yugai (1969). Istoriya Otkrytiya i Issledovaniya Severnoi Azii (History of Discovery and Exploration of Northern Asia). Moscow: Mysl. Bader, O.N. (1950). Nekotorye voprosy paleogeografii Urala i Severo-Vostochnoi Evropy v svete 100

References

Bogoras, W.G. (1934). Chukchi. Chast 1 (Chukchi. Part 1). Leningrad: Izdatelstvo Instituta Narodov Severa. Boriskovsky, P.I. (1949). Izuchenie paleolita v Sovetskom Soyuze (The study of the Palaeolithic in the Soviet Union). Vestnik Leningradskogo Universiteta 2: 75–87. Boriskovsky, P.I. (1950). Retsenziya: Istoriya Yakutii. T. 1: Proshloe Yakutii do Prisoedineniya k Russkomu Gosudarstvu (Review: History of Yakutia. Vol. 1: The Past of Yakutia before Joining the Russian State). Vestnik Leningradskogo Universiteta 2: 145–149. Boriskovsky, P.I. (1969). K izucheniyu paleolita sovetskimi arkheologami (On the study of the Palaeolithic by Soviet archaeologists). Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR 118: 7–12. Boriskovsky, P.I. (1980). Drevneishee Proshloe Chelovechestva (The Ancient Past of Mankind). Moscow: Nauka. Boriskovsky, P.I., and L.P. Khlobystin (1981). Retsenziya: N.N. Dikov. Drevneishie Kultury Severo-Vostochnoi Azii: Aziya na Styke s Amerikoi v Drevnosti (Review: N.N. Dikov. Ancient Cultures of Northeast Asia: Asia at the Junction with America in Antiquity). Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 1: 314–318. Bryan, A. (1979). Pozdnepleistotsenovye tekhnologicheskie traditsii v Severo-Vostochnoi Azii i Amerike (Late Pleistocene technological traditions in Northeast Asia and America). In: XIV Tikhookeansky Nauchny Kongress. Komitet L. Sotsialnye i Gumanitarnye Nauki. Tom 2, pp. 185–186. Moscow: VINITI. Chard, C.S. (1958). New World migration roots. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 7(1): 23–24. Chard, C.S. (1960). Routes to Bering Strait. American Antiquity 26: 283–285. Chard, C.S. (1963). The Old World roots: review and speculatations. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 10(2): 115–121. Chard, C.S. (1969). Man in Prehistory. New York: McGrawHill. Chard, C.S. (1974). Northeast Asia in Prehistory. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Chekanovsky, A.L. (1871). Kratky ocherk o rezultatakh issledovany v leto 1871 g. A. Chekanovskogo (A brief essay on the results of research in the summer of 1871 by A. Chekanovsky). Izvestiya SORGO 2(5): 16–38. Chekanovsky, A.L. (1874). Geologicheskoe Issledovanie v Irkutskoi Gubernii (Geological Research in the Irkutsk Province). Irkutsk: SORGO. Chernetsov, V.N. (1950). Retsenziya: A.P. Okladnikov. Istoriya Yakutii. T. 1 (Review: A.P. Okladnikov. History of Yakutia. Vol. 1). Sovetskaya Etnografiya 3: 214–219. Chernetsov, V.N. (1969). Opyt vydeleniya etnokulturnykh arealov v Severo-Vostochnoi Evrope i Severnoi Azii (The experience of identifying ethnocultural areas in Northeastern Europe and Northern Asia).

In: Dulzon, A.P. (ed.), Proiskhozhdenie Aborigenov Sibiri i Ikh Yazykov, pp. 112–119. Tomsk: Izdatelstvo Tomskogo Universiteta. Cherosov, N.M. (1988). Pamyatniki kamennogo veka tsentralnoi chasti Prilenskogo plato (Olekminsky raion YA ASSR) (Sites of the Stone Age in the central part of the Lena Plateau (Olekma County of the Yakut Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic)). In: Alekseev, A.N. (ed.), Arkheologiya Yakutii, pp. 54–71. Yakutsk: Izdatelstvo Yakutskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Chersky, I.D. (1872). Neskolko slov o vyrytykh v Irkutske izdeliyakh kamennogo perioda (Some words about the items of the Stone Age unearthed in Irkutsk). Izvestiya SORGO 3(3): 167–192. Chersky, I.D. (1874). Ob iskopayemykh ostatkakh severnogo olenya, vyrytykh v okrestnostyakh g. Irkutska, i sovremennoi im faune (On the fossil remains of the reindeer, unearthed in the vicinity of the city of Irkutsk, and the contemporary fauna). Izvestiya SORGO 5(2): 69–77. Chersky, I.D. (1879). Opisanie golovy sibirskogo nosoroga (Rhinoceros antiquitatis tichorinus), naydennoi v 1877 g. v Verkhoyanskom okruge c sokhranivshimisya pri nem myagkimi chastyami (Description of the head of the Siberian rhinoceros (Rhinoceros antiquitatis tichorinus), found in 1877 in the Verkhoyansk District with soft parts preserved). Izvestiya VSORGO 10(1–2): 36–59. Chersky, I.D. (1891). Opisanie Kollektsy Posletretichnykh Iskopaemykh Zhivotnykh, Sobrannykh Novo-Sibirskoi Ekspeditsiei v 1885–1886 GG. (Description of postTertiary Fossil Animals, Collected by New Siberian Expedition, 1885–1886) [Zapisky Imperatorskoi Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk, Tom LXV, Prilozhenie, Chast 1]. St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaya Rossiiskaya Akademiya Nauk. Debets, G.F. (1941). Problema zaseleniya severo-zapada Sibiri po dannym paleoantropologii (The problem of the settlement of northwestern Siberia according to palaeoanthropology data). Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Istorii Materialnoi Kultury AN SSSR 9: 14–18. Debets, G.F. (1946). Fragment lobnoi kosti cheloveka iz kulturnogo sloya stoyanki Afontova Gora II pod Krasnoyarskom (A fragment of a human frontal bone from the cultural layer of the Afontova Gora II site near Krasnoyarsk). BKICHP 8: 73–77. Demin, M.A. (1981). Istoriya Arkheologicheskogo Izucheniya Altaya (Dooktyabrsky Period) (History of the Archaeological Study of Altai (Pre-October Period). Synopsis of Cand. Sci. dissertation. Novosibirsk: Institut Istorii, Fililogii i Filosofii SO AN SSSR. Derevianko, A.P. (1964). Neolit Srednego Amura (Neolithic of the Middle Amur River). In: Okladnikov, A.P. (ed.), Materialy po Drevnei Istorii Sibiri (Maket 1-go Toma “Istoriya Sibiri”), pp. 649–657. Ulan-Ude: SO AN SSSR. 101

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia Derevianko, A.P. (1968). Kamenny vek v basseine Srednego Amura (Stone Age in the Middle Amur River basin). In: Borisov, B.L. (ed.), Voprosy Istorii Sotsialno-Ekonomicheskoi i Kulturnoi Zhizni Sibiri i Dalnego Vostoka. Vypusk 1, pp. 262–275. Novosibirsk: SO AN SSSR. Derevianko, A.P. (1970). Gromatukhinskaya kultura (The Gromatukha culture). In: Larichev, V.E. (ed.), Sibir i Ee Sosedi v Drevnosti, pp. 195–209. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Derevianko, A.P. (1973). Korrelyatsiya verkhnepaleoliticheskikh pamyatnikov Severnoi Azii (Correlation of the Upper Palaeolithic sites of Northern Asia). In: Okladnikov, A.P. (ed.), Materialy po Arkheologii Sibiri i Dalnego Vostoka. Chast 2, pp. 55– 96. Novosibirsk: SO AN SSSR. Derevianko, A.P. (1975). Kamenny Vek Severnoi, Vostochnoi i Tsentralnoi Azii (Kurs Lektsy) (Stone Age of Northern, East and Central Asia (Course of Lectures)). Novosibirsk: Novosibirsky Gosudarstvenny Universitet. Derevianko, A.P. (1983). Paleolit Dalnego Vostoka i Korei (Palaeolithic of the Far East and Korea). Novosibirsk: Nauka. Dikov, N.N. (1958a). Predvaritelny otchet o rabote arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii Chukotskogo kraevedcheskogo muzeya v 1956 godu (Preliminary report on the work of the archaeological expedition of the Chukotkan Museum of Local Lore in 1956). Zapiski Chukotskogo Oblastnogo Kraevedcheskogo Muzeya 1: 32–44. Dikov, N.N. (1958b). Predvaritelny otchet o polevykh arkheologicheskikh issledovaniyakh Chukotskogo kraevedcheskogo muzeya v 1957 godu (Preliminary report on field archaeological research of the Chukotkan Museum of Local Lore in 1957). Zapiski Chukotskogo Oblastnogo Kraevedcheskogo Muzeya 1: 45–57. Dikov, N.N. (1964a). Drevnie kultury Kamchatki (Ancient cultures of Kamchatka). In: Okladnikov, A.P. (ed.), Materialy po Drevnei Istorii Sibiri (Maket 1-go Toma “Istoriya Sibiri”), pp. 661–669. Ulan-Ude: SO AN SSSR. Dikov, N.N. (1964b). Kamenny vek Kamchatki i Chukotki v svete noveishikh arkheologicheskikh dannykh (Stone Age of Kamchatka and Chukotka in the light of the latest archaeological data). In: Dikov, N.N. (ed.), Istoriya i Kultura Narodov Severo-Vostoka SSSR, pp. 5–27. Magadan: SVKNII. Dikov, N.N. (1965a). Otkrytie paleolita na Kamchatke (Discovery of the Palaeolithic in Kamchatka). In: Vaidov, R.M. (ed.), Materialy Sessii, Posvyashchennoi Itogam Arkheologicheskikh i Etnograficheskikh Issledovany 1964 g. v SSSR, pp. 46–48. Baku: AN AzSSR. Dikov, N.N. (1965b). Otkrytiye paleolita na severovostoke Sibiri (The discovery of the Palaeolithic in northeast Siberia). In: Krushanov, A.I. (ed.), Voprosy Istorii Sovetskogo Dalnego Vostoka. Vypusk 2. Tezisy

Dokladov i Soobshcheny na IV Dalnevostochnoi Nauchnoi Konferentsii, pp. 5–6. Vladivostok: DVF SO AN SSSR. Dikov, N.N. (1967а). Otkrytie paleolita na Kamchatke i problema pervonachalnogo zaseleniya Ameriki (The discovery of the Palaeolithic in Kamchatka and the problem of the initial settlement of America). In: Krushanov, A.I. (ed.), Istoriya i Kultura Narodov Severa Dalnego Vostoka, pp. 16–31. Moscow: Nauka. Dikov, N.N. (1967b). Arkheologicheskoe izuchenie Severo-Vostoka v sovetskoe vremya (Archaeological study of the Northeast in Soviet times). In: Shilo, N.A. (ed.), Problemy Nauki na Severo-Vostoke SSSR. Ekonomicheskie i Istoricheskie Nauki, pp. 46–62. Magadan: SVKNII. Dikov, N.N. (1968a). Palaeolithic culture of Kamchatka. In: Proceeding of the VIIIth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences. Vol. 3. Tokyo: Science Council of Japan. Dikov, N.N. (1968b). The discovery of the Palaeolithic in Kamchatka and the problem of the initial occupation of America. Arctic Anthropology 5(1): 191–203. Dikov, N.N. (1969a). Drevnie Kostry Kamchatki i Chukotki (15 Tysyach Let Istorii) (Ancient Bonfires of Kamchatka and Chukotka (15 Thousand Years of History)). Magadan: Magadanskoe Knizhnoe Izdatelstvo. Dikov, N.N. (1969b). Verkhny paleolit Kamchatki (The Upper Palaeolithic of Kamchatka). Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 3: 93–103. Dikov, N.N. (1970a). Paleoliticheskoe zhilishche na kamchatskoi stoyanke Ushki IV (Palaeolithic dwelling at the Ushki IV site in Kamchatka). In: Larichev, V.E. (ed.), Sibir i Ee Sosedi v Drevnosti, pp. 34–42. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Dikov, N.N. (1970b). Paleolit Kamchatki i ego mesto v istorii (Palaeolithic of Kamchatka and its place in history). Kraevedcheskie Zapiski (Kamchatsky Oblastnoi Kraevedchesky Muzei) 2: 17–34. Dikov, N.N. (1970c). Istoriko-etnograficheskie issledovaniya na Severo-Vostoke SSSR (1955–1969 gg.) (Historical and ethnographic research in the Northeast of the USSR (1955–1969)). Sovetskaya Etnografiya 1: 169–175. Dikov, N.N. (1970d). Ot Kamchatki do Ognennoi Zemli (From Kamchatka to Tierra del Fuego). Znanie – Sila 9: 22–24. Dikov, N.N. (1970e). V Ameriku cherez Kamchatku (To America through Kamchatka). Dalny Vostok 6: 125– 131. Dikov, N.N. (1971a). Drevnie Kultury Kamchatki i Chukotki (Ancient Cultures of Kamchatka and Chukotka). Unpublished Dr. Sci. dissertation. Novosibirsk: Institut Istorii, Filologii i Filosofii SO AN SSSR. Dikov, N.N. (1971b). Drevnie Kultury Kamchatki i Chukotki (Ancient Cultures of Kamchatka and Chukotka). Synopsis of Dr. Sci. dissertation. Novosibirsk: Institut Istorii, Filologii i Filosofii SO AN SSSR. 102

References

Dikov, N.N. (1973a). Paleolit na krainem severovostoke Azii (Palaeolithic in the Far Northeast of Asia). In: Krushanov, A.I. (ed.), Istoriya, Arkheologiya i Etnografiya Narodov Dalnego Vostoka, Vypusk 1, pp. 137–139. Vladivostok: DVNTS AN SSSR. Dikov, N.N. (1973b). Drevneyshee istoricheskoe proshloe Kamchatki (periody paleolita – rannego srednevekovya) (The most ancient historical past of Kamchatka (Palaeolithic – early Middle Ages)). Kraevedcheskie Zapiski (Kamchatsky Oblastnoi Kraevedchesky Muzei) 4: 122–133. Dikov, N.N. (1973c). Osnovnye kontury etnicheskoi istorii Severo-Vostochnoi Sibiri v svete arkheologicheskikh dannykh (The main contours of the ethnic history of Northeastern Siberia in the light of archaeological data). In: Derevianko, A.P. (ed.), Problemy Etnogeneza Narodov Sibiri i Dalnego Vostoka, pp. 31–33. Novosibirsk: SO AN SSSR. Dikov, N.N. (1973d). Paleoliticheskie i drevneishie neoliticheskie sledy cheloveka na Chukotke (Palaeolithic and the earliest Neolithic traces of humans in Chukotka). In: Izuchai Svoi Krai (Nekotorye Voprosy Shkolnogo Kraevedeniya), pp. 5–12. Magadan: Magadanskoe Knizhnoe Izdatelstvo. Dikov, N.N. (1974a). Chukotka v kamennom veke (Chukotka in the Stone Age). In: Dikov, N.N. (ed.), Ocherki Istorii Chukotki s Drevneishikh Vremen do Nashikh Dnei, pp. 18–45. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Dikov, N.N. (1974b). Issledovaniya v zone zatopleniya Kolymskoi GES (Research in the flood zone of the Kolyma hydroelectric power station). In: Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya 1973 Goda, pp. 197–198. Moscow: Nauka. Dikov, N.N. (1974c). Drevnyaya etnicheskaya istoriya Kamchatki i prilegayushchikh oblastei severa Dalnego Vostoka po arkheologicheskim dannym (Ancient ethnic history of Kamchatka and adjacent regions of the northern Far East according to archaeological data). Kraevedcheskie Zapiski (Kamchatsky Oblastnoi Kraevedchesky Muzei) 5: 157– 162. Dikov, N.N. (1975a). Issledovaniya paleolita na Kamchatke (Studies of the Palaeolithic in Kamchatka). In: Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya 1974 Goda, p. 200. Moscow: Nauka. Dikov, N.N. (1975b). Osnovnye problemy arkheologicheskogo izucheniya Severo-Vostoka SSSR (The main problems of the archaeological study of the Northeastern USSR). Voprosy Istorii 10: 43–52. Dikov, N.N. (1975c). Ancestors of Palaeoindians and proto-Eskimo-Aleuts in Kamchatka’s Palaeolithic. In: Abstracts of the XIIth Pacific Science Congress. Vancouver: Pacific Science Congress. Dikov, N.N. (1976a). Issledovaniya rannikh pamyatnikov kamennogo veka v basseine r. Kolymy i na Kamchatke (Studies of early Stone Age monuments

in the basin of the Kolyma River and in Kamchatka). In: Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya 1975 Goda, p. 233. Moscow: Nauka. Dikov, N.N. (1976b). Noveyshie issledovaniya paleolita na Kolyme i Kamchatke i problema pervonachalnogo zaseleniya Amerikanskogo kontinenta (The latest research on the Palaeolithic in the Kolyma River and Kamchatka and the problem of the initial settlement of the American continent). In: Dikov, N.N. (ed.), Ekonomicheskie i Istoricheskie Issledovaniya na SeveroVostoke SSSR, pp. 165–182. Magadan: SVKNII. Dikov, N.N. (1977a). Arkheologicheskie Pamyatniki Kamchatki, Chukotki i Verkhnei Kolymy. Aziya na Styke s Amerikoi v Drevnosti (Archaeological sites of Kamchatka, Chukotka and the Upper Kolyma River. Asia at the Junction with America in Antiquity). Moscow: Nauka. Dikov, N.N. (1977b). K probleme “mezolita” na Kamchatke (To the problem of the “Mesolithic” in Kamchatka). Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR 149: 120–124. Dikov, N.N. (1977c). Novye arkheologicheskie dannye po etnicheskoi istorii Severo-Vostochnoi Sibiri (New archaeological data on the ethnic history of Northeastern Siberia). In: Chlenova, N.L. (ed.), Problemy Arkheologii Evrazii i Severnoi Ameriki, pp. 50– 59. Moscow: Nauka. Dikov, N.N. (1978a). Issledovaniya na Chukotke i Kamchatke (Research in Chukotka and Kamchatka). In: Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya 1977 Goda, p. 215. Moscow: Nauka. Dikov, N.N. (1978b). Ancestors of Paleo-Indians and Proto-Eskimo-Aleuts in the Palaeolithic of Kamchatka. In: Bryan, A.L. (ed.), Early Man in America from a Circum-Pacific Perspective, pp. 68–69. Edmonton: Archaeological Researches International. Dikov, N.N. (1979a). Zakhoronenie domashnei sobaki v zhilishche pozdnepaleoliticheskoi stoyanki Ushki I na Kamchatke (Burial of a domestic dog in a dwelling of the Late Palaeolithic site of Ushki I in Kamchatka). In: Dikov, N.N. (ed.), Novye Arkheologicheskie Pamyatniki Severa Dalnego Vostoka, pp. 12–17. Magadan: SVKNII. Dikov, N.N. (1979b). Issledovanie kamchatskoi verkhnepaleoliticheskoi stoyanki Ushki I (Study of the Kamchatkan Upper Palaeolithic site of Ushki I). In: Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya 1978 Goda, pp. 220–221. Moscow: Nauka. Dikov, N.N. (1979c). Kulturnye svyazi mezhdu Severo-Vostochnoi Aziei i Amerikoi po dannym pozdnepleistotsenovykh i rannegolotsenovykh stoyanok Kamchatki, Chukotki i Verkhnei Kolymy (Cultural links between Northeast Asia and America according to the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene sites of Kamchatka, Chukotka and the Upper Kolyma River). In: XIV Tikhookeansky Nauchny 103

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia Kongress. Komitet L. Sotsialnye i Gumanitarnye Nauki. Tom 2, pp. 190–192. Moscow: VINITI. Dikov, N.N. (1979d). Drevnie Kultury Severo-Vostochnoi Azii. Aziya na Styke s Amerikoi v Drevnosti (Ancient Cultures of Northeast Asia. Asia at the Junction with America in Antiquity). Moscow: Nauka. Dikov, N.N. (1980a). Issledovaniya na Chukotke i Kamchatke (Research in Chukotka and Kamchatka). In: Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya 1979 Goda, pp. 200–202. Moscow: Nauka. Dikov, N.N. (1980b). Pervye paleoliticheskie pamyatniki na Chukotskom poluostrove (stoyanki na rr. Chelkun i Kurupke) (The first Palaeolithic sites in the Chukotka Peninsula (sites on the Chelkun and Kurupka rivers)). In: Shilo, N.A. (ed.), Noveishie Dannye po Arkheologii Severa Dalnego Vostoka, pp. 5–23. Magadan: SVKNII. Dikov, N.N., T.D. Davidovich, A.V. Lozhkin, and E.E. Titov (1976). Kompleksnoe issledovanie mnogosloinoi paleoliticheskoi stoyanki Ushki V na Kamchatke (Multidisciplinary study of the multilayered Palaeolithic site of Ushki V in Kamchatka). In: Lozhkin, A.V. (ed.), Prirodnye Resursy Severo-Vostoka SSSR, pp. 116–131. Vladivostok: DVNTS AN SSSR. Dikov, N.N., and T.M. Dikova (1972). Issledovaniya na Kolyme i Kamchatke (Research in Kolyma and Kamchatka). In: Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya 1971 Goda, p. 252. Moscow: Nauka. Dikov, N.N., and T.M. Dikova (1973). Pamyatniki kamennogo veka na Kamchatke, Kolyme i Chukotke (Sites of the Stone Age in Kamchatka, Kolyma River and Chukotka). In: Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya 1972 Goda, pp. 210–211. Moscow: Nauka. Dikov, N.N., and T.M. Dikova (1975a). Arkheologicheskie issledovaniya v zone zatopleniya vodokhranilishchem Kolymskoi GES v 1971– 1973 godakh (kratkie predvaritelnye dannye) (Archaeological research in the zone of flooding by the reservoir of the Kolyma hydroelectric power station in 1971–1973 (brief preliminary data)). Kraevedcheskie Zapiski (Magadansky Oblastnoi Kraevedchesky Muzei) 10: 63–70. Dikov, N.N., and T.M. Dikova (1975b). Issledovaniya na Kolyme (Research on the Kolyma River). Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya 1974 Goda, pp. 200–201. Moscow: Nauka. Dikov, N.N., and V.I. Gerasimchuk (1971). Sledy verkhnego paleolita u ruchya Shilo v basseine Kolymy (Traces of the Upper Palaeolithic at Shilo Creek in the Kolyma River basin). In: Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya 1970 Goda, pp. 200– 201. Moscow: Nauka. Dikov, N.N., and G.I. Kazinskaya (1980). Sledy kamennogo veka na r. Kurupke (Chukotsky poluostrov) (Traces of the Stone Age on the Kurupka River (Chukchi Peninsula)). In: Shilo, N.A. (ed.), Noveishie Dannye

po Arkheologii Severa Dalnego Vostoka, pp. 24–29. Magadan: SVKNII. Dikov, N.N., and M.A. Kiryak (1982). Otkrytie pervykh mezoliticheskikh i neoliticheskikh pamyatnikov na zapade Chukotki (Discovery of the first Mesolithic and Neolithic sites in western Chukotka). Kraevedcheskie Zapiski (Magadansky Oblastnoi Kraevedchesky Muzei) 12: 115–124. Dikov, N.N., and Y.A. Kolyasnikov (1979). Pervye vnutrikontinentalnye stoyanki paleolita i neolita na yuge Chukotki (rr. Inaskvaam i Linliretvaam) (The first inland Palaeolithic and Neolithic sites in the southern Chukotka (Inaskvaam and Linliretvaam rivers)). In: Dikov, N.N. (ed.), Novye Arkheologicheskie Pamyatniki Severa Dalnego Vostoka, pp. 20–28. Magadan: SVKNII. Dikov, N.N., and N.E. Savva (1980). Novaya vnutrikontinentalnaya stoyanka kamennogo veka v Severnom Priokhotye (u istoka ruch. Urtychuk) (New intracontinental site of the Stone Age in the northern Okhotsk Sea region (at the source of the Urtychuk Creek)). In: Shilo, N.A. (ed.), Noveishie Dannye po Arkheologii Severa Dalnego Vostoka, pp. 64– 68. Magadan: SVKNII. Dikov, N.N., and E.E. Titov (1976). Novaya mnogosloinaya paleoliticheskaya stoyanka Ushki V na Kamchatke (New multilayered Palaeolithic site of Ushki V in Kamchatka). In: Andreeva, Z.V. (ed.), Noveishie Arkheologicheskie Issledovaniya na Dalnem Vostoke SSSR, pp. 5–13. Vladivostok: DVNTS AN SSSR. Dikov, N.N., and E.E. Titov (1984). Problems of the stratification and periodization of the Ushki sites. Arctic Anthropology 21(2): 69–80. Dikova, T.M. (1974). Raboty Yuzhno-Kamchatskogo otryada (Works of the South Kamchatkan team). In: Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya 1973 Goda, pp. 198–199. Moscow: Nauka. Dikova, T.M. (1976a). Predvaritelnye rezultaty arkheologicheskikh issledovany na Yuzhnoi Kamchatke (Preliminary results of archaeological research in southern Kamchatka). In: Dikov, N.N. (ed.), Ekonomicheskie i Istoricheskie Issledovaniya na Severo-Vostoke SSSR, pp. 194–208. Magadan: SVKNII. Dikova, T.M. (1976b). Pervobytny stroi na territorii nashego kraya (Primitive social system in the territory of our region). In: Dikov, N.N. (ed.), Istoriya Magadanskoi Oblasti s Drevneishikh Vremen do Kontsa XIX Veka, pp. 5–23. Magadan: Magadanskoe Knizhnoe Izdatelstvo. Dikova, T.M. (1979a). Pervye nakhodki paleolita na yuge Kamchatki (m. Lopatka) (The first finds of the Palaeolithic in the southern Kamchatka (Cape Lopatka)). In: Dikov, N.N. (ed.), Novye Arkheologicheskie Pamyatniki Severa Dalnego Vostoka, pp. 29–38. Magadan: SVKNII. Dikova, T.M. (1979b). Vzaimosvyazi mezhdu yuzhnokamchatskim i amerikanskim paleolitom 104

References

(Relationships between the South Kamchatkan and American Palaeolithic). In: XIV Tikhookeansky Nauchny Kongress. Komitet L. Sotsialnye i Gumanitarnye Nauki. Tom 2, p. 193. Moscow: VINITI. Dixon, E.J. (1973). Arkheologicheskaya ploshchadka Galakher-Flint – stoyanka drevnego cheloveka na severnom sklone khrebta Bruksa, Arkticheskaya Alyaska (The archaeological site of Gallagher Flint – an ancient human settlement on the northern slope of the Brooks Range, Arctic Alaska). In: Kontrimavichus, V.L. (ed.), Beringiyskaya Susha i Ee Znachenie Dlya Razvitiya Golarkticheskikh Flor i Faun v Kainozoe, pp. 137–141. Khabarovsk: DVNTS AN SSSR. Dolitsky, A.B. (1985). Siberian Palaeolithic archaeology: approaches and analytic methods. Current Anthropology 26: 361–378. Dolukhanov, P.M. (1979). Geografiya Kamennogo Veka (Geography of the Stone Age). Moscow: Nauka. Drevnie kostry poberezhya (1970). Magadanskaya Pravda, 15 November. Efimenko, P.P. (1928). Nekotorye itogi izucheniya paleolita SSSR (Some results of the study of the Palaeolithic in the USSR). Chelovek 1: 45–59. Efimenko, P.P. (1931). Paleolit SSSR. Itogi i perspektivy ego izucheniya (Palaeolithic of the USSR. Results and prospects of its study). Soobshcheniya GAIMK 3: 7–9. Efimenko, P.P. (1934). Dorodovoe Obshchestvo (Pre-Clan Society). Moscow & Leningrad: Sotzekgiz. Efimenko, P.P. (1936). Nekotorye itogi izucheniya iskopaemogo cheloveka v SSSR (1932–1935 gg.) (Some results of the study of fossil humans in the USSR (1932–1935)). Materialy po Chetvertichnomu Periodu SSSR 1: 111–120. Efimenko, P.P. (1950). Sovremennoe sostoyanie sovetskoi nauki ob iskopaemom cheloveke (The current state of the Soviet science about fossil humans). Materialy po Chetvertichnomu Periodu SSSR 2: 81–87. Efimenko, P.P., and N.A. Beregovaya (1941). Paleoliticheskie mestonakhozhdeniya SSSR (Palaeolithic localities of the USSR). Materialy i Issledovaniya po Arkheologii SSSR 2: 254–291. Egorov, O.V. (1969). Ostatki fauny iz mnogosloinoi stoyanki Belkachi I (Remains of fauna from the multilayered site of Belkachi I). In: Mochanov, Y.A. Mnogosloinaya Stoyanka Belkachi I i Periodizatsiya Kamennogo Veka Yakutii, pp. 202–204. Moscow: Nauka. Ermolaev, M.M. (1932). Geologichesky i geomorfologichesky ocherk ostrova Bolshogo Lyakhovskogo (Geological and geomorphological outline of Bolshoi Lyakhovsky Island). In: Vize, V.Y. (ed.), Polyarnaya Geofizicheskaya Stantsiya na Ostrove Bolshom Lyakhovskom. Organizatsiya i Rabota Stantsii v 1927–1930 GG., pp. 147–229. Leningrad: AN SSSR. Ermolaev, M.M. (1933). Geologiya i poleznye iskopaemye Novosibirskogo arkhipelaga (Geology and mineral

resources of the New Siberia archipelago). In: Trudy Soveta po Izucheniyu Proizvoditelnykh Sil AN SSSR. Yakutskaya ASSR, Vypusk 2. Geologiya i Poleznye Iskopaemye, pp. 157–182. Leningrad: AN SSSR. Fainberg, L.A. (1986). Rannepervobytnaya obshchina okhotnikov, sobiratelei, rybolovov (Early primitive community of hunters, gatherers, and fishers). In: Bromlei, Y.V., and A.I. Pershits (eds), Istoriya Pervobytnogo Obshchestva. Epokha Pervobytnoi Rodovoi Obshchiny, pp. 130–235. Moscow: Nauka. Fedoseeva, S.A. (1961). Rezultaty pervoi arkheologicheskoi razvedki na Vilyuye (Results of the first archaeological survey on the Vilyui River). In: Materialy Pervoi Nauchnoi Konferentsii Molodykh Spetsialistov (Sektsiya Gumanitarnykh Nauk), pp. 8–12. Yakutsk: YF SO AN SSSR. Fedoseeva, S.A. (1968). Drevnie Kultury Verkhnego Vilyuya (Ancient Cultures of the Upper Vilyui River). Moscow: Nauka. Fedoseeva, S.A. (1970). Osnovnye etapy istorii Vilyuya v svete novykh arkheologicheskikh otkryty (The main stages of the history of the Vilyui River basin in the light of new archaeological discoveries). In: Mochanov, Y.A., and F.G. Safronov (eds), Po Sledam Drevnikh Kultur Yakutii, pp. 65–72. Yakutsk: Yakutskoe Knizhnoe Izdatelstvo. Fedoseeva, S.A. (1971). Arkheologicheskoe izuchenie Yakutii za 50 let (Archaeological study of Yakutia for 50 years). In: Safronov, F.G., and S.F. Mukhamedyarov (eds), Voprosy Istoriografii i Istochnikovedeniya Yakutii, pp. 18–32. Yakutsk: Yakutskoe Knizhnoe Izdatelstvo. Fedoseeva, S.A. (1972). Novye dannye o stoyanke UstChirkuo na Verkhnem Vilyuye i Burulgino na Nizhnei Indigirke (New data on the Ust-Chirkuo site on the upper Vilyui River and Burulgino on the lower Indigirka River). In: Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya 1971 Goda, pp. 260–261. Moscow: Nauka. Fedoseeva, S.A. (1975). Drevnie kultury doliny Mai (Ancient cultures of the Maya River valley). In: Mochanov, Y.A. (ed.), Yakutiya i Ee Sosedi v Drevnosti, pp. 53–78. Yakutsk: YF SO AN SSSR. Fedoseeva, S.A. (1976). Raskopki mnogosloinoi stoyanki Ust-Chirkuo na Vilyuye (Excavations of the multilayered site Ust-Chirkuo on the Vilyui River). In: Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya 1975 Goda, pp. 285–286. Moscow: Nauka. Fedoseeva, S.A. (1977). Rabota Vilyuyskogo otryada Prilenskoi ekspeditsii (The work of the Vilyui team of the Prilenskaya expedition). In: Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya 1976 Goda, p. 248. Moscow: Nauka. Fedoseeva, S.A. (1980). Ymyyakhtakhskaya Kultura Severo-Vostochnoi Azii (The Ymyyakhtakh Culture of Northeast Asia). Novosibirsk: Nauka. Feofilaktov, K.M. (1878). O mestonakhozhdenii kremnevykh orudy cheloveka vmeste s kostyami 105

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia mamonta v s. Gontsakh na r. Udae Lubenskogo u. Poltavskoi gub. (On the location of human flint tools along with mammoth bones in the Gontsy Village on the Udai River, Lubny County of Poltava Province). In: Trudy III Arkheologicheskogo Syezda v Kieve, Tom I: 153–159. Filippova, Z.I. (1978). Novye arkheologicheskie pamyatniki reki Amga (New archaeological sites on the Amga River). In: Arkheologiya i Etnografiya Vostochnoi Sibiri, pp. 61–63. Irkutsk: Irkutsky Gosudarsvenny Universitet. Flint, R.F. (1963). Ledniki i Paleogeografiya Pleistotsena (Glaciers and Palaeogeography of the Pleistocene). Moscow: Izdatelstvo Inostrannoi Literatury. Flint, V.Y. (1972). Unikalnaya nakhodka v Berelekhe. Drevnost ili sovremennost? (A unique find in Berelekh. Antiquity or modernity?). Priroda 8: 94–96. Formozov, A.A. (1955). O vremeni vozniknoveniya razlichy mezhdu severnymi i yuzhnymi kulturami kamennogo veka Russkoi ravniny (About the time of occurrence of differences between the northern and southern cultures of the Stone Age in the Russian Plain). Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Istorii Materialnoi Kultury AN SSSR 59: 3–10. Formozov, A.A. (1959). Etnokulturnye Oblasti na Territorii Evropeiskoi Chasti SSSR v Kamennom Veke (Ethnocultural Regions on the Territory of the European Part of the USSR in the Stone Age). Moscow: Izdatelstvo AN SSSR. Formozov, A.A. (1970). O termine “mezolit” i ego ekvivalentakh (About the term “Mesolithic” and its equivalents). Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 3: 6–11. Formozov, A.A. (1975). Nekotorye itogi i zadachi issledovany v oblasti istorii arkheologii (Some results and tasks of research in the field of the history of archaeology). Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 4: 5–13. Genning, V.F. (1969). Issledovanie kompleksa pamyatnikov u derevni Chernoozerye na Irtyshe (Study of the complex of monuments near the village of Chernoozerye on the Irtysh River)). In: Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya 1968 Goda, pp. 198–200. Moscow: Nauka. Gerasimov, M.M. (1931). Malta – Paleoliticheskaya Stoyanka (Malta – the Palaeolithic Site). Irkutsk: Irkutsky Kraevoi Muzei. Gerasimov, M.M. (1935). Raskopki paleoliticheskoi stoyanki v sele Malte (Excavations of a Palaeolithic site at the village of Malta). Izvestiya GAIMK 118: 73– 124. Grigoryev, G.P. (1968). Nachalo Verkhnego Paleolita i Proiskhozhdenie Homo sapiens (The Beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic and the Origin of Homo sapiens). Leningrad: Nauka. Grigoryev, G.P. (1969). Pervobytnoe obshchestvo i ego kultura v mustye i nachale pozdnego paleolita (Prehistoric society and its culture in the Mousterian

and early Late Palaeolithic). In: Gerasimov, I.P. (ed.), Priroda i Razvitie Pervobytnogo Obshchestva, pp. 196– 216. Moscow: Nauka. Grigoryev, N.F. (1957). Nakhodki mamonta (Mammoth finds). Priroda 5: 104–106. Grishin, Y.S., and G.N. Matyushin (1978). Retsenziya: Yakutia i Ee Sosedi v Drevnosti (Review: Yakutia and its Neighbours in Antiquity). Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 1: 281–286. Gromov, V.I. (1933). Ostatki fauny iz kulturnykh sloev s r. Aldan (The remains of the fauna from the cultural layers of the Aldan River). Problemy Istorii Materialnoi Kultury 1–2: 14–15. Gromov, V.I. (1936). Itogi izucheniya chetvertichnykh mlekopitayushchikh i cheloveka na territorii SSSR (Results of the study of Quaternary mammals and humans on the territory of the USSR). Materialy po Chetvertichnomu Periodu SSSR 1: 90–110. Gromov, V.I. (1940). Novaya nakhodka paleoliticheskogo cheloveka na Afontovoi Gore II v 1937 g. (New discovery of a Palaeolithic human at Afontova Gora II in 1937). BKICHP 6–7: 121. Gromov, V.I. (1948). Paleontologicheskoe i Arkheologicheskoe Obosnovanie Stratigrafii Kontinentalnykh Otlozheny Chetvertichnogo Perioda na Territorii SSSR (Mlekopitayushchie, Paleolit) (Palaeontological and Archaeological Substantiation of the Stratigraphy of Continental Deposits from the Quaternary Period on the Territory of the USSR (Mammals, Palaeolithic)). Moscow: Izdatelstvo AN SSSR. Gromov, V.I. (1950). Geologichesky vozrast paleolita na territorii SSSR (Geological age of the Palaeolithic in the USSR). Materialy po Chetvertichnomu Periodu SSSR 2: 90–106. Gromov, V.I. (1972). S natury, no ne s zhivoy! (From nature, but not from the living!). Priroda 9: 126. Gromov, V.I. (1974). Poiskovye kriterii i prognozy v arkheologii (Criteria for search and forecast in archaeology). In: Gerasimov, I.P. (ed.), Pervobytny Chelovek, Ego Materialnaya Kultura i Prirodnaya Sreda v Pleistotsene i Golotsene, pp. 25–28. Moscow: Institut Geografii AN SSSR. Gurvich, I.S. (1975). Izuchenie etnogeneza narodov Severa v sovetsky period (sostoyanie problemy, zadachi i perspektivy) (Study of the ethnogenesis of the peoples of the North in the Soviet period (state of the problem, tasks and prospects)). In: Gurvich, I.S. (ed.), Etnogenez i Etnicheskaya Istoriya Narodov Severa, pp. 5–42. Moscow: Nauka. Guslitser, B.I., and V.I. Kanivets (1965a). Peshchery Pechorskogo Urala (Caves of the Pechora Urals). Moscow & Leningrad: Nauka. Guslitser, B.I., and V.I. Kanivets (1965b). Paleoliticheskie stoyanki na Pechore (Palaeolithic sites on the Pechora River). In: Bader, O.N. (ed.), Stratigrafiya i Periodizatsiya Paleolita Vostochnoi i Tsentralnoi Evropy, pp. 86–103. Moscow: Nauka. 106

References

Arkheologiya, Etnografiya, Istochnikovedenie, pp. 38–39. Irkutsk: Izdatelsvo Irkutskogo Universiteta. Kashin, V.A. (1982). K istoriografii paleolita Yakutii (On the historiography of the Palaeolithic of Yakutia). In: Konopatsky, A.K., and Y.S. Khudyakov (eds), Arkheologiya Severnoi Azii, pp. 48–54. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Kashin, V.A. (1983a). Stoyanka Yubileiny i ee mesto v kulture kamennogo veka Yakutii (The Yubileiny site and its place in the culture of the Stone Age of Yakutia). In: Vasil’evsky, R.S. (ed.), Pozdnepleistotsenovye i Rannegolotsenovye Kulturnye Svyazi Azii i Ameriki, pp. 93–102. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Kashin, V.A. (1983b). Istoriya i nekotorye itogi izucheniya geologii paleolita Yakutii (History and some results of study of the Palaeolithic geology in Yakutia). In: Vasil’evsky, R.S. (ed.), Paleolit Sibiri, pp. 111–123. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Kashin, V.A. (2003). Paleolit Severo-Vostochnoi Azii: Istoriya i Itogi Issledovany. 1940–1980 GG. (The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia: History and Results of Research in 1940–1980). Novosibirsk: Nauka. Khlobystin, L.P. (1969). Raskopki na Taimyre (Excavations in Taimyr Peninsula). In: Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya 1968 Goda, pp. 217– 218. Moscow: Nauka. Khlobystin, L.P. (1970). Novye pamyatniki basseina rek Anabara i Oleneka (New sites in the basins of the Anabar and Olenek rivers). In: Larichev, V.E. (ed.), Sibir i Ee Sosedi v Drevnosti, pp. 174–179. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Khlobystin, L.P. (1973a). O drevnem zaselenii Arktiki (About the ancient settlement of the Arctic). Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR 136: 11–16. Khlobystin, L.P. (1973b). Drevneishie pamyatniki Zapadnogo Taimyra (The oldest sites of the western Taimyr Peninsula). Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR 137: 89–95. Khlobystin, L.P. (1981). Drevnyaya Istoriya Taimyrskogo Zapolyarya i Voprosy Formirovaniya Kultur Severa Evrazii (The Ancient History of the Taimyr Arctic and the Issues on Formation of Cultures in Northern Eurasia). Unpublished D. Sc. dissertation: Leningrad: Institut Arkheologii AN SSSR. Khlobystin, L.P. (1998). Drevnaya Istoriya Taimyrskogo Zapolyarya i Voprosy Formirovaniya Kultur Severa Evrazii (Ancient History of Taimyr and the Formation of the North Eurasian Cultures). St. Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin. Kind, N.V. (1974). Geokhronologiya Pozdnego Antropogena po Izotopnym Dannym (Geochronology of the Late Anthropogene Based on Isotopic Data). Moscow: Nauka. Kirillov, I.V. (1975). Tanga – novaya pozdnepaleoliticheskaya stoyanka v Vostochnom Zabaikalye (Tanga – a new Late Palaeolithic site in Eastern Transbaikalia). In: Okladnikov, A.P., and A.P.

Gvozdover, M.D. (1981). Arkheologicheskaya kharakteristika verkhnego paleolita (Archaeological characteristics of the Upper Palaeolithic). In: Lazukov, G.I. (ed.), Priroda i Drevny Chelovek, pp. 136– 147. Moscow: Mysl. Gvozdover, M.D., and G.I. Lazukov (1981). Geologogeomorfologicheskaya i arkheologicheskaya kharakteristika pamyatnikov verkhnego paleolita (Geological-geomorphological and archaeological characteristics of Upper Palaeolithic sites). In: Lazukov, G.I. (ed.), Priroda i Drevny Chelovek, pp. 158– 203. Moscow: Mysl. Haynes, C.V. (1973). Okhotniki na mamontov na territorii SSHA i SSSR (Mammoth hunters on the territories of the USA and the USSR). In: Kontrimavichus, V.L. (ed.), Beringiyskaya Susha i Ee Znachenie Dlya Razvitiya Golarkticheskikh Flor i Faun v Kainozoe, pp. 191–193. Khabarovsk: DVNTS AN SSSR. Haynes, C.V. (1976). Okhotniki na mamontov v SSHA i SSSR (Mammoth hunters in the USA and the USSR). In: Kontrimavichus, V.L. (ed.), Beringiya v Kainozoe, pp. 427–438. Vladivostok: DVNTS AN SSSR. Hopkins, D.M. (1959). Genozoic history of the Bering Land Bridge. Science 129: 1519–1528. Hopkins, D.M. (1967).The Genozoic history of Beringia: A synthesis. In: Hopkins, D.M. (ed.), The Bering Land Bridge, pp. 451–484. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Hopkins, D.M. (1985). Comments on Dolitsky, А.В., Siberian Palaeolithic archaeology: approaches and analytic methods. Current Anthropology 26: 371–372. Illarionov, V.T. (1940). Mamont (Mammoth). Gorky: Gorkovsky Gosudarstvenny Pedagogichesky Institut. Ivanov, V.N. (1978). Russkie Uchenye o Narodakh SeveroVostoka Azii (Russian Scientists about the Peoples of Northeast Asia). Yakutsk: Yakutskoe Knizhnoe Izdatelstvo. Ivanova, I.K. (1969). Geologicheskie usloviya nakhozhdeniya paleolita na territorii SSSR (Geological conditions of the presence of the Palaeolithic in the territory of the USSR). Byulleten Moskovskogo Obshchestva Ispytatelei Prirody. Otdel Geologichesky 74(3): 18–41. Jochelson, W. (1928). Archaeological Investigations in Kamchatka. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institute of Washington. Kaminsky, F.I. (1878). Sledy drevneishei epokhi kamennogo veka po r. Sule i ee pritokam (Traces of the most ancient epoch of the Stone Age along the Sula River and its tributaries). In: Trudy III Arkheologicheskogo Syezda v Kieve, Tom I: 147–152. Kashin, V.A. (1979). Pervye arkheologicheskie razvedki v Yuzhnom Verkhoyanye (Vostochnaya Yakutia) (The first archaeological surveys in the southern Verkhoyansk region (Eastern Yakutia)). In: 107

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia In: Konovalov, P.B. (ed.), Po Sledam Drevnikh Kultur Zabaikalya, pp. 26–45. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Kostyukevich, V.V., I.E. Ivanov, and S.A. Nesterenko (1980). Spisok radiouglerodnykh dat laboratorii geokhimii Instituta merzlotovedeniya SO AN SSSR (List of radiocarbon dates of the Laboratory of Geochemistry, Permafrost Institute, Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences). BKICHP 50: 193–196. Kozlov, V.I. (1978). Novye dannye po arkheologii Priokhotya (New data on the archaeology of the Okhotsk Sea region). In: Arkheologiya i Etnografiya Vostochnoi Sibiri, pp. 65–66. Irkutsk: Irkutsky Gosudarsvenny Universitet. Kozlov, V.I. (1980a). Novye arkheologicheskie pamyatniki Srednei Amgi (New archaeological sites of the middle Amga River). In: Problemy Arkheologii i Etnografii Sibiri i Tsentralnoi Azii, p. 53. Irkutsk: Irkutsky Gosudarsvenny Universitet. Kozlov, V.I. (1980b). Novye arkheologicheskie pamyatniki Amgi (New archaeological sites of the Amga River). In: Mochanov, Y.A. (ed.), Novoe v Arkheologii Yakutii, pp. 55–61. Yakutsk: YF SO AN SSSR. Kozmin, N.M. (1898). Sledy kamennogo veka v doline r. Maly Patom (Traces of the Stone Age in the valley of the Maly Patom River). Izvestiya VSORGO 29(1): 70–79. Krasheninnikov, S.P. (1949). Opisanie Zemli Kamchatki (Description of the Land of Kamchatka). Moscow & Leningrad: Izdatelstvo Glavsevmorputi. Krieger, A.D. (1962). The earliest cultures in the Western United States. American Antiquity 28: 138–143. Kropotkin, P.A. (1873). Otchet ob Olekminsko–Vitimskoi Ekspeditsii (Report on the Olekma–Vitim Expedition). [Zapiski RGO po Obshchei Geografii 3]. St.-Petersburg: Tipografiya V. Bezobrazova. Kuprina, N.P. (1966). Stratigrafiya chetvertichnykh otlozheny tsentra Kamchatskoi depressii i nekotorye voprosy paleogeografii antropogena Kamchatki (Stratigraphy of Quaternary deposits in the centre of the Kamchatkan Depression and some issues of palaeogeography of the Anthropogene in Kamchatka). Izvestiya AN SSSR, Seriya Geologicheskaya 1: 125–139. Kyakshto, N.B. (1933). Kamennye veshchestvennye pamyatniki na Aldane (Stone material monuments on the Aldan River). Problemy Istorii Materialnoi Kultury 7–8: 78–79. Larichev, V.E. (1969). Paleolit Severnoi, Tsentralnoi i Vostochnoi Azii. Chast 1 (Palaeolithic of Northern, Central and East Asia. Part 1). Novosibirsk: Nauka. Larichev, V.E. (1972). Paleolit Severnoi, Tsentralnoi i Vostochnoi Azii. Chast 2 (Palaeolithic of Northern, Central and East Asia. Part 2). Novosibirsk: Nauka. Larichev, V.E. (1975). 20 000 let nazad v Sibiri (20,000 years ago in Siberia). Znanie – Sila 6: 23–25.

Derevianko (eds), Arkheologiya Severnoi i Tsentralnoi Azii, pp. 33–39. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Kirillov, I.V. (1979). Vostochnoe Zabaikalye v Drevnosti i v Srednevekovye (Eastern Transbaikalia in Antiquity and the Middle Ages). Irkutsk: Izdatelsvo Irkutskogo Universiteta. Kiryak, M.A. (1979). Pervye mezoliticheskie i neoliticheskie stoyanki Zapadnoi Chukotki (oz. Tytyl v verkhovyakh Malogo Anyuya) (The first Mesolithic and Neolithic sites of Western Chukotka (Lake Tytyl in the upper reaches of the Maly Anyui River)). In: Dikov, N.N. (ed.), Novye Arkheologicheskie Pamyatniki Severa Dalnego Vostoka, pp. 39–52. Magadan: SVKNII. Kistenev, S.P. (1980). Novye arkheologicheskie pamyatniki basseina Kolymy (New archaeological sites of the Kolyma River basin). In: Mochanov, Y.A. (ed.), Novoe v Arkheologii Yakutii, pp. 74–87. Yakutsk: YF SO AN SSSR. Kistenev, S.P. (1982). Istoriya izucheniya kamennogo veka basseina Kolymy (The history of study of the Stone Age in the Kolyma River basin). In: Mochanov, Y.A. (ed.), Problemy Arkheologii i Perspektivy Izucheniya Drevnikh Kultur Sibiri i Dalnego Vostoka, pp. 17–19. Yakutsk: Yakutsky Gosudarstvenny Universitet. Konovalov, P.B., and I.I. Kirillov (1983). Sostoyanie i zadachi arkheologii Zabaikalya (The state and tasks of the archaeology of Transbaikalia). In: Konovalov, P.B. (ed.), Po Sledam Drevnikh Kultur Zabaikalya, pp. 3–26. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Konstantinov, I.V. (1970). Neoliticheskie stoyanki na Oleneke (Neolithic sites on the Olenek River). In: Mochanov, Y.A., and F.G. Safronov (eds), Po Sledam Drevnikh Kultur Yakutii, pp. 73–93. Yakutsk: Yakutskoe Knizhnoe Izdatelstvo. Konstantinov, I.V. (1975). Arkheologicheskoe izuchenie Severo-Zapadnoi Yakutii (Archaeological study of Northwestern Yakutia). In: Ivanov, V.N., and P.A. Sleptsov (eds), Byulleten Nauchno-Tekhnicheskoi Informatsii YF SO AN SSSR (Voprosy Istorii, Literatury i Yazyka), pp. 5–8. Yakutsk: YF SO AN SSSR. Konstantinov, I.V. (1980). Arkheologicheskie pamyatniki Anabara (Archaeological sites of the Anabar River). In: Mochanov, Y.A. (ed.), Novoe v Arkheologii Yakutii, pp. 35–40. Yakutsk: YF SO AN SSSR. Konstantinov, M.V. (1982a). Issledovanie paleolita Zabaikalya (Study of the Palaeolithic of Transbaikalia). In: Problemy Arkheologii i Perspektivy Izucheniya Drevnikh Kultur Sibiri i Dalnego Vostoka (Tezisy Dokladov), pp. 40–41. Yakutsk: Izdatelsvo Yakutskogo Gosudarsvennogo Universiteta. Konstantinov, M.V. (1982b). Paleolit Zapadnogo Zabaikalya (Palaeolithic of Western Transbaikalia). In: Aksenov, M.P. (ed.), Paleolit i Mezolit Yuga Sibiri, pp. 154–173. Irkutsk: Izdatelsvo Irkutskogo Universiteta. Konstantinov, M.V. (1983). Razvitie vzglyadov na paleolit Zapadnogo Zabaikalya (Development of views on the Palaeolithic of Western Transbaikalia). 108

References

Larichev, V.E. (1978). Iskusstvo verkhnepaleoliticheskogo poseleniya Malaya Syya: datirovka, vidy ego i obraztsy, ikh khudozhestvenny stil i problema interpretatsii (predvaritelnoe soobshchenie) (The art of the Upper Palaeolithic site Malaya Syya: dating, its types and samples, their artistic style and the problem of interpretation (preliminary report)). Izvestiya SO AN SSSR. Seriya Obshchestvennykh Nauk 3: 104–119. Larichev, V.E. (1980). Ot redaktora (from the editor). In: Fedoseeva, S.A., Ymyyakhtakhskaya Kultura SeveroVostochnoi Azii, pp. 3–5. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Larichev, V.E., and S.A. Fedoseeva (1964). Neolit Yakutii (The Neolithic of Yakutia). In: Okladnikov, A.P. (ed.), Materialy po Drevnei Istorii Sibiri (Maket 1-go Toma “Istoriya Sibiri”), pp. 183–193. Ulan-Ude: SO AN SSSR. Larichev, V.E., and I.P. Laricheva (1976). Paleoindeiskaya gravyura mamonta na plastine iz Delavera (Severnaya Amerika) (Palaeoindian engraving of a mammoth on a blade from Delaware (North America)). Izvestiya SO AN SSSR. Seriya Obshchestvennykh Nauk 2: 126–140. Laricheva, I.P. (1966a). Paleolit Severnoi Ameriki i problema ego svyazi s kamennym vekom Sibiri (Palaeolithic of North America and the problem of its connection with the Stone Age of Siberia). Izvestiya SO AN SSSR. Seriya Obshchestvennykh Nauk 2: 94–103. Laricheva, I.P. (1966b). Drevneishie pamyatniki kultury Severnoi Ameriki (The oldest cultural sites of North America). In: Okladnikov, A.P. (ed.), Sibirsky Arkheologichesky Sbornik, pp. 53–74. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Laricheva, I.P. (1968). Severoamerikansky paleolit (stadiya do nakonechnikov) (North American Palaeolithic (the pre-points stage)). In: Borisov, B.L. (ed.), Voprosy Istorii Sotsialno-Ekonomicheskoi i Kulturnoi Zhizni Sibiri, Vypusk 1, pp. 256–284. Novosibirsk: SO AN SSSR. Laricheva, I.P. (1969). Verkhny paleolit Novogo Sveta: dva areala kultur i dva istoka ikh proiskhozhdeniya (Upper Palaeolithic of the New World: two areas of cultures and two sources of their origin). In: Ubryatova, E.I. (ed.), Materialy Konferentsii “Etnogenez Narodov Severnoi Azii”, Vypusk 1, pp. 48–51. Novosibirsk: SO AN SSSR. Laricheva, I.P. (1970). Plastiny i reztsovaya tekhnika kultury klovis (novye cherty kamennoi industrii verkhnego paleolita Severnoi Ameriki) (Blades and burin technique of the Clovis culture (new features of the stone industry of the Upper Palaeolithic of North America)). In: Larichev, V.E. (ed.), Sibir i Ee Sosedi v Drevnosti, pp. 139–150. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Laricheva, I.P. (1975). Kultura british-mauntin – drevneishy etap kamennogo veka arkticheskikh raionov Severnoi Ameriki (The British Mountain culture – the oldest stage of the Stone Age in the Arctic regions of North America). In: Okladnikov,

A.P., and A.P. Derevianko (eds), Arkheologiya Severnoi i Tsentralnoi Azii, pp. 48–58. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Laricheva, I.P. (1976). Paleoindeiskie Kultury Severnoi Ameriki (Palaeoindian Cultures of North America). Novosibirsk: Nauka. Laricheva, I.P. (1979). K probleme proiskhozhdeniya indeitsev (kratky obzor teoriy) (On the problem of the origin of American Indians (a brief review of theories)). Izvestiya SO AN SSSR. Seriya Obshchestvennykh Nauk 1: 123–130. Lazukov, G.I. (1981). Osnovnye predstavleniya o razvitii prirody i paleoliticheskogo cheloveka na territorii SSSR (The main ideas about the development of nature and Palaeolithic humans on the territory of the USSR). In: Lazukov, G.I. (ed.), Priroda i Drevny Chelovek, pp. 8–19. Moscow: Mysl. Lebedintsev, A.I. (1989). Drevnie Primorskie Kultury SeveroZapadnogo Priokhotya (Ancient Coastal Cultures of the Northwestern Okhotsk Sea Region). Synopsis of Cand. Sci. dissertation. Leningrad: Institut Arkheologii AN SSSR. Levin, M.G. (1950). K voprosu o drevneishem zaselenii Sibiri (On the question of the most ancient settlement of Siberia). Sovetskaya Etnografiya 3: 157– 160. Levin, M.G. (1951). Drevnie poseleniya cheloveka v Severnoi Azii po dannym antropologii (Ancient human settlements in Northern Asia according to anthropological data). In: Levin, M.G. (ed.), Proiskhozhdenie Cheloveka i Drevnee Rasselenie Chelovechestva, pp. 469–496. Moscow: Izdatelstvo AN SSSR. Levin, M.G. (1958). Etnicheskaya Antropologiya i Problema Etnogeneza Narodov Dalnego Vostoka (Ethnic Anthropology and the Problem of the Ethnogenesis of the Peoples of the Far East). Moscow: Izdatelstvo AN SSSR. Lezhnenko, I.L. (1971). Stoyanki Angaro–Idinskogo raiona (“idinskiy” kompleks) (Sites of the Angara– Ida district (the “Ida” complex)). In: Medvedev, G.I. (ed.), Mezolit Verkhnego Priangarya (Pamyatniki Angaro–Belskogo i Angaro–Idinskogo Raionov). Chast 1, pp. 91–98. Irkutsk: Izdatelsvo Irkutskogo Universiteta. Lykhin, E.I. (1969). Veka i lyudi (Centuries and humans). Sotsialisticheskaya Yakutia, 7 December. Lykhin, E.I. (1970a). Kamenny vek zolotogo Aldana (The Stone Age of the golden Aldan River). Sotsialisticheskaya Yakutia, 5 December. Lykhin, E.I. (1970b). Po sledam drevnikh kultur (In the footsteps of ancient cultures). Sotsialisticheskaya Yakutia, 30 December. Lykhin, E.I. (1972). Kamenny vek Zapolyarya (The Stone Age of the Arctic). Sotsialisticheskaya Yakutia, 15 January. 109

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia Markin, S.V. (1986). Paleoliticheskie Pamyatniki Basseina Reki Tomi (The Palaeolithic Sites of the Tom River Basin). Novosibirsk: Nauka. Matyushin, G.N. (1973). Problema zaseleniya severa Azii v svyazi s otkrytiem rannego paleolita v Zauralye (The problem of settlement of northern Asia in connection with the discovery of the Early Palaeolithic in the Trans-Urals)). In: Kontrimavichus, V.L. (ed.), Beringiyskaya Susha i Ee Znachenie Dlya Razvitiya Golarkticheskikh Flor i Faun v Kainozoe, pp. 141–143. Khabarovsk: DVNTS AN SSSR. Matyushin, G.N. (1976a). Mezolit Yuzhnogo Urala (The Mesolithic of the Southern Urals). Moscow: Nauka. Matyushin, G.N. (1976b). Ranny paleolit Urala i problema zaseleniya severa Azii (Early Palaeolithic of the Urals and the problem of settlement of northern Asia). In: Kontrimavichus, V.L. (ed.), Beringiya v Kainozoe, pp. 459–466. Vladivostok: DVNTS AN SSSR. Matyushin, G.N. (1982). O “sibirskom” kharaktere paleolita Urala (On the “Siberian” appearance of the Palaeolithic in the Urals). In: Mochanov, Y.A. (ed.), Problemy Arkheologii i Perspektivy Izucheniya Drevnikh Kultur Sibiri i Dalnego Vostoka, pp. 62–64. Yakutsk: Yakutsky Gosudarstvenny Universitet. Matyushchenko, V.I. (1973). Drevnyaya Istoriya Naseleniya Lesnogo i Lesostepnogo Priobya (Neolit i Bronzovy Vek). Chast 1: Neoliticheskoe Vremya v Lesnom i Lesostepnom Priobye (Verkhneobskaya Neoliticheskaya Kultura) (Ancient History of the Population in the Forest and Forest-Steppe Ob River Region (Neolithic and Bronze Age). Part 1: Neolithic Time in the Forest and Forest-Steppe Ob River Region (Upper Ob Neolithic Culture)). Tomsk: Izdatelstvo Tomskogo Universiteta. Mazin, A.I. (1976). Paleoliticheskie naskalnye risunki v doline r. Tokko (Palaeolithic rock art in the valley of the Tokko River). In: Gubaidulin, V.M. (ed.), Sibir, Tsentralnaya i Vostochnaya Aziya v Drevnosti. Epokha Paleolita, pp. 177–181. Novosibirsk: Nauka. McBurney, C.B.M. (1976). Early Man in the Soviet Union. London: Oxford University Press. Medoev, A.G. (1979). Gravyury na Skalakh (Sary-Arka, Mangyshlak). Chast 1 (Engravings on Rocks (SaryArka, Mangyshlak). Part 1). Alma-Ata: Zhalyn Press. Medvedev, G.I. (1966). Arkheologicheskie issledovaniya mnogosloinoi paleoliticheskoi stoyanki Krasny Yar na Angare v 1964–1965 gg. (Archaeological investigations of the multilayered Palaeolithic site of Krasny Yar on the Angara River in 1964–1965). In: Shostakovich, S.V. (ed.), Otchety Arkheologicheskikh Ekspeditsiy za 1963–1965 GG., pp. 5–25. Irkutsk: Irkutsky Oblastnoi Kraevedchesky Muzei. Medvedev, G.I. (1971). K istorii issledovaniya mezolita Priangarya (On the history of the study of the Mesolithic in the Angara region). In: Medvedev, G.I. (ed.), Mezolit Verkhnego Priangarya (Pamyatniki

Angaro–Belskogo i Angaro–Idinskogo Raionov). Chast 1, pp. 7–25. Irkutsk: Izdatelsvo Irkutskogo Universiteta. Medvedev, G.I. (1980). Predislovie (Foreword). In: Aksenov, M.P. (ed.), Mezolit Verkhnego Priangarya (Pamyatniki Irkutskogo Raiona). Chast 2, pp. 7–25. Irkutsk: Izdatelsvo Irkutskogo Universiteta. Medvedev, G.I., A.M. Georgievsky, G.N. Mikhnyuk, and N.A. Saveliev (1971). Stoyanki Angaro-Belskogo raiona (“badaisky” kompleks) (Sites of the Angara– Belsk region (“Badai” complex)). In: Medvedev, G.I. (ed.), Mezolit Verkhnego Priangarya (Pamyatniki Angaro–Belskogo i Angaro–Idinskogo Raionov). Chast 1, pp. 33–90. Irkutsk: Izdatelsvo Irkutskogo Universiteta. Medvedev, G.I., G.N. Mikhnyuk, and I.L. Lezhnenko (1974). O nomenklaturnykh oboznacheniyakh i morfologii nukleusov v dokeramicheskikh kompleksakh Priangarya (On nomenclature designations and morphology of cores in pre-pottery complexes of the Angara region). In: Aksenov, M.P. (ed.), Drevnyaya Istoriya Narodov Yuga Vostochnoi Sibiri. Vypusk 1, pp. 60–90. Irkutsk: Izdatelsvo Irkutskogo Universiteta. Medvedev, G.I., G.N. Mikhnyuk, and P.E. Shmygun (1975). Mezolit yuga Vostochnoi Sibiri (Mesolithic of the south of Eastern Siberia). In: Medvedev, G.I., and V.V. Svinin (eds), Drevnyaya Istoriya Narodov Yuga Vostochnoi Sibiri. Vypusk 3, pp. 74–80. Irkutsk: Izdatelsvo Irkutskogo Universiteta. Mochanov, Y.A. (1966a). Ranny neolit Aldana (The Early Neolithic of the Aldan River). Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 2: 126–136. Mochanov, Y.A. (1966b). Paleolit Aldana (predvaritelnoe soobshchenie) (The Palaeolithic of the Aldan River (preliminary report)). In: Sbornik Nauchnykh Statei Yakutskogo Respublikanskogo Kraevedcheskogo Muzeya im. Y. Yaroslavskogo. Vypusk IV, pp. 209–221. Yakutsk: Yakutskoe Knizhnoe Izdatelstvo. Mochanov, Y.A. (1966c). Paleolit Aldana (The Palaeolithic of the Aldan River). In: Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Doklady i Soobshcheniya Arkheologov SSSR na VII Mezhdunarodnom Kongresse Doistorikov i Protoistorikov, pp. 68–71. Moscow: Nauka. Mochanov, Y.A. (1966d). Mnogosloinaya Stoyanka Belkachi I i Periodizatsiya Kamennogo Veka Yakutii (The Multilayered Site of Belkachi I and the Periodisation of the Stone Age of Yakutia). Synopsis of Can. Sci. dissertation. Moscow: Institut Arkheologii AN SSSR. Mochanov, Y.A. (1966e). Drevneishie kultury Ameriki (The oldest cultures of America). Sovetskaya Etnografiya 4: 83–99. Mochanov, Y.A. (1966f). K voprosu o nachalnykh etapakh zaseleniya Novogo Sveta (On the question of the initial stages of the New World settlement). Doklady po Etnografii Geograficheskogo Obshchestva SSSR 4: 22–60. Mochanov, Y.A. (1969a). Mnogosloinaya Stoyanka Belkachi I i Periodizatsiya Kamennogo Veka Yakutii (The 110

References

Okhotskogo morya (Studies of the Palaeolithic in Indigirka, Kolyma and the western coast of the Okhotsk Sea). In: Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya 1971 Goda, p. 251. Moscow: Nauka. Mochanov, Y.A. (1972c). Za 25 tysyach let do Kolumba (Otkrytiye v Yakutii poseleny predkov indeitsev) (25 thousand years before Columbus (Discovery of the sites of the ancestors of American Indians in Yakutia). Polyarnaya Zvezda 3: 119–126. Mochanov, Y.A. (1973a). Severo-Vostochnaya Aziya v IX–V tysyacheletiyakh do n.e. (sumnaginskaya kultura) (Northeast Asia in the 9th–5th millennia B.C. (Sumnagin culture)). In: Smirnov, A.P. (ed.), Problemy Arkheologii Urala i Sibiri, pp. 29–43. Moscow: Nauka. Mochanov, Y.A. (1973b). Drevneishie etapy zaseleniya Ameriki v svete izucheniya dyuktaiskoi kultury Severo-Vostochnoi Azii (The oldest stages of the settlement of America in the light of the study of the Dyuktai culture of Northeast Asia). In: Doklady Sovetskoy Delegatsii na IX Mezhdunarodnom Kongresse Antropologicheskikh i Etnograficheskikh Nauk (Chicago, Sentyabr 1973) (separate brochure). Moscow: Nauka. Mochanov, Y.A. (1973c). Paleolit Severnoi Evrazii i nachalnye etapy zaseleniya Ameriki chelovekom (The Palaeolithic of Northern Eurasia and the initial stages of human settlement of America). In: Kontrimavichus, V.L. (ed.), Beringiyskaya Susha i Ee Znachenie Dlya Razvitiya Golarkticheskikh Flor i Faun v Kainozoe, pp. 14–15. Khabarovsk: DVNTS AN SSSR. Mochanov, Y.A. (1973d). Chelovek i geograficheskaya sreda v paleolite i neolite Sibiri (Humans and the geographical environment in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic Siberia). In: Gerasimov, I.P. (ed.), Pervobytny Chelovek, Ego Materialnaya Kultura i Prirodnaya Sreda v Pleistotsene i Golotsene, pp. 72–73. Moscow: Institut Geografii AN SSSR. Mochanov, Y.A. (1975a). Stratigrafiya i absolyutnaya khronologiya paleolita Severo-Vostochnoi Azii (Stratigraphy and absolute chronology of the Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia). In: Mochanov, Y.A. (ed.), Yakutiya i Ee Sosedi v Drevnosti, pp. 9–30. Yakutsk: YF SO AN SSSR. Mochanov, Y.A. (1975b). Prilenskaya ekspeditsiya (The Prilenskaya expedition). In: Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya 1974 Goda, p. 224. Moscow: Nauka. Mochanov, Y.A. (1976a). Issledovaniya paleolita v Yakutii (Palaeolithic research in Yakutia). In: Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya 1975 Goda, p. 266. Moscow: Nauka. Mochanov, Y.A. (1976b). Paleolit Sibiri (nekotorye itogi izucheniya) (The Palaeolithic of Siberia (some results of the study)). In: Kontrimavichus, V.L. (ed.), Beringiya v Kainozoe, pp. 540–565. Vladivostok: DVNTS AN SSSR.

Multilayered Site of Belkachi I and the Periodisation of the Stone Age of Yakutia). Moscow: Nauka. Mochanov, Y.A. (1969b). Drevneishie etapy zaseleniya Severo-Vostochnoi Azii i Alyaski (k voprosu o pervonachalnykh migratsiyakh cheloveka v Ameriku) (The earliest stages of the settlement of Northeast Asia and Alaska (on the question of the initial human migrations to America)). Sovetskaya Etnografiya 1: 79–86. Mochanov, Y.A. (1969c). Novaya verkhnepaleoliticheskaya kultura SeveroVostochnoi Azii (New Upper Palaeolithic culture of Northeast Asia). In: Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya 1968 Goda, pp. 214–215. Moscow: Nauka. Mochanov, Y.A. (1969d). Dyuktaiskaya verkhnenaleoliticheskaya kultura i nekotorye aspekty ee genezisa (The Dyuktai Upper Palaeolithic culture and some aspects of its genesis). Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 4: 235–239. Mochanov, Y.A. (1969e). Paleolithique de l’Aldan et le probleme du peuplement de l’Amerique. In: Abstracts of the VIIIth Congress of INQUA, p. 153. Paris: INQUA. Mochanov, Y.A. (1970a). Drevneishie etapy kamennogo veka Severo-Vostochnoi Azii (The oldest stages of the Stone Age in Northeast Asia). Izvestiya VostochnoSibirskogo Otdeleniya Geograficheskogo Obshchestva SSSR 67: 60–64. Mochanov, Y.A. (1970b). Dyuktaiskaya peshchera – novy paleolitichesky pamyatnik Severo-Vostochnoi Azii (The Dyuktai Cave – a new Palaeolithic site in Northeast Asia). In: Mochanov, Y.A., and F.G. Safronov (eds), Po Sledam Drevnikh Kultur Yakutii, pp. 40–64. Yakutsk: Yakutskoe Knizhnoe Izdatelstvo. Mochanov, Y.A. (1970c). Arkheologicheskaya razvedka po reke Amguni i Chukchagirskomu ozeru (k voprosu o yugo-vostochnoi granitse areala prilenskikh kultur) (Archaeological survey along the Amgun River and Lake Chukchagir (to the question of the southeastern boundary of the area of Lena region cultures)). In: Mochanov, Y.A., and F.G. Safronov (eds), Po Sledam Drevnikh Kultur Yakutii, pp. 154–182. Yakutsk: Yakutskoe Knizhnoe Izdatelstvo. Mochanov, Y.A. (1971). Raboty Prilenskoi ekspeditsii (Works of the Lena expedition). In: Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya 1970 Goda, pp. 184– 185. Moscow: Nauka. Mochanov, Y.A. (1972a). Novye dannye o beringomorskom puti zaseleniya Ameriki (stoyanka Maiorych – pervy verkhnepaleolitichesky pamyatnik v doline Kolymy) (New data on the Bering Sea route of the peopling of America (the Maiorych – the first Upper Palaeolithic site in the Kolyma River valley)). Sovetskaya Etnografiya 2: 98–101. Mochanov, Y.A. (1972b). Issledovaniya paleolita na Indigirke, Kolyme i zapadnom poberezhye 111

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia pamyatnikov Severo-Vostochnoi Azii (Basics of correlation and synchronisation of the archaeological sites in Northeast Asia). In: Medvedev, G.I. (ed.), Drevnaya Istoriya Narodov Yuga Vostochnoi Sibiri. Vypusk 2, pp. 25–34. Irkutsk: Izdatelsvo Irkutskogo Universiteta. Mochanov, Y.A., and S.A. Fedoseeva (1975a). Periodizatsiya i absolyutnaya khronologiya arkheologicheskikh pamyatnikov Yakutii (Periodisation and absolute chronology of archaeological sites in Yakutia). In: Derevianko, A.P. (ed.), Sootnoshenie Drevnikh Kultur Sibiri s Kulturami Sopredelnykh Territory, pp. 51–59. Novosibirsk: Institut Istorii, Filologii i Filosofii SO AN SSSR. Mochanov, Y.A., and S.A. Fedoseeva (1975b). Absolyutnaya khronologiya golotsenovykh kultur Severo-Vostochnoi Azii (po materialam mnogosloinoi stoyanki Sumnagin I) (Absolute chronology of the Holocene cultures of Northeast Asia (based on the materials of the multilayered site Sumnagin I)). In: Mochanov, Y.A. (ed.), Yakutiya i Ee Sosedi v Drevnosti, pp. 38–49. Yakutsk: YF SO AN SSSR. Mochanov, Y.A., and S.A. Fedoseeva (1976). Osnovnye etapy drevnei istorii Severo-Vostochnoi Azii (The main stages of the ancient history of Northeast Asia). In: Kontrimavichus, V.L. (ed.), Beringiya v Kainozoe, pp. 515–539. Vladivostok: DVNTS AN SSSR. Mochanov, Y.A., and S.A. Fedoseeva (1980). Osnovnye itogi arkheologicheskogo izucheniya Yakutii (The main results of the archaeological study of Yakutia). In: Mochanov, Y.A. (ed.), Novoe v Arkheologii Yakutii, pp. 3–13. Yakutsk: YF SO AN SSSR. Mochanov, Y.A., and S.A. Fedoseeva (1982a). Mnogosloinaya stoyanka Ushki na Kamchatke i ee mesto v drevnei istorii Severo-Vostochnoi Azii (The multilayered site of Ushki in Kamchatka and its place in the ancient history of Northeast Asia). In: Medvedev, G.I. (ed.), Problemy Arkheologii i Etnografii Sibiri, pp. 36–38. Irkutsk: Izdatelsvo Irkutskogo Universiteta. Mochanov, Y.A., and S.A. Fedoseeva (1982b). Osnovnye etapy zaseleniya chelovekom Yakutii (The main stages of the human settlement of Yakutia). In: Spektor, V.B. (ed.), Geologiya Kainozoya Yakutii, pp. 157–167. Yakutsk: YF SO AN SSSR. Mochanov, Y.A., and S.A. Fedoseeva (1983). Vvedenie (Introduction). In: Mochanov, Y.A., S.A. Fedoseeva, A.N. Alekseev, V.I. Kozlov, N.I. Kochmar, and N.M. Shcherbakova, Arkheologicheskie Pamyatniki Yakutii. Basseiny Aldana i Olekmy, pp. 3–12. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Mochanov, Y.A., and S.A. Fedoseeva (1996a). Ust-Mil 2. In: West, F.H. (ed.), American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Palaeoecology of Beringia, pp. 174–179. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press. Mochanov, Y.A., and S.A. Fedoseeva (1996b). Ikhine 1 and 2. In: West, F.H. (ed.), American Beginnings: The

Mochanov, Y.A. (1977). Drevneishie Etapy Zaseleniya Chelovekom Severo-Vostochnoi Azii (The Earliest Stages of Settlement by People of Northeast Asia). Novosibirsk: Nauka. Mochanov, Y.A. (1978a). Stratigraphy and absolute chronology of the Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia. In: Bryan, A.L. (ed.), Early Man in America from a Circum-Pacific Perspective, pp. 54–66. Edmonton: Archaeological Researches International. Mochanov, Y.A. (1978b). The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia and the problem of the first peopling of America. In: Bryan, A.L. (ed.), Early Man in America from a Circum-Pacific Perspective, p. 67. Edmonton: Archaeological Researches International. Mochanov, Y.A. (1982a). Nachalnye etapy zaseleniya chelovekom Priokhotya, Kamchatki i Chukotki (The initial stages of human settlement in the Okhotsk Sea region, Kamchatka and Chukotka). In: Medvedev, G.I. (ed.), Problemy Arkheologii i Etnografii Sibiri, pp. 34–36. Irkutsk: Izdatelsvo Irkutskogo Universiteta. Mochanov, Y.A. (1982b). Drevneishie etapy zaseleniya chelovekom Yakutii (The oldest stages of human settlement of Yakutia). In: Mochanov, Y.A. (ed.), Problemy Arkheologii i Perspektivy Izucheniya Drevnikh Kultur Sibiri i Dalnego Vostoka, pp. 97–99. Yakutsk: Yakutsky Gosudarsvenny Universitet. Mochanov, Y.A. (1992). Nachalny etap izucheniya paleolita Severo-Vostochnoi Azii (kontseptsii A.P. Okladnikova do otkrytiya dyuktaiskoi paleoliticheskoi kultury) (The initial stage of the study of the Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia (the concept of A.P. Okladnikov before the discovery of the Dyuktai Palaeolithic culture)). In: Mochanov, Y.A. (ed.), Arkheologicheskie Issledovaniya v Yakutii, pp. 3–20. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Mochanov, Y.A., N.G. Bagynanov, and S.P. Kistenev (1978). Pervaya arkheologicheskaya razvedka v verkhovyakh Malogo Anyuya (Tsentralnaya Chukotka) (The first archaeological survey in the upper reaches of the Maly Anyui River (Central Chukotka)). In: Arkheologiya i Etnografiya Vostochnoi Sibiri, pp. 64–65. Irkutsk: Irkutsky Gosudarsvenny Universitet. Mochanov, Y.A., and S.A. Fedoseeva (1968). Paleoliticheskaya stoyanka Ikhine v Yakutii (The Palaeolithic site of Ikhine in Yakutia). Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 4: 244–248. Mochanov, Y.A., and S.A. Fedoseeva (1973). Arkheologiya Arktiki i beringomorskie etnokulturnye svyazi Starogo i Novogo Sveta v golotsene (Archaeology of the Arctic and the Bering Sea ethnocultural relations of the Old and New Worlds in the Holocene). In: Kontrimavichus, V.L. (ed.), Beringiyskaya Susha i Ee Znachenie Dlya Razvitiya Golarkticheskikh Flor i Faun v Kainozoe, pp. 196–199. Khabarovsk: DVNTS AN SSSR. Mochanov, Y.A., and S.A. Fedoseeva (1974). Osnovy korrelyatsii i sinkhronizatsii arkheologicheskikh 112

References

Prehistory and Palaeoecology of Beringia, pp. 189–195. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press. Mochanov, Y.A., and S.A. Fedoseeva (1996c). Mayorych, Yagodinskiy Region, Magadan District. In: West, F.H. (ed.), American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Palaeoecology of Beringia, p. 223. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press. Mochanov, Y.A., S.A. Fedoseeva, A.N. Alekseev, V.I. Kozlov, N.I. Kochmar, and N.M. Shcherbakova (1983). Arkheologicheskie Pamyatniki Yakutii. Basseiny Aldana i Olekmy (Archaeological Sites of Yakutia. Basins of the Aldan and Olekma Rivers). Novosibirsk: Nauka. Mochanov, Y.A., S.A. Fedoseeva, S.P. Kistenev, and V.I. Ertyukov (1980). Raboty Prilenskoi arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii (PAE) na Chukotke i v Severnom Priokhotye (Works of the Prilenskaya Archaeological Expedition (PAE) in Chukotka and the northern Okhotsk Sea region). In: Problemy Arkheologii i Etnografii Sibiri i Tsentralnoi Azii, pp. 58– 69. Irkutsk: Irkutsky Gosudarsvenny Universitet. Mochanov, Y.A., S.A. Fedoseeva, and I.V. Konstantinov (1970). Pervobytno-Obshchinny Stroi na Territorii Yakutii (The Primitive Communal System on the Territory of Yakutia). Unpublished manuscript. Yakutsk: IYaLI YF SO AN SSSR. Mochanov, Y.A., S.A. Fedoseeva, E.N. Romanova, and A.A. Sementsov (1970). Mnogosloinaya stoyanka Belkachi I i ee znachenie dlya postroeniya absolyutnoi khronologii drevnikh kultur SeveroVostochnoi Azii (The multilayered site of Belkachi I and its significance for constructing an absolute chronology of the ancient cultures of Northeast Asia). In: Mochanov, Y.A., and F.G. Safronov (eds), Po Sledam Drevnikh Kultur Yakutii, pp. 10–31. Yakutsk: Yakutskoe Knizhnoe Izdatelstvo. Mochanov, Y.A., and G.M. Savvinova (1980). Prirodnaya sreda obitaniya cheloveka v epokhu kamnya i rannikh metallov v Yakutii (po materialam arkheologicheskikh pamyatnikov) (Human natural environment in the Stone Age and Early Metals time in Yakutia (based on archaeological sites)). In: Mochanov, Y.A. (ed.), Novoe v Arkheologii Yakutii, pp. 14–27. Yakutsk: YF SO AN SSSR. Morokov, E.A. (1975). Ulyinskiye drevnosti (The Ulya antiquities). Tikhookeanskaya Zvezda, 8 February. Mostakhov, S.E. (1966). Iz istorii Yakutskogo filiala Geograficheskogo obshchestva SSSR (From the history of the Yakutsk Branch of the USSR Geographical Society). In: Sbornik Nauchnykh Statei Yakutskogo Respublikanskogo Kraevedcheskogo Muzeya im. Y. Yaroslavskogo. Vypusk IV, pp. 113–124. Yakutsk: Yakutskoe Knizhnoe Izdatelstvo. Müller-Beck, H. (1966). Paleohunters in America: origins and diffusion. Science 152: 1191–1210.

Nalivkin, D.V. (1960). Yarkaya stranitsa v geologicheskoi istorii Azii (The bright page in the geological history of Asia). Priroda 8: 35–42. Nechkina, M.V. (1960). O periodizatsii istorii istoricheskoi nauki (On the periodisation of the history of historical science). Istoriya SSSR 1: 77–91. Nelson, N.C. (1937). Notes on cultural relations between Asia and North America. American Antiquity 2: 267– 272. Obruchev, V.A. (1934). Istoriya Geologicheskogo Issledovaniya Sibiri. Period Trety (1851–1888 GG.) (History of the Geological Exploration of Siberia. The Third Period (1851–1888)). Leningrad: Izdatelstvo AN SSSR. Okladnikov, A.P. (1941). Neoliticheskie pamyatniki kak istochnik po etnogonii Sibiri i Dalnego Vostoka (Neolithic sites as a source for the ethnogony of Siberia and the Far East). Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Istorii Materialnoi Kultury AN SSSR 9: 14–18. Okladnikov, A.P. (1943a). Drevnyaya istoriya narodov Yakutii (Ancient history of the peoples of Yakutia). Istorichesky Zhurnal 10: 51–59. Okladnikov, A.P. (1943b). Istorichesky Put Narodov Yakutii (The Historical Path of the Peoples of Yakutia). Yakutsk: Gosudarstvennoe Izdatelstvo. Okladnikov, A.P. (1945). Lenskie Drevnosti. Vypusk 1 (The Antiquities of the Lena River. Part 1). Yakutsk: Gosudarstvennaya Tipografiya. Okladnikov, A.P. (1946). Pervaya paleoliticheskaya nakhodka v basseine Leny (Ponomarevskaya stoyanka) (The first Palaeolithic find in the Lena River basin (Ponomarevo site)). Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Istorii Materialnoi Kultury AN SSSR 12: 7–9. Okladnikov, A.P. (1947). Arkheologicheskie raboty na reke Lene v 1944 g. (Archaeological works on the Lena River in 1944). Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Istorii Materialnoi Kultury AN SSSR 15: 98–101. Okladnikov, A.P. (1948a). O pervonachalnom zaselenii chelovekom doliny reki Leny (About the initial human settlement of the valley of the Lena River). Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Istorii Materialnoi Kultury AN SSSR 23: 3–12. Okladnikov, A.P. (1948b). Paleoliticheskie nakhodki na reke Lene (Palaeolithic finds on the Lena River). BKICHP 12: 97–100. Okladnikov, A.P. (1949a). Osnovnye vekhi drevnei istorii Yakutii (The main milestones of the ancient history of Yakutia). Vestnik Leningradskogo Universiteta 7: 76–92. Okladnikov, A.P. (1949b). Ocherki po istorii Yakutii ot paleolita do prisoedineniya k Russkomu gosudarstvu (Essays on the history of Yakutia from the Palaeolithic to joining the Russian state). Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Istorii Materialnoi Kultury AN SSSR 29: 116–118.

113

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia Okladnikov, A.P. (1949c). Proshloe Yakutii do Prisoedineniya k Russkomu Gosudarstvu (The Past of Yakutia before Joining the Russian State). Yakutsk: Yakutgosizdat. Okladnikov, A.P. (1950a). Osvoenie paleoliticheskim chelovekom Sibiri (The settling of Siberia by Palaeolithic humans). Materialy po Izucheniyu Chetvertichnogo Perioda SSSR 2: 150–158. Okladnikov, A.P. (1950b). Neolit i Bronzovy Vek Pribaikalya. Istoriko–Arkheologicheskoe Issledovanie. Chatsi 1–2 (Neolithic and Bronze Age of the Lake Baikal Region. Historical and Archaeological Research. Parts 1–2). Moscow & Leningrad: Izdatelstvo AN SSSR. Okladnikov, A.P. (1950c). Vklad sovetskoi arkheologii v izuchenie proshlogo severnykh narodov (The contribution of Soviet archaeology to the study of the past of the northern peoples). Uchenye Zapiski Leningradskogo Universiteta 115: 22–37. Okladnikov, A.P. (1950d). Lenskie Drevnosti. Vypusk 3 (The Antiquities of the Lena River. Part 3). Moscow & Leningrad: Izdatelstvo AN SSSR. Okladnikov, A.P. (1951). Raskopki na Severe (Excavations in the North). In: Fedorov, G.B. (ed.), Po Sledam Drevnikh Kultur, pp. 11–46. Moscow: Goskultprosvetizdat. Okladnikov, A.P. (1953a). Sledy paleolita v doline reki Leny (Traces of the Palaeolithic in the Lena River valley). Materialy i Issledovaniya po Arkheologii SSSR 39: 227–266. Okladnikov, A.P. (1953b). Narody Severo-Vostochnoi Sibiri (Peoples of Northeastern Siberia). In: Grekov, B.D. (ed.), Ocherki Istorii SSSR. Period Feodalizma IX– XV Vv. Chast 1, pp. 751–759. Moscow: Izdatelstvo AN SSSR. Okladnikov, A.P. (1954). U istokov kultury narodov Dalnego Vostoka (At the origins of the culture of the peoples of the Far East). In: Fedorov, G.B. (ed.), Po Sledam Drevnikh Kultur: Ot Volgi do Tikhogo Okeana, pp. 225–260. Moscow: Goskultprosvetizdat. Okladnikov, A.P. (1955a). Yakutiya do Prisoedineniya k Russkomu Gosudarstvu (Yakutia before Joining the Russian State). Moscow & Leningrad: Izdatelstvo AN SSSR. Okladnikov, A.P. (1955b). Razvitie pervobytnoobshchinnogo stroya. Pozdny drevnekamenny vek (verkhny paleolit) (The development of the primitive communal system. Late Old Stone Age (Upper Palaeolithic)). In: Frantsev, Y.P. (ed.), Vsemirnaya Istoriya, Tom 1, pp. 50–88. Moscow: Gospolitizdat. Okladnikov, A.P. (1956). Drevnee naselenie Sibiri i ego kultura (The ancient population of Siberia and its culture). In: Levin, M.G., and L.P. Potapov (eds), Narody Sibiri, pp. 21–107. Moscow & Leningrad: Izdatelstvo AN SSSR. Okladnikov, A.P. (1959). Dalekoe Proshloe Primorya (The Distant Past of Primorye). Vladivostok: Primorskoe Knizhnoe Izdatelstvo.

Okladnikov, A.P. (1961). 300 let sibirskoi arkheologii i ee segodnyashny den (300 years of Siberian archaeology and its present day). In: Dulov, V.I. (ed.), Voprosy Istorii Sibiri i Dalnego Vostoka, pp. 15–22. Novosibirsk: SO AN SSSR. Okladnikov, A.P. (1962). Novoe v izuchenii drevneishikh kultur Mongolii (po rabotam 1960 g.) (New in the study of the ancient cultures of Mongolia (based on the works in 1960)). Sovetskaya Etnografiya 1: 83–90. Okladnikov, A.P. (1964a). Sibir v drevnekamennom veke. Epokha paleolita (Siberia in the Old Stone Age. The Palaeolithic epoch). In: Okladnikov, A.P. (ed.), Materialy po Drevnei Istorii Sibiri (Maket 1-go Toma “Istoriya Sibiri”), pp. 51–128. Ulan-Ude: SO AN SSSR. Okladnikov, A.P. (1964b). Mezolit Priokhotya (Mesolithic of the Okhotsk Sea region). In: Tezisy Dokladov k Vsesoyuznomu Soveshchaniyu po Izucheniyu Chetvertichnogo Perioda, pp. 91–93. Novosibirsk: SO AN SSSR. Okladnikov, A.P. (1966). Drevnee poselenie na r. Tadushi u der. Ustinovki i problema dalnevostochnogo mezolita (Ancient settlement on the Tadushi River near the village of Ustinovka and the problem of the Far Eastern Mesolithic). In: Saks, V.N. (ed.), Chetvertichny Period Sibiri, pp. 352–372. Moscow: Nauka. Okladnikov, A.P. (1969). Raskopki u sela Ustinovka na r. Tadushi (Excavations near the village of Ustinovka on the Tadushi River). In: Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya 1968 Goda, pp. 215–217. Moscow: Nauka. Okladnikov, A.P. (1971). Mnogosloinoe poselenie Sanny Mys na r. Ude (The multilayered settlement of Sanny Mys on the Uda River). In: Okladnikov, A.P. (ed.), Materialy Polevykh Issledovany Dalnevostochnoi Arkheologicheskoi Ekspeditsii. Vypusk 2, pp. 7–86. Novosibirsk: SO AN SSSR. Okladnikov, A.P. (1974). Poselenie kamennogo veka na gore Khere-Uul (Vostochnaya Mongolia) i dokeramicheskie kultury Yaponii (The Stone Age settlement on Khere-Uul Mount (Eastern Mongolia) and pre-pottery cultures of Japan). In: Gafurov, B.G. (ed.), Istoriko–Filosofskie Issledovaniya, pp. 322–338. Moscow: Nauka. Okladnikov, A.P. (1981). Paleolit Tsentralnoi Azii: Moiltyn Am (Mongoliya) (The Palaeolithic of Central Asia: Moiltyn Am (Mongolia)). Novosibirsk: Nauka. Okladnikov, A.P., and R.S. Vasil’evsky (1980). Severnaya Aziya na Zare Istorii (Northern Asia at the Dawn of History). Novosibirsk: Nauka. Okladnikov, A.P., and I.I. Kirillov (1980). Yugo-Vostochnoe Zabaikalye v Epokhu Kamnya i Rannei Bronzy (SouthEastern Transbaikalia in the Epoch of the Stone Age and the Early Bronze Age). Novosibirsk: Nauka. Panichkina, M.Z. (1959). Paleoliticheskie nukleusy (The Palaeolithic cores). Arkheologichesky Sbornik 1: 7–77.

114

References

Rogachev, A.N. (1962). Osnovnye itogi i zadachi izucheniya paleolita Russkoi ravniny (The main results and tasks of Palaeolithic study on the Russian Plain). Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR 92: 3–11. Rogachev, A.N., N.I. Gurina, V.P. Lyubin, E.A. Vekilova, L.Y. Krizhevsksya, L.P. Khlobystin, O.N. Bader, M.F. Kosarev, K.F. Smirov, N.I. Sokolsky, A.N. Smirnov, L.P. Zyablin, and R.L. Rozedfeldt (1967). Dostizheniya arkheologicheskoi nauki v RSFSR (Achievements of archaeological science in the Russian Federation). Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 3: 9–19. Romanova, E.N., and A.A. Sementsov (1970). Opyt radiouglerodnogo datirovaniya mnogosloinogo arkheologicheskogo pamyatnika Belkachi I (Experience of radiocarbon dating at the multilayered archaeological site of Belkachi I). In: Kocharov, G.E., V.A. Dergachev, and G.M. Mirianashvili (eds), Trudy Vsesoyuznogo Soveshchaniya po Probleme “Astrofizicheskie Yavleniya i Radiouglerod”, pp. 137– 139. Tbilisi: Izdatelstvo Tbilisskogo Universiteta. Safronov, F.G. (1976). Razvitie arkheologicheskogo izucheniya Yakutii (Development of the archaeological study in Yakutia). In: Safronov, F.G., and A.S. Moskovsky (eds), Ocherki Sovetskoi Istoriografii Yakutii, pp. 213–217. Yakutsk: Yakutskoe Knizhnoe Izdatelstvo. Schlesier, K.H. (1967). Sedna Creek: report on an archaeological survey on the Arctic slope of the Brooks Range. American Antiquity 32: 210–222. Sementsov, A.A., E.N. Romanova, and P.M. Dolukhanov (1969). Radiouglerodnye daty LOIA (The LOIA radiocarbon dates). Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 1: 251– 261. Shamsutdinov, V.H. (1966). Novaya verkhnepaleoliticheskaya stoyanka v Zabaikalye (New Upper Palaeolithic site in Transbaikalia). BKICHP 32: 128–133. Shcherbakova, N.M. (1980a). Pervye arkheologicheskie nakhodki na Yane (The first archaeological finds on the Yana River). In: Problemy Arkheologii i Etnografii Sibiri i Tsentralnoi Azii, pp. 55–57. Irkutsk: Irkutsky Gosudarsvenny Universitet. Shcherbakova, N.M. (1980b). Arkheologicheskie pamyatniki Yany (Archaeological sites of the Yana River). In: Mochanov, Y.A. (ed.), Novoe v Arkheologii Yakutii, pp. 62–65. Yakutsk: YF SO AN SSSR. Shilo, N.A., N.N. Dikov, and A.V. Lozhkin (1967). Pervye dannye po stratigrafii paleolita Kamchatki (The first data on the stratigraphy of the Palaeolithic of Kamchatka). In: Krushanov, A.I. (ed.), Istoriya i Kultura Narodov Severa Dalnego Vostoka, pp. 32–41. Moscow: Nauka. Shilo, N.A., N.N. Dikov, and A.V. Lozhkin (1968). The first data on the stratigraphy of the Palaeolithic of Kamchatka. Arctic Anthropology 5(1): 204–212.

Péwé, T., D.M. Hopkins, and J. Giddings (1968). Chetvertichnaya geologiya i arkheologiya Alyaski (Quaternary geology and archaeology of Alaska). In: Markov, K.K., H.E. Wright, Jr., and D.C. Frey (eds), Chetvertichny Period v SSHA, Tom 1, pp. 421–448. Moscow: Mir. Petri, B.E. (1916). Neoliticheskie nakhodki na beregu Baikala. Predvaritelnoe soobshchenie o raskopkakh stoyanki Ulan-Khada (Neolithic finds on the shores of Lake Baikal. Preliminary report on the excavations of the Ulan-Khada site). Sbornik Muzeya Antropologii i Etnografii 3: 113–132. Petri, B.E. (1921). Neoliticheskaya koloniya v bukhte Peschanaya na Baikale (The Neolithic colony in Peschanaya Bay on Lake Baikal). Sbornik Trudov Professorov i Prepodavatelei Gosudarstvennogo Irkutskogo Universiteta. Otdel 1, Vypusk 2: 56–65. Petrin, V.T. (1972). Stoyanka Chernoozerye II (The site of Chernoozerye II). In: Rybakov, B.A. (ed.), Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya 1971 Goda, pp. 255–256. Moscow: Nauka. Petrin, V.T. (1979). K probleme osvoeniya chelovekom Zapadno-Sibirskoi ravniny v kontse pleistotsena (On the problem of human settling of the West Siberian Plain at the end of the Pleistocene). In: Chindina, L.A. (ed.), Osobennosti Estestvenno-Geograficheskoi Sredy i Istoricheskie Protsessy v Zapadnoi Sibiri, pp. 29– 30. Tomsk: Izdatelstvo Tomskogo Universiteta. Pidoplichko, I.G. (1950). Po povodu raboty Vaskovskogo A.P. i Okladnikova A.P. pro nakhodku dereva, obrabotannogo paleoliticheskim chelovekom (Regarding the work of A.P. Vaskovsky and A.P. Okladnikov about the discovery of a tree processed by a Palaeolithic human). Arkheologiya 3: 185–189. Polyakov, I.S. (1880). Antropologicheskaya Poezdka v Tsentralnuyu i Vostochnuyu Rossiyu, Ispolnennaya po Porucheniyu Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk (Anthropological Trip to Central and Eastern Russia, Carried Out on Behalf of the Imperial Academy of Sciences) [Zapiski Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk. Tom XXXVII, Prilozhenie 1]. St.-Petersburg: Tipografiya Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk. Ponomarenko, A.K. (1985). Drevnyaya Kultura Itelmenov Vostochnoi Kamchatki (The Ancient Culture of the Itelmens of Eastern Kamchatka). Moscow: Nauka. Posrednikov, V.A. (1973). Otkrytie paleoliticheskoi stoyanki v Narymskom Priobye (Discovery of a Palaeolithic site in the Narym Region of the Ob River basin). Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 4: 236–238. Powers, W.R. (1973). Palaeolithic man in Northeast Asia. Arctic Anthropology 10(2): 1–106. Razvitie … (1968). Razvitie issledovany v oblasti obshchestvennykh nauk (Development of social science research). Vestnik AN SSSR 10: 3–10. Reshetov, Y.G. (1966). Priroda Zemli i Proiskhozhdenie Cheloveka (The Nature of the Earth and the Origin of Humans). Moscow: Mysl. 115

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia Shilo, N.A., N.N. Dikov, and A.V. Lozhkin (1976). Radiouglerodnye datirovki drevnikh kultur iz verkhnechetvertichnykh otlozheny Severo-Vostoka SSSR (Radiocarbon dates of ancient cultures from the Upper Quaternary deposits of the Northeastern USSR). Doklady AN SSSR 231: 1204–1205. Shilo, N.A., N.N. Dikov, A.V. Lozhkin, and E.V. Starikov (1977). Novye radiouglerodnye datirovki arkheologicheskikh pamyatnikov iz verkhnechetvertichnykh otlozheny severa Dalnego Vostoka (New radiocarbon dates of archaeological sites from the Upper Quaternary deposits of the northern Far East). Doklady AN SSSR 237: 688–689. Shirina, D.A. (1983). Letopis Ekspeditsy Akademii Nauk na Severo-Vostoke Azii v Dorevolyutsionny Period (Chronicle of Expeditions of the Academy of Sciences in Northeast Asia in the Pre-Revolutionary Period). Novosibirsk: Nauka. Sosnovsky, G.P. (1934). Paleoliticheskie stoyanki Severnoi Azii (Palaeolithic sites of Northern Asia). Trudy II Mezhdunarodnoi Konferentsii Assotsiatsii po Izucheniyu Chetvertichnogo Perioda Evropy 5: 246–304. Stepanov, N.N. (1950). Retsenziya: Istoriya Yakutii. T. 1: Doktor istoricheskikh nauk A.P. Okladnikov (Review: History of Yakutia. T. 1: Doctor of Historical Sciences A.P. Okladnikov). Voprosy Istorii 5: 134–139. Titov, E.E. (1980). Geomorfologiya i usloviya nakopleniya osadkov v raione ushkovskikh stoyanok (Geomorphology and conditions of sediment accumulation in the area of the Ushki sites). In: Shilo, N.A. (ed.), Noveishie Dannye po Arkheologii Severa Dalnego Vostoka, pp. 134–156. Magadan: SVKNII. Titov, E.E. (1982). Usloviya zakhoroneniya i posleduyushchie peremeshcheniya kirgilyakhskogo mamonta (Burial conditions and subsequent movements of the Kirgilyakh mammoth). XIth Congress of INQUA. Tezisy Dokladov, Tom 1: 254–255. Moscow: VINITI. Tokarev, S.A. (1951). Retsenziya: A.P. Okladnikov. Istoriya Yakutii. T. 1: Proshloe Yakutii do Prisoedineniya k Russkomu Gosudarstvu (Review: A.P. Okladnikov. History of Yakutia. Vol. 1: The Past of Yakutia before Joining the Russian State). Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 2: 150–155. Tomskaya, A.I. (1981). Palinologiya Kainozoya Yakutii (Palynology of the Cenozoic of Yakutia). Novosibirsk: Nauka. Tomskaya, A.I., and G.M. Savinova (1975). Sporovopyltsevye spektry otlozheny doliny reki Aldana, vklyuchayushchikh paleoliticheskie pamyatniki (Spore-and-pollen spectra of sediments in the Aldan River valley, containing Palaeolithic sites). In: Mochanov, Y.A. (ed.), Yakutiya i Ee Sosedi v Drevnosti, pp. 31–37. Yakutsk: YF SO AN SSSR. Tseitlin, S.M. (1975a). Skhema geologicheskoi periodizatsii paleolita Severnoi Azii (Scheme of the geological periodisation of the North Asian

Palaeolithic). In: Derevianko, A.P. (ed.), Sootnoshenie Drevnikh Kultur Sibiri s Kulturami Sopredelnykh Territory, pp. 31–34. Novosibirsk: Institut Istorii, Filologii i Filosofii SO AN SSSR. Tseitlin, S.M. (1975b). Geologiya paleolita Verkhnego Priangarya (Geology of the Palaeolithic in the upper Angara River region). In: Medvedev, G.I., and V.V. Svinin (eds), Drevnyaya Istoriya Narodov Yuga Vostochnoi Sibiri. Vypusk 3, pp. 59–73. Irkutsk: Izdatelsvo Irkutskogo Universiteta. Tseitlin, S.M. (1979). Geologiya Paleolita Severnoi Azii (Geology of the North Asian Palaeolithic). Moscow: Nauka. Tseitlin, S.M., and I.V. Aseev (eds) (1982). Geologiya i Kultura Drevnikh Poseleny Zapadnogo Zabaikalya (Geology and Culture of the Ancient Settlements of Western Transbaikalia). Novosibrsk: Nauka. Uvarov, A.S. (1881). Arkheologiya Rossii. Kamenny Period. Tom 1 (Archaeology of Russia. Stone Period. Volume 1). Moscow: Sinodalnaya Tipografiya. Vasil’evsky, R.S. (1965). K istorii drevnikh kultur Okhotskogo poberezhya (On the history of ancient cultures of the Okhotsk Sea coast). Sovetskaya Etnografiya 1: 117–123. Vasil’evsky, R.S. (1968). Kamennaya industriya Ananguly i ee aziatskie paralleli (Stone industry of Anangula and its Asian parallels). In: Okladnikov, A.P. (ed.), Voprosy Istorii Sotsialno-Ekonomicheskoi i Kulturnoi Zhizni Sibiri, Vypusk 2, pp. 29–38. Novosibirsk: Novosibirsky Filial Geograficheskogo Obshchestva SSSR. Vasil’evsky, R.S. (1969). O rabote VIII Mezhdunarodnogo kongressa antropologicheskikh i etnograficheskikh nauk (About the work of the VIIIth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnographic Sciences). Izvestiya SO AN SSSR. Seriya Obshchestvennykh Nauk 1: 121–124. Vasil’evsky, R.S. (1973a). Drevnie Kultury Tikhookeanskogo Severa (Ancient Cultures of the Pacific North). Novosibirsk: Nauka. Vasil’evsky, R.S. (1973b). O roli Beringii v zaselenii Aleutskikh ostrovov (On the role of Beringia in the settlement of the Aleutian Islands). In: Kontrimavichus, V.L. (ed.), Beringiyskaya Susha i Ee Znachenie Dlya Razvitiya Golarkticheskikh Flor i Faun v Kainozoe, pp. 135–137. Khabarovsk: DVNTS AN SSSR. Vasil’evsky, R.S. (1985). Stoyanka Suvorovo III i ee mesto v kamennom veke Dalnego Vostoka (The Suvorovo III site and its place in the Stone Age of the Far East). In: Larichev, V.E. (ed.), Kamenny Vek Severnoi, Srednei i Vostochnoi Azii, pp. 86–95. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Vasil’evsky, R.S., and S.A. Gladyshev (1989). Verkhny Paleolit Yuzhnogo Primorya (The Upper Palaeolithic of Southern Primorye). Novosibirsk: Nauka. Vasil’evsky, R.S., and V.A. Kashin (1983). Raskopki mnogosloinogo poseleniya Ustinovka I v 1980 godu (Excavations of the multilayered settlement 116

References

Ustinovka I in 1980). In: Vasil’evsky, R.S. (ed.), Paleolit Sibiri, pp. 44–66. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Vaskovsky, A.P., and A.P. Okladnikov (1948). Nakhodki obrabotannogo chelovekom dereva na drevnei terrase r. Susuman (bassein Kolymy) (Finds of wood processed by humans on the ancient terrace of the Susuman River (Kolyma River basin)). BKICHP 13: 83–88. Vereshchagin, N.K. (1971). Raskopki mamontovogo kladbishcha na r. Berelekh (Excavations of the mammoth cemetery on the Berelekh River). Vestnik AN SSSR 8: 85–93. Vereshchagin, N.K. (1972). O proiskhozhdenii mamontovykh kladbishch (On the origin of mammoth cemeteries). In: Pidoplichko, I.G. (ed.), Prirodnaya Obstanovka i Fauny Proshlogo. Vypusk 6, pp. 131–148. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. Vereshchagin, N.K. (1977a). Berelekhskoye “kladbishche” mamontov (The Berelekh mammoth “cemetery”). In: Starobogatov, Y.I. (ed.), Mamontovaya Fauna Russkoi Ravniny i Vostochnoi Sibiri, pp. 5–50. Leningrad: Zoologichesky Institut AN SSSR. Vereshchagin, N.K. (1977b). Gibel mamontovoi fauny v pleistotsene (The death of the mammoth fauna in the Pleistocene). Priroda 9: 90–95. Vereshchagin, N.K. (1979). Ostatki mlekopitayushchikh iz paleoliticheskogo sloya VI stoyanki Ushki I (Remains of mammals from the Palaeolithic layer VI of the Ushki I site). In: Dikov, N.N. (ed.), Novye Arkheologicheskie Pamyatniki Severa Dalnego Vostoka, pp. 18–19. Magadan: SVKNII DVNTS AN SSSR. Vereshchagin, N.K., and Y.A. Mochanov (1972). Samye severnye v mire sledy verkhnego paleolita (The northernmost traces of the Upper Palaeolithic in the world). Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 3: 332–336. West, F.H. (1981). The Archaeology of Beringia. New York: Columbia University Press. West, F.H. (ed.) (1996). American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Palaeoecology of Beringia. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press. Wormington, H.M. (1962). A survey of early American prehistory. American Scientist 50: 230–242. Yi, S., and G. Clark (1983). Observations on the Lower Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia. Current Anthropology 24: 181–202. Yi, S., and G. Clark (1985). The “Dyuktai culture” and New World origins. Current Anthropology 26: 1–20. Zamyatnin, S.N. (1951). O vozniknovenii lokalnykh razlichy v kulture paleoliticheskogo perioda (On the emergence of local differences in the culture of the Palaeolithic period). In: Levin, M.G. (ed.), Proiskhozhdenie Cheloveka i Drevnee Rasselenie Chelovechestva, pp. 89–152. Moscow: Izdatelstvo AN SSSR. Zhukov, E.M., and B.A. Rybakov (1975). Istoricheskaya nauka v SSSR na sovremennom etape (Historical science in the USSR at the modern stage). In: Zhukov,

E.M. (ed.), Razvitie Sovetskoi Istoricheskoi Nauki. 1970– 1974 GG., pp. 3–8. Moscow: Nauka. Zykov, I.E. (1972). Arkheologicheskoe Izuchenie Yakutii (Istoriya i Itogi) (Archaeological Study of Yakutia (History and Results)). Unpublished Cand. Sci. dissertation. Yakutsk: YF SO AN SSSR. Zykov, I.E. (1973). Arkheologicheskoe Izuchenie Yakutii (Istoriya i Itogi) (Archaeological Study of Yakutia (History and Results)). Synopsis of Cand. Sci. dissertation. Yakutsk: YF SO AN SSSR. Archival Materials Alekseev, A.N. (A-1975). Otchet o polevykh issledovaniyakh Olekminskogo arkheologicheskogo otryada YaGU v 1974 g. (Report on field research of the Olekma archaeological team of YaGU in 1974). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 5339. Alekseev, A.N. (A-1979). Otchet o rabote Olekminskogo otryada Muzeya arkheologii i etnografii YaGU letom 1978 g. (Report on the work of the Olekma team of the Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography, YaGU, in the summer of 1978). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 7229. Alekseev, A.N., and I.E. Zykov (A-1976). Otchet o rabote Olekminskogo otryada arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii YaGU letom 1975 g. (Report on the work of the Olekma team of the YaGU archaeological expedition in the summer of 1975). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 6395. Arkhipov, N.D. (A-1971). Otchet o rabote arkheologicheskogo otryada YaGU letom 1970 g. (Report on the work of the YaGU archaeological team in the summer of 1970). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 4120. Arkhipov, N.D. (A-1972). Otchet o rabote Olekminskoi ekspeditsii YaGU letom 1971 g. (Report on the work of the Olekma expedition of YaGU in the summer of 1971). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 4644. Arkhipov, N.D. (A-1975). Otchet o rabote Vilyuiskogo otryada arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii YaGU 1974 g. (Report on the work of the Vilyui team of the YaGU archaeological expedition in 1974). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 5731. Arkhipov, N.D. (A-1978). Otchet o rabote arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii YaGU v 1977 g. (Report on the work of the YaGU archaeological expedition in 1977). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 6834. Arkhipov, N.D., and A.N. Alekseev (A-1973). Otchet o rabote arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii YaGU 1972 g. (Report on the work of the YaGU archaeological expedition in 1972). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 5017. Arkhipov, N.D., and A.N. Alekseev (A-1974). Otchet o rabote arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii YaGU 1973 g. (Report on the work of the YaGU archaeological expedition in 1973). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 5068. 117

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia Dikov, N.N. (A-1962). Otchet o polevykh arkheologicheskikh issledovaniyakh, provedennykh na Kamchatke v 1961 godu na sredstva i po programme Severo-Vostochnogo Kompleksnogo Instituta SO AN SSSR (Report on field archaeological research conducted in Kamchatka in 1961 at the expense and under the programme of the Northeastern Interdisciplinary Institute, Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 2267. Dikov, N.N. (A-1963). Otchet o polevykh arkheologicheskikh issledovaniyakh na Kamchatke v 1962 g. (Report on field archaeological research in Kamchatka in 1962). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 2488. Dikov, N.N. (A-1965). Otchet ob arkheologicheskikh issledovaniyakh v 1964 godu (otkrytiye paleolita na Kamchatke) (Report on archaeological research in 1964 (the discovery of the Palaeolithic in Kamchatka)). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 2923. Dikov, N.N. (A-1966). Otchet ob issledovanii Ushkovskoi paleoliticheskoi stoyanki na Kamchatke v 1965 godu (Report on the study of the Ushki Palaeolithic site in Kamchatka in 1965). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 3113. Dikov, N.N. (A-1967). Otchet ob arkheologicheskikh issledovaniyakh na Kamchatke v 1966 g. (Report on archaeological research in Kamchatka in 1966). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 3314. Dikov, N.N. (A-1968). Otchet o polevykh arkheologicheskikh issledovaniyakh na Kamchatke i Chukotke v 1967 g. (Report on field archaeological research in Kamchatka and Chukotka in 1967). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 3497. Dikov, N.N. (A-1971). Otchet o polevykh arkheologicheskikh issledovaniyakh SVKNII DVNTS AN SSSR v Magadanskoi oblasti v 1970 g. (Report on field archaeological research of the SVKNII DVNTS AN SSSR in the Magadan Province in 1970). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 4339. Dikov, N.N. (A-1973). Otchet o polevykh issledovaniyakh na Chukotke i Kamchatke v 1972 g. (Report on field research on Chukotka and Kamchatka in 1972). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 4795. Dikov, N.N. (A-1974). Otchet o polevykh arkheologicheskikh issledovaniyakh na Kamchatke i Kolyme v 1973 g. (Report on field archaeological research in Kamchatka and the Kolyma River in 1973). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 5222. Dikov, N.N. (A-1975). Otchet ob arkheologicheskikh issledovaniyakh na Kolyme i Kamchatke v 1972 g. (Report on archaeological research on the Kolyma River and Kamchatka in 1972). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 5287. Dikov, N.N. (A-1976). Otchet o polevykh issledovaniyakh v Magadanskoi i Kamchatskoi oblastyakh (na Kolyme, Chukotke, o-ve Vrangelya i doline r.

Kamchatki) v 1972 g. (Report on field research in the Magadan and Kamchatka provinces (on the Kolyma River, Chukotka, Wrangel Island, and the valley of the Kamchatka River) in 1972). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 6324. Dikov, N.N. (A-1978). Otchet o polevykh arkheologicheskikh issledovaniyakh na Chukotke i Kamchatke v 1977 g. (Report on field archaeological research on Chukotka and Kamchatka in 1977). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 6525. Dikov, N.N. (A-1979). Otchet o polevykh issledovaniyakh v basseine r. Kolyma, na Chukotke i Kamchatke v 1978 g. (Report on field research in the Kolyma River basin, Chukotka and Kamchatka in 1978). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 7182. Dikov, N.N. (A-1981). Otchet o polevykh issledovaniyakh na Chukotskom poluostrove i Kamchatke v 1980 g. (Report on field research in the Chukchi Peninsula and Kamchatka in 1980). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 7301. Dikov, N.N., and T.M. Dikova (A-1972). Otchet o polevykh issledovaniyakh na Kolyme (v zone zatopleniya vodokhranilishchem Kolymskoi GES) i na Kamchatke v 1971 g. (Report on field research on the Kolyma River (in the zone of flooding by the reservoir of the Kolyma hydroelectric power station) and in Kamchatka in 1971). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 4638. Dikov, N.N., and T.M. Dikova (A-1973). Otchet o polevykh issledovaniyakh v zone zatopleniya vodokhranilishchem Kolymskoi GES v 1972 g. (Report on field research in the zone of flooding by the reservoir of the Kolyma hydroelectric power station in 1972). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 4818. Dikova, T.M. (A-1976). Otchet o polevykh arkheologicheskikh issledovaniyakh na yuge Kamchatki v 1975 g. (Report on field archaeological research in southern Kamchatka in 1975). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 6028. Fedoseeva, S.A. (A-1960). Otchet arkheologicheskogo otryada Yukagirskoi kompleksnoi ekspeditsii AN SSSR leta 1959 g. (Report of the archaeological team of the Yukagir complex expedition of the USSR Academy of Sciences in the summer of 1959). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 2039. Fedoseeva, S.A. (A-1976). Otchet o raskopkakh stoyanki Ust-Chirkuo, provedennykh v 1975 g. Vilyuiskim otryadom PAE YF SO AN SSSR (Report on the excavations of the Ust-Chirkuo site, carried out in 1975 by the Vilyui team of the PAE YF SO AN SSSR). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 5886. Fedoseeva, S.A. (A-1977). Otchet o rabote Vilyuyskogo otryada PAE v polevoi sezon 1976 g. (Report on the work of the Vilyui team of the PAE in the field season of 1976). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 6449. Fedoseeva, S.A. (A-1978). Otchet o rabote Lenskogo otryada PAE YF SO AN SSSR za 1976 g. (Report on 118

References

the work of the Lena team of the PAE YF SO AN SSSR in 1976). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 6825. Kiryak, M.A. (A-1979). Otchet o polevykh issledovaniyakh Zapadno-Chukotskogo otryada Severo-VostochnoAziatskoi kompleksnoi arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii v 1978 g. (Report on field research by the West Chukotkan team of the Northeast Asian complex archaeological expedition in 1978). Archiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 7066. Kistenev, S.P. (A-1978). Otchet o rabote Kolymskoi gruppy Severnogo otryada PAE YF SO AN SSSR v 1977 g. (Report on the work of the Kolyma group of the Northern team of the PAE YF SO AN SSSR in 1977). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 7000. Kozlov, V.I. (A-1978). Otchet o rabote Vostochnogo otryada PAE v 1977 g. (Report on the work of the Eastern team of the PAE in 1977). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 7009. Mochanov, Y.A. (A-1965). Otchet o rabote Aldanskogo arkheologicheskogo otryada Instituta Yazyka, Literatury i Istorii YF SO AN SSSR za polevoi sezon 1964 g. (Report on the work of the Aldan archaeological team of the Institute of Language, Literature, and History of the YF SO AN SSSR in the field season of 1964). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 2850. Mochanov, Y.A. (A-1967). Otchet o rabote Aldanskogo arkheologicheskogo otryada v polevoi sezon 1966 g. (Report on the work of the Aldan archaeological team during the field season of 1966). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 3417.

Mochanov, Y.A. (A-1968). Otchet o rabote Aldanskogo arkheologicheskogo otryada YF SO AN SSSR v polevoi sezon 1967 goda (Report on the work of the Aldan archaeological team of the YF SO AN SSSR in the field season of 1967). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 3478. Mochanov, Y.A. (A-1969). Otchet o rabote Prilenskoi arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii YF SO AN SSSR v 1968 godu (Report on the work of the Prilenskaya archaeological expedition of the YF SO AN SSSR in 1968). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 3703. Mochanov, Y.A. (A-1971). Otchet o rabote Prilenskoi arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii Instituta Yazyka, Literatury i Istorii YF SO AN SSSR za 1970 god (Report on the work of the Prilenskaya archaeological expedition of the Institute of Language, Literature, and History of the YF SO AN SSSR in 1970). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 5224. Mochanov, Y.A. (A-1977). Otchet o rabote Prilenskoi arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii YF SO AN SSSR za 1974 g. (Report on the work of the Prilenskaya archaeological expedition of the YF SO AN SSSR in 1974). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 5882. Zykov, I.E. (A-1977). Otchet o rabote Olekminskogo otryada arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii YaGU za polevoi sezon 1976 g. (Report on the work of the Olekma team of the YaGU archaeological expedition in the 1976 field season). Arkhiv IA RAN, Fond R-1, No. 6216.

119

Index Abramova, Z. A. 37, 87 Afontova Gora, site 5, 8, 12, 14–15, 20, 44 Akmak, site 70 Aksenov, M. P. 37 Alaska 22, 25, 27, 38–39, 49, 56–57, 64, 70, 76–77, 87, 89 Aldan River, region: excavations in the 1960s 18–38; excavations in the 1970s 46–52, 57–58, 62–64 Alekseev, A. N. 1, 58 Aleutian Islands 8, 89 Altai Mountains 16, 26–27 Alysardakh, site 18, 57 Amagolon, site 82, 86 Amka, site 58–59, 66 Amur River, region 8, 18, 20–21, 28, 36, 39, 43, 55–56, 63, 70, 87 Anabar River 9, 62, 78 Anadyr Region 8 Anangula, site 89–90 Andreev, G. I. 31 Angara River, region vi, 8–9, 13–14, 20, 55, 66, 77, 82, 87–88 Araya, site 20, 40, 43, 89 Arkhipov, N. D. 49, 53–54, 56, 58, 64 Arseniev, V. K. 8 Astakhov, S. N. 37 At-Daban, site 12, 14, 22, 22 (footnote 11), 26 Auerbach, N. K. 16, 19, 37 Avdeikha, site 57–58, 60–61, 63 Balagannaakh, site 13, 22 Balloman, P. 28 Batoiskaya Yama, site 63 Belkachi I, site 18–19, 21–23, 26, 28–29, 31, 36–37, 58, 85 Berelekh, site 50, 52–53, 55–58, 60, 63, 68, 81, 86, 88, 95 Bering Land Bridge. See Beringia Bering Sea 8 Bering Strait 56 Beringia vii, 8, 27–28, 56, 63, 70, 76 Biisk, town 15 Bilir I, site 18–21, 23, 29, 31, 37, 58 Biryusa, site 14 Bochanut, site 60 Bodaibo, town 57 Bogoraz, W. G. 7 Bolshaya Kyuske, site 66 Bolshaya Severnaya, site 57 Bolshoi Elgakhchan, site 68 Bolshoi Lyakhovsky Island 8 Brandenburg, N. E. 6 Breuil, H. 26 (footnote 17) British Mountain, cultural complex 76, 87–88 Bronze Age 28, 89 Buret, site vii, 14–15 Burulgino, site 37

Buyaga, site 57 Campus, site 70 Cape Lopatka 72 Central Asia 16, 21, 27, 39, 54–55 Chara River 57 Chard, C. S. 21 Chastinskaya, site 11–14, 16, 26, 60 Chekanovsky, A. L. 5 Chelkun II–III, sites 76 Cheremushnik, site 82 Chersky, I. D. 5–7, 32 Chikaevo, site 25, 77 China 16, 20, 27, 55, 63, 87–88 Chokurdakh, site 60 Chukotka, region vii, 8, 18, 24–25, 27–28, 32, 38–39, 42, 44, 56, 63–64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74–75, 77–78, 87, 89 Clovis, cultural complex 27, 44, 70, 89 Commander Islands 8, 28 Daban. See At-Daban, site Denali, cultural complex 70 Denali–Akmak, cultural complex 77, 89 Denbigh Flint Complex 22 Detrin River 68 Dikov, N. N.: excavations in Kamchatka 38–44, 68–75; excavations in the Kolyma River basin 68, 70–73; excavations on Chukotka 74–76; creation of periodisation of ancient cultures 76–78; theory of the peopling of North America 70, 75–78 Dikova, T. M. 72 Dingcun, site 27, 55 Ditmar, K. M. 8 Dubrovino, site 13–14 Dyamalakh, site 67 Dyuktai, cultural complex vi–viii, 27, 32, 36–38, 45–46, 48–49, 52–58, 60 (footnote 13), 62–64, 66–68, 75–77, 79–80, 82–89, 91 Dyuktai Cave, site 26–29, 31–32, 36–37, 46, 48, 53, 55, 58, 60, 62–63, 68–70, 83, 88 Early Maltan, cultural complex vii Early Siberdik, cultural complex vii Early Ushki, cultural complex vii, 38–39, 43–44, 68, 73, 75–77, 84–85, 88–89 East Asia 3, 28 Efimenko, P. P. 15 Egorov, O. V. 19 (footnotes 3, 6), 20 (footnote 8), 28, 31 Elenev, A. S. 6 Engigshiak, site 76 Ermolaev, M. M. 8–9 Ezhantsy, site 48–52, 55–56, 60, 63, 67, 80–81, 85 Fairbanks, site 25 Fedoseeva, S. A.: vi, 1, arrival to Yakutia 18; excavations in the Vilyui River basin 18, 25, 61–62, 67; 120

Index

excavations in the Aldan River basin 24–38, 46–48, 51, 57–58 Fedyaevo, site 20 Fell’s Cave, site 44, 70 Feofilaktov, K. M. 5 Final Ushki, cultural complex vii First Ushki culture. See Early Ushki, cultural complex fluted points 56, 89 Folsom, cultural complex 44, 89 Gatamaiskaya, site 13, 22, 63 Georgi, J. G. 5 Gerasimov, M. M. 15, 19, 37 Gmelin, J. G. 5 “Gobi” core 24, 25 (footnote 14), 48, 50, 56, 58, 61, 64, 82 Gogolev, Z. V. 37 Gontsy, site 5 Greenland 56 Grinenko, O. V. 50 (footnote 3) Gromatukha, site 36 Gromov, I. M. 19 (footnote 3) Gromov, V. I. 9, 12–13, 15, 19, 37, 53 Healy Lake, site 70 Hokkaido Island 36, 40, 49, 55 Hopkins, D. M. 28, 43, 80, 82 Horoka, technique 88 Ides, E. Y. 5 Ikaral, site 25, 82 Ikawa-Smith, F. 80 Ikhine, cultural complex 25, 27, 36, 81 Ikhine I, site 18–19, 22, 24–25, 27, 31, 36–37, 55, 58–60, 63–64, 67, 80–83, 85 Ikhine II, site 24, 31, 55, 58–60, 63, 79–83, 85 Ilyin, F. F. 62 Inaskvaam I–II, sites 74–75, 77 Indigirka River 9, 36, 38, 55, 63–64 Ioniveem River 76 Irkutsk, city 5, 24–25, 64 Japan 19–20, 39, 42–43, 84, 88–90 Jochelson, W. I. 8 Kachug, town 11, 13 Kamchatka, region: excavations in the 1960s 38–45; excavations in the 1970s 68–75 Kamenka III, site 82 Kaminsky, F. I. 5 Karginsk, interglacial (interstadial) 27, 32, 60, 67, 80–83 Katakturuk River Outlook, site 76 Katasonov, E. M. 31, 50 (footnote 3) Kazakhstan 27–28, 54, 63, 87 Kazinskaya, G. I. 75 Kehe, site 55 Khabarovsk Province 64, 68 Kharya, site 62 Khayrgas, site 7 (footnote 3) Khlobystin, L. P. 21 Kirensk, town 16, 26 Kirgilyakh mammoth 80 Kiryak (Dikova), M. A. 74–75

Kistenev, S. P. 3, 66, 68 Kitchan, site 66 Kogruk, site 76 Kokorevo, climatic warming 63, 82 Kokorevo, cultural complex 56, 88 Kokorevo I, site 14, 56 Kokorevo III, site 56 Kolganov, K. I. 26 Kolyasnikov, Y. A. 74–75 Kolyma River, region vi–vii, 9, 49, 55, 63–64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 78, 84, 87, 90 Komarok I–III, sites 49 Kondon, site 20–21 Konoshchelye, climatic cooling 80 (footnote 2) Konstantinov, I. V. 60 (footnote 12), 62 Korneev, V. V. 50 (footnote 3) Kostenki, site 5, 15, 26 Kozmin, N. M. 6–7 Kozyrevsk, town 38 Krasheninnikov, S. P. 8 Krasnoyarsk, city 5, 16 Krasny Yar, site 20, 82 Kropotkin, P. A., prince 6–7 Kukhtui, cultural complex 84 Kukhtui III, site 53, 58–60, 63–64, 76, 84, 86 Kullaty, site 22 Kumary III, site 68, 70, 87 Kunalei, site 86 Kuranakh I, site 68 Kurile Islands 28, 43 Kurochkin, E. N.28 Kurung, site 64, 64 (footnote 21), 65–67, 86 Kurupka I, site 75–76 Kurupka River 75 Kyra-Krestyuakh, site 60, 60 (footnote 13), 84 Kyuskyunde River 60 (footnote 14) Lake Baikal, region 16, 26–27, 37, 63 Lake Kudaikol, site 87 Lake Tytyl 74–75 Lantian, site 55 Laricheva, I. P. 28, 89 Late Siberdik, cultural complex vii Late Ushki, cultural complex vii, 44–45, 68, 70, 73, 75–77, 79, 84–85, 87–89, 91 Lazarev, P. A. 50 (footnote 3), 64 (footnote 20) Lena River, region: excavations in the 1940s 9–17; excavations in the 1960s – 1970s 56–58, 64–67 Lipovka–Novoselovo, climatic warming 60, 80 (footnote 2), 81–82 Loginovsky, K. D. 38 (footnote 21) Lopatka IV, site 72, 72 (footnote 30), 78 Louisville, site 28 Lozhkin, A. V. 50 (footnote 3) Maiorych, site 49, 55, 60, 63–64, 80, 83–84 Makarovo I, site 20, 82 Makarovo II, site 82 Malaya Dzhikimda, site 56–57, 61, 64, 66 121

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia Malaya Kheta, climatic warming 60, 81–82 Malta, site vii, 9, 14–15, 27 Malta–Afontovo, cultural complex 54–56, 63–64, 87–88 Malta–Buret, cultural complex 15 Maltan, cultural complex 84, 86, 90 Maly Anyui, river 66 Maly Patom, river 6–7, 17 Markha River 13, 62, 78 Markha, site 60, 60 (footnote 14) Markhachan, site 11–14, 22, 25 Marmes Rockshelter, site 77 Maya River 57, 60 (footnote 13), 64, 78 Mazin, A. I. 57 Mazus, A. P. 60 (footnote 16) Medvedev, G. I. 37 Mesolithic 19–20, 25, 36, 38–40, 42–43, 50, 52–53, 56, 58, 64, 66, 74–75, 84, 86, 86 (footnote 15), 87 Messerschmidt, D. G. 5 Milkovo, village 38 Mironovo, site 11, 13 Mochanov, Y. A.: relationship with colleagues vi; arrival to Yakutia 18; excavations in the Aldan River basin 18–38, 46–49, 51–52, 56–58, 61–62, 64, 66; excavations in another parts of Northeast Asia 49–53, 57–59, 66–68; creation of periodisation of ancient cultures 31–32, 36–38, 56–57, 60, 63–67; theory of the peopling of North America 21–22, 24–27, 36–37, 49, 54, 56, 63, 83; analysis of materials from the Ushki sites 63; controversies with Dyuktai culture 80–83, 85–86 Mongolia 16, 27, 55, 63, 87 Mousterian–Levallois, cultural complex 15–16, 21, 26–27, 55 Müller, G. F. 5 Mysovaya, site 87 Nelson, N. C. 9, 21 Neolithic vi, 1, 12–13, 15–16, 18, 18 (footnote 1), 19–22, 25–26, 28, 36–37, 37 (footnote 20), 38, 46, 49, 52, 57, 59, 60 (footnote 12), 62–64, 66–69, 74, 78, 84, 86–87, 89 Nerchinsk District 6 New Siberian Islands 6, 51 Nizhne-Troitskaya, site 32, 55, 58, 60 North America: theoretical models of the peopling created by Soviet scholars 21–27, 36–37, 49, 54–56, 63, 70, 75–78, 83; the oldest cultural complexes 44, 70, 76, 87, 89 Novosibirsk, city18, 57, 59 Novy Leten A, site 50, 50 (footnote 2), 53, 56–57, 60–61, 63–64, 66, 82 Novy Leten B, site 50, 53, 56, 58, 60–61, 63, 82 Novy Leten C, site 56, 56 (footnote 8), 60 Nyangi, site 63 Nyurbachan–The 6-th kilometer, site 25 Nyuya, site 12–14, 22

Okhotsk Sea, region 21, 24, 27–28, 38, 43, 52, 58–59, 63, 68, 75, 78, 87 Okhotsk, town 53 Okladnikov, A. P.: relationship with colleagues vi; excavations in the Lena River basin in the 1940s 1, 9–17; creation of periodisation of ancient cultures 14–16; opinion about the age of Dyuktai complex 80; opinion about the areas occupied by the Lena River complexes 87 Old Llano, cultural complex 63–64, 89 Olekma River, region 49–50, 53, 56–58, 60–61, 63–64, 66, 66 (footnote 23), 67, 78, 82 Olenek, site 60, 60 (footnote 12), 84, 86 Olenek River 9, 78 Olonki, site 14 Omolon River 68 Ordos, region 16 Orlova, Z. V. 50 (footnote 3) Oshurkovo, site 20 Osinovka, site 68 Osipovka, cultural complex 36 Osipovka, site 63 Pacific Region 28, 36, 70, 78, 87–90 Pallas, P. S. 5 Palli Aike, site 44, 70 Panteleikha III, site 49, 66 Panteleikha I–IX, sites 49, 57 Panteleikha River 49 Pasika, cultural complex68, 70 Patagonia 44, 89 Pechora River 17, 50 Pereselenchsky Punkt, site 14 Petri, B. E. 13 9footnote 6), 19, 21 Pirs, site 49 Polyakov, I. S. 5–6 Ponomarevo, site 14 Primorye (Maritime) Province, region 39, 43, 63, 68, 82, 87, 89 Prokopyeva, V. G. 48 Proskuryakov, P. S. 6 Romanova, E. N. 28 Rudenko, S. I. 28 Rusanov, B. S. 50 (footnote 3) Ryabushinsky, F. P. 7 Sakkotsu–Araya, tradition 89 Sandia, site and cultural complex 21, 21 (footnote 9), 27, 32 (footnote 19) Sanny Mys, site 27, 82, 86 Santa Rosa Island, site 28 Sartan, glaciation 14, 25, 27, 32, 37, 52, 56, 60, 63, 69–70, 72, 76, 80–83 Sary-Arka, site 27 Savenkov, I. T. 5–7 Sawiski, L. 15, 15 (footnote 8) Scripps Campus, site 28 Second Ushki culture. See Late Ushki, cultural complex 122

Index

Sedna Creek, site76, 76 (footnote 34) Selenga River 8, 14 Sementsov, A. A. 31 Sergeevka, site 36 Shilo Creek 68, 70 Shirataki, site 20 Shishkino, site 20, 87 Shiveluch Volcano 38 Siberdik, cultural complex vii, 70, 73, 76, 78–79, 84–85, 87, 89, 91 Siberdik, site 68–73, 78, 85–86 Sibiryakov, I. M. 7 Snezhnoe, site 25 Sokhatino IV, site 63, 82, 86 Sosnovsky, G. P. 15, 19, 21, 37 Sosnovy Bor, site 82 Southeast Asia 27 Steller, G. F. 8 stemmed points 39–40, 43–44, 63, 66, 68, 70, 72, 75–77, 84–85, 88–89 Sumnagin, cultural complex vii, 22–29, 32, 36–37, 37 (footnote 20), 38, 45–46, 49, 51–53, 55–59, 61–64, 66–68, 74–75, 79, 83–86, 86 (footnote 15), 87–91 Sumnagin I, site 18–19, 21–22, 22 (footnote 13), 23, 28, 36–37, 58 Sumnagin III, site 19, 21, 28, 55, 60 Sumnagin River 19 Susuman River 17 Syalakh, cultural complex 22, 25, 36, 66 Syurakh-Aryi, site and island 18 (footnote 1) Szeletian–Solutrean, cultural complex 27 Tachikawa, site 20 Tagenar VI, site 57 Taimyr Peninsula 57, 64, 87 Talanda River 62, 84 Tangi, site 86 Tarachikha, site 88 Tashtyk, site 20, 56 Tatishchev, V. N. 5 Tebyulyukh. See Uryung-Khaya Teklanika, site 70 Timpton River 36 Tochilnaya, site 12–13, 22 Tokko River 57 Tolbaga, site 86 Tommot, town 18 Tomsk, city 5, 5 (footnote 1) Tomsk, site 8 Torom, site 68, 84, 86 Trail Creek, site 77 Transbaikalia, region 3, 9, 16, 18, 20, 25, 43, 55, 63, 82, 86, 88, 90 Troitskosavsk–Kyakhta, twin town 5 Tseitlin, S. M. 31, 80, 82–83 Tsepkin, E. A. 28 Tule Springs, site 28 Tumulur, site 18, 20–21, 55, 57–59, 63, 79

Tuoi-Khaya, site 25 Tytyl I–IV, I–VII, sites 66, 74–75, 84 Ulaanbaatar, city 15 Ulan-Khada, site 21 Ulya River 59, 64 Ulyanov, V. N. 31 Upper Cave. See Zhoukoudian Urals, region 18, 63, 87 Urtychuk, site 75 Uryung-Khaya, site 62 Ushkanka, site 63 Ushki, site cluster vi, 8 (footnote 4), 38, 40, 40 (footnote 22), 42–43, 75, 77, 84, 84 (footnote 14), 97 Ushki I, site 38, 40, 40 (footnote 24), 41, 44, 55, 68–70, 72–77, 85–86, 96 Ushki II, site 38, 55, 72, 85–86 Ushki IV, site 42, 55, 72, 85–86 Ushki V, site 70, 72–73, 85 Ushki Lake 25, 38, 40, 42, 44, 68–70, 75, 77, 80, 96 Ust-Belaya, site (Angara River) 14, 63 Ust-Belaya, site (Chukotka) 25 Ust-Bilir II, site 29, 32, 55, 60, 60 (footnote 11) Ust-Chirkuo, site 25, 52, 58, 61–62, 67 Ust-Dyuktai I, site 26, 26 (footnote 16), 28, 32, 55, 60, 60 (footnote 11), 63 Ustinovka, cultural complex43, 89 Ustinovka, site 63, 89 Ust-Kamchatsk, town 38 Ust-Kyunkyu, site 66 Ust-Mil I, site 18–21, 23, 29, 31, 37 Ust-Mil II, site 29, 31, 46–47, 51–52, 55–58, 60, 63, 80–81, 83, 85 Ust-Mil III, site29, 32, 32 (footnote 18) Ust-Syuldyukar, site 67 Ust-Timpton, cultural complex 84–86, 88 Ust-Timpton I, site 18–19, 21, 21 (footnote 10), 23, 33– 37, 51, 57–59, 61–64, 66 (footnote 22), 67, 79–80, 85 Utukok, site 25 Uvarov, A. S., count 6–7 Vangengeim, E. A. 28 Vasil’evsky, R. S. 88–89 Vereshchagin, N. K. 50, 50 (footnote 3), 52–53, 88, 88 (footnote 16) Verkhne-Troitskaya, site 32, 46, 48, 51, 55, 58, 60, 62–64, 80, 83 Verkholenskaya Gora, site 12, 20, 63, 82 Verkhovtsev, A. N. 60 (footnote 14), 62 Verkhoyansk District 6 Vilyui River, region 18, 25, 38, 52, 58, 60, 64, 67, 78, 93 Vitim River 13, 57, 60, 63–64, 78 Voenny Gospital, site 5–6, 9, 14, 27, 63 von Merhart, G. 15, 15 (footnote 8) wedge-shaped core 13 (footnote 6), 18–21, 24–29, 31–32, 35, 38–44, 46–52, 52 (footnote 5), 53–59, 60 (footnotes 12, 14), 61–64, 66–67, 69–70, 74, 76–78, 81–85, 88–89 Witsen, N. 5 123

The Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia Workman, W. 80 Yagodnaya II–III, sites 66 Yakimdzha II, site 57 Yakutsk, city 7, 11, 22, 26, 37, 44, 46, 56, 60, 74–75, 78, 90–91 Yana River 68, 78 Yellow River 19, 56 Yenisei River, region 3, 5, 8–9, 13–14, 16, 19–20, 25, 37, 55–57, 87–88, 90 Ymyyakhtakh, cultural complex 37 (footnote 20) Ytylakh, site 67 Zamyatnin, S. N. 19 Zazhigin, V. S. 28 Zeleny Mys, site 49 Zeya River 36 Zhoukoudian, site 20 Zubov, A. I. 16

124