The Stone Age of Chukotka, Northeastern Siberia (New Materials) 9781407305752, 9781407336350

Citation preview

BAR S2099 2010

The Stone Age of Chukotka, Northeastern Siberia (New Materials)

KIRYAK

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) Translated and edited by

THE STONE AGE OF CHUKOTKA

B A R Kiryak 2099 cover.indd 1

Richard L. Bland Yaroslav V. Kuzmin

BAR International Series 2099 2010

12/04/2010 10:35:05

The Stone Age of Chukotka, Northeastern Siberia (New Materials) Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) Translated and edited by

Richard L. Bland Yaroslav V. Kuzmin

BAR International Series 2099 2010

ISBN 9781407305752 paperback ISBN 9781407336350 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407305752 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Table of Contents Translators’ Introduction

iii

Preface

1

Chapter I Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka

3

The History of Archaeological Investigation 1. A Key Cluster Area of Stone Age Sites at Lake Tytyl’ (Bilibino District) A Brief Geographic and Geomorphologic Description of the Area Diachronic Complexes of the Tytyl’ Archaeological Sites Tytyl’ Caches Sites of Later Age 2. Local Archaeological Complexes of Western Chukotka A Complex of Stone Artifacts from the Srednee Ozero V Site (Upper Reaches of the Oloi River; Bilibino District) Archaeological Sites in the Region of the Kupol Gold Field (The Results of Preliminary Archaeological Surveys) Early Artifacts of Lake El’gygytgyn (Anadyr’ District) New Archaeological Discoveries in the Chaun District

Chapter II Periodization of the Stone Age Complexes of Western Chukotka The Orlovka II Site with Regard to the Chronology of Early Traditions in Western Chukotka Periodization of the Early Holocene Cultures of Western Chukotka

3 5 5 6 36 39 40 40 45 49 55 62 62 69

Chapter III Archaeological Complexes of Adjacent Territories

75

Chapter IV An Ethnic Identification of the Late Neolithic Complexes in Western Chukotka (A Northern Variant of the Ymyyakhtakh Culture)

96

A Brief History of the “Yukagir Problem” And Still The Yukagir?

96 100

Conclusion

119

Epilogue

120

References

121

Appendices

131

Plates

157

i

Translators’ Introduction Yaroslav V. Kuzmin and Richard L. Bland At the beginning of this book it will be useful to give non-Russian readers a general introduction to the prehistoric chronology and periodization of Chukotka as well as discuss the issue of transliteration and translation of geographic and archaeological names and terms. In doing so, we summarize published data available in primary Russian literature with the addition of relevant English sources, including translations of original Russian books in the Bibliography of Selected Sources immediately below. The scheme of periodization and chronology of the prehistoric cultural complexes of Chukotka is offered first since this is poorly known to the non-Russian audience due to the limited information published in English. Fortunately, major sources for prehistoric archaeology of Northeastern Siberia have been translated and published in the last decade with the help of the Shared Beringian Heritage Program (part of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior). These sources include books written by N. N. Dikov, A. I. Lebedintsev, A. A. Orekhov, and others. A seminal volume by L. P. Khlobystin on the prehistory of the Taimyr Peninsula and the neighboring Siberian Arctic was recently translated and published by the Arctic Studies Center of the National Museum of Natural History (part of the Smithsonian Institution). Here we refer to them and give some new nontranslated data related to Chukotkan sites and cultural complexes. The basis for periodization and chronology of the Stone Age complexes in Northeastern Siberia was created by Mochanov and Fedoseeva (1984). They established several cultural assemblages that follow the Upper Paleolithic Dyuktai culture at ca. 10,500 BP (uncalibrated 14C years ago). The Sumnagin cultural complex (hereafter “culture” as commonly noted in Russian archaeological literature) dated to ca. 10,500 (9500)–6200 “BP” follows the Dyuktai culture and is defined as the final (or latest) Upper Paleolithic. The cultural complexes following the Sumnagin are the Syalakh (ca. 6200–5200 BP), Bel’kachi (ca. 5200–4100 BP), and Ymyyakhtakh (ca. 4100–3300 BP), all belonging to the Neolithic. In some sources, the Sumnagin culture is associated with the Mesolithic stage (e.g., Kol’tsov 1989). However, the concept of a Mesolithic in Siberia, after its wide use in the 1960s–1980s, was rejected by most researchers on the grounds that no difference exists between the late Upper Paleolithic (ca. 18,000–10,000 BP) and the “Mesolithic” stages in terms of age and artifact typology (e.g., Vasil’ev et al. 2005; also see review in Dolitsky 1985). Sites earlier affiliated with the Mesolithic stage are now referred to as the “final Upper Paleolithic.” Perhaps this is why some Russian archaeologists who are working in Northeastern Siberia call these transitional complexes “Early Holocene Stone Age” (e.g., Pitul’ko 2003:101). The newly excavated and 14C-dated sites of Zhokhov (New Siberian Islands) and Naivan (easternmost Chukotka) are associated with the Sumnagin culture (Pitul’ko 2003:109). Western Chukotkan sites of Tytyl’ 1, 2, and 3 also belong to the Sumnagin complex, according to Pitul’ko (2003:113). For the Chukotkan region, Dikov (1997, 2003, 2004) established several Stone Age complexes. In the easternmost part of Chukotka, the so-called Chukchi Peninsula (Dikov 1997), the Upper Paleolithic complex is correlated with the early Ushki culture (Layer 7) of Kamchatka (ca. 14,000–13,000 BP; without 14C dates at Chukotka). Later Upper Paleolithic assemblages are connected with the late Ushki Paleolithic component (Layer 6) and its age estimated about 12,000–11,000 BP. The next stage, the Mesolithic, is subdivided into two complexes, Early (no 14C dates) and Late (with two 14C dates of ca. 8400–8200 BP). The following stage, Neolithic, is subdivided into four chronological complexes: Early (fifth–fourth millennia B.C.); Middle (third–second millennia BC); Late (first millennium BC); and Remnant (first millennium AD – middle of the second millennium AD). As for the northern and central parts of the region (Dikov 2003, 2004), in northern Chukotka the main Neolithic complex is the North Chukotkan (Severo-Chukotskaya); it is dated to ca. 2800 BP. In the Anadyr’ River basin of central Chukotka the Ust’-Belaya cultural complex existed at the same time (ca. 2900 BP). After some gap, the Vakarevo culture is known at ca. 500 BP. On the seacoast of Chukotka, the Wrangel culture is dated to ca. 3400 BP; the next complex is the Beringovsky (ca. 2300 BP), with Old Bering Sea succeeding it (dated to ca. 1200–2000 BP). The latest coastal assemblages belong to the Thule and Punuk cultures (ca. 200–900 BP). Kiryak (1993:127) established for the western part of Chukotka the following periodization for Stone Age

iii

complexes. The earliest traces of human occupation belong to the Upper Paleolithic (analogous to the Layer 7 at Ushki site); the Mesolithic is dated to ninth–fifth millennia BC. In the Neolithic, the early phase is dated to the fourth millennium BC–first half of third millennium BC; the middle phase to the second half of third millennium BC–beginning of second millennium BC; the late phase to the beginning of second millennium BC–first half of the first millennium BC; and the remnant phase existed in twelfth–fifteenth centuries AD. It is noted that the Late Neolithic consists of three stages, the two last ones correlating with the Bronze Age complexes of Yakutia (the Ust’-Mil’ culture; see Alekseev 1996; Mochanov and Fedoseeva 1984). Radiocarbon dates for the prehistoric complexes of Northeastern Siberia have been summarized by Kuzmin (2000), and recently by Pitul’ko (2003). In the latest compendium by Pitul’ko (2003), 57 14C dates for Chukotka (excluding the Zhokhov site) are listed. This is still fewer than for the neighboring Yakutia (Mochanov and Fedoseeva 1984), Kamchatka, and Kolyma River basin (see Kuzmin 2000). However, it is possible to establish the main chronological boundaries for Chukotka. The late Upper Paleolithic is still undated; the final Upper Paleolithic (Mesolithic in Dikov’s model) has 14C dates of ca. 8400–8000 BP. The different Neolithic complexes are 14C-dated to ca. 5700–2300 BP. The latest cultural complexes are combined by Pitul’ko (2003:108, 146) under the general term “Eskimo” and are dated to ca. 2000–100 BP. In M. A. Kiryak’s book, a clear distinction is made between the terms “blade” [plastina], “bladelet” [plastinka], and “microblade” [mikroplastinka]. In archeological dictionaries, the “bladelet” is defined as “a small blade of the type used in the Upper Palaeolithic of Europe” (Darvill 2002:50), and is different from a blade: “blades are defined as measuring at least twice as long as they are wide, with shorter narrower blades being classed as bladelets” (Bahn 2001:59). The “microblade” is usually defined as “a small stone blade, typically several centimetres in length, often produced from a conical or wedge-shaped microcore” (Bahn 2001:292) or “a very small, narrow blade” (Darvill 2002:259). In Western Europe and Africa, bladelets are common in Upper Paleolithic assemblages (e.g., Close 2002; Kuhn 2002; Straus 2002), and are generally retouched (so-called “backed bladelets”). European and African Upper Paleolithic bladelets are closely related to the general term “microlith,” which is defined as “a small later Upper Palaeolithic or Mesolithic stone artifact varying in size from approximately 1 to 5cm (0.4 to 2 inches), and used as the tip of a bone or wooden implement or as an arrow-point” (Bahn 2001:292) or “a very small tool made on a blade or flake. Often less than 2 cm long, microliths sometimes occur in geometric shapes (e.g. triangles and trapezes), and few of them could have been used without hafting” (Bray and Trump 1982:156–157). In Siberia bladelets are common in the middle Upper Paleolithic complexes of the West Siberian Plain and the Yenisei and Angara basins (Zenin 2002), and many of them are retouched. Mostly flat and end cores were used for the production of bladelets (Zenin 2002). In Western Siberia, the bladelet industries existed until ca. 15,000 BP, and later were replaced by late Upper Paleolithic microblade complexes with wide use of wedge-shaped cores. Typical Siberian microblades were usually not retouched because they are too narrow and fragile for that operation (e.g., Krasny Yar in Angara River basin; see Medvedev 1998). Thus, when M. A. Kiryak uses the term “bladelet” she means that it was taken from a prismatic or conical core but not a wedge-shaped core. The latter are not numerous in the Chukotkan assemblages presented by Kiryak. Some bladelets excavated by Kiryak may be considered microblades due to their narrow nature (less than 1 cm wide) and absence of retouch. A very frustrating aspect of this, or any translation, from Russian is trying to settle on a suitable form of English transliteration for names. None of the three systems available to us (U.S. Board of Geographic Names [BGN], Library of Congress [LOC], or “Linguistic” system [Ling]) was entirely adequate for our needs. We therefore “created” our own system (see, for example, Nelson et al. 2006). In this we use some of the BGN system with a slightly modified version of the LOC system. For example, the “ye” of BGN is written as “e” following LOC. The Russian “ë” is also written as “e” (not “yo”), following Ling. The Russian “э” is written as “e,” following BGN. Both the Russian “и” and “й” are transliterated as “i,” unlike in any of the three systems. The Russian soft sign appears as an apostrophe, and though often dropped in transliterations, is retained here. The Russian “ю” and “я” are written as “yu” and “ya,” following the BGN. We have also settled on one ending for words, as the English language forces us to do, rather than the four endings (masculine, feminine, neuter, and plural) available in Russian. This creates an even more diverse effort than the transliteration in that some names (with aberrant spellings), for example, Wrangell instead of the Russian Vrangel’, have already been adopted in English. Another example is the name “Kiryak.” Following our method set out above, the name should be spelled “Kir’yak.” We have here simply dropped the apostrophe, following the lead found in American Beginnings (West 1996). Other names are “semi”

iv

formalized in English. Many names, however, leave the translator with a variety of endings to choose from (“-sky,” “-skiy,” “-skij,” “-skii,” “-ski”). This in no way exhausts the possibilities and problems, but rather provides a notion of the difficulties attendant upon any translation project. Nonetheless, we hope the explanation of our method will aid the reader. Some mention should be made about the references for this volume. The aim of any bibliography is to include the original publication. In order to do so, it was decided to give the Romanization of original titles and their translation in square brackets, and the romanization only of original volumes and periodicals where these publications appeared. This style was recently used by a number of academic editions dealing with nonEnglish sources (for example, The Journal of East Asian Archaeology; The Journal of Field Archaeology; and The Journal of Anthropological Archaeology). This allows readers at least to be able to find these sources in library catalogs, such as The Library of Congress of the USA. The reference style in M. A. Kiryak’s book is to some extent different from English sources. In Russian scientific literature, the use of name(s) of a volume’s editor(s) is not common, so we left it as it is in Kiryak’s book. Also, in periodical editions (such as journals) the volume number is usually not indicated, with only the issue number provided. Some sources are in fact semi-periodicals, like Zapiski Chukotskogo Kraevedcheskogo Muzeya (The Transactions of the Chukotka Local Lore Museum) and Kraevedcheskie Zapiski (Local Lore Transactions), published once every few years by the regional museums in Anadyr’, Magadan, and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. We would like to thank the many people who have aided this project in some way. Specifically, however, we would like to state our gratitude to Anna Gokhman for going over the Russian-English translation, Mary Sharon Moore for copyediting the result to bring it into a more flowing form of idiomatic English and Nan Coppock-Bland for proofreading the final copy. Finally, we all owe a great debt of gratitude to Dr. Margarita Aleksandrovna Kiryak (Dikova), wife of the late Northeast Asian scholar, Nikolai Nikolaievich Dikov.

v

Bibliography to Translators’ Introduction Alekseev, A. N. 1996 Drevnyia Yakutia: neolit i epokha bronzy [The ancient Yakutia: Neolithic and Bronze epoch]. Novosibirsk: Izdatelstvo Instituta Arkheologii i Etnografii SO RAN. Bahn, P. (ed.) 2001 The Penguin archaeology guide. London: Penguin Books. Bray, W., and D. Trump 1982 The Penguin dictionary of archaeology (2nd edit.). London: Penguin Books. Close, A. E. 2002 Backed bladelets are a foreign country. In: R. G. Elston and S. L. Kuhn (eds.), Thinking small: global perspectives on microlithization, pp. 31–44. Arlington: American Anthropological Association. Darvill, T. 2002 The concise Oxford dictionary of archaeology. New York: Oxford University Press. Dikov, N. N. 1997 Asia at the juncture with America in antiquity (the Stone Age of the Chukchi Peninsula). Anchorage: Shared Beringian Heritage Program, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2003 Archaeological sites of Kamchatka, Chukotka, and the Upper Kolyma. Anchorage: Shared Beringian Heritage Program, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2004 Early cultures of Northeastern Asia. Anchorage: Shared Beringian Heritage Program, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Dolitsky, A. B. 1985 A critical review of “the Mesolithic” in relation to Siberian archaeology. Arctic 38:178–187. Kiryak, M. A. 1993 Arkheologiya zapadnoi Chukotki v svyazi s yukagirskoi problemoi [Archaeology of Western Chukotka in connection to the Yukagir problem]. Moscow: Nauka. Kol’tsov, L. V. 1989 Mezolit severa Sibiri i Dalnego Vostoka [Mesolithic of the northern Siberia and the Russian Far East]. In: L. V. Kol’tsov (ed.), Mezolit SSSR, pp. 187–194. Moscow: Nauka. Kuhn. S. L. 2002 Pioneers of microlithization: the “proto-Aurignacian” of southern Europe. In: R. G. Elston and S. L. Kuhn (eds.), Thinking small: global perspectives on microlithization, pp. 83–93. Arlington: American Anthropological Association. Kuzmin, Y. V. 2000 Radiocarbon chronology of the Stone Age cultures on the Pacific coast of Northeastern Siberia. Arctic Anthropology 37:120–131. Medvedev, G. 1998 Upper Paleolithic sites in south-central Siberia. In: A. P. Derevianko, D. B. Shimkin and W. R. Powers (eds.), Paleolithic of Siberia: new discoveries and interpretations, pp. 122–132. Urbana & Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Mochanov, Y. A., and S. A. Fedoseeva 1984 Main periods in the ancient history of Northeast Asia. In: V. L. Kontrimavichus (ed.), Beringia in the Cenozoic era, pp. 669–693. New Delhi: Amerind Press. Nelson, S. M., A. P. Derevianko, Y. V. Kuzmin, and R. L. Bland (eds.) 2006 Archaeology of the Russian Far East: Essays in Stone Age Prehistory (BAR International Series S1540). Oxford: BAR Publishing. Pitul’ko, V. V. 2003 Golotsenovy kamenny vek Severo-Vostochnoi Azii [The Holocene Stone Age of Northeastern Asia]. In: P. A. Nikol’sky and V. V. Pitul’ko (eds.), Estestvennaya istoriya rossiiskoi vostochnoi Arktiki v pleistotsene i golotsene, pp. 99–151. Moscow: GEOS. Straus, L. G. 2002 Selecting small: microlithic musings for the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic of Western Europe. In: R. G. Elston and S. L. Kuhn (eds.), Thinking small: global perspectives on microlithization, pp. 69–81. Arlington: American Anthropological Association. Vasil’ev, S. A., Z. A. Abramova, G. V. Grigoryeva, S. N. Lisitsyn, and G. V. Sinitsyna 2005 Pozdny paleolit Severnoi Evrazii: paleoekologiya i struktura soseleniy [The Late Paleolithic of the Northern Eurasia: paleoecology and site structure]. St.-Petersburg: Institut Istorii Material’noi Kultury RAN. Zenin, V. N. 2002 Major stages in the human occupation of the West Siberia during the Paleolithic. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 3(4) [No. 12]:22–44. vi

Selected References Ackerman, R. E. 1982 The Neolithic–Bronze Age cultures of Asia and the Norton phase of Alaskan prehistory. Arctic Anthropology 19(2):11–38. Anderson, P. M., A. V. Lozhkin, and L. B. Brubaker 2002 Implications of a 24,000-yr palynological record for a Younger Dryas cooling and for boreal forest development in Northeastern Siberia. Quaternary Research 57:325–333. Andreev, A. A., and V. A. Klimanov 2000 Quantitative Holocene climatic reconstruction from Arctic Russia. Journal of Paleolimnology 24:81–91. Andreev, A. A., V. A. Klimanov, and L. D. Sulerzhitskii 2001 Vegetation and climate history of the Yana River lowland, Russia, during the last 6400 yr. Quaternary Science Reviews 20:259–266. Brigham-Grette, J., L. M. Gualtieri, O. Y. Glushkova, T. D. Hamilton, D. Mostoller, and A. Kotov 2003 Chlorine-36 and 14C chronology support a limited last glacial maximum across central Chukotka, northeastern Siberia, and no Beringian ice sheet. Quaternary Research 59:386–398. Brigham-Grette, J., A. V. Lozhkin, P. M. Anderson, and O. Y. Glushkova 2004 Paleoenvironmental conditions in western Beringia before and during the Last Glacial Maximum. In: D. B. Madsen (ed.), Entering America: Northeast Asia and Beringia before the Last Glacial Maximum, pp. 29–61. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Dumond, D. E., and R. L. Bland 1995 Holocene prehistory of the northernmost North Pacific. Journal of World Prehistory 9:401–451. Dumond, D. E., and R. L. Bland (eds.) 2002 Archaeology in the Bering Strait region: research on two continents. Eugene: Museum of Natural History, University of Oregon. 2006 Archaeology in Northeast Asia: on the pathway to Bering Strait. Eugene: Museum of Natural and Cultural History, University of Oregon. Giria, E. Y., and V. V. Pitul’ko 1994 A High Arctic Mesolithic industry on Zhokhov Island: inset tools and knapping technology. Arctic Anthropology 31(2):31–44. Goebel, T., and S. B. Slobodin 1999 The colonization of western Beringia: technology, ecology, and adaptations. In: R. Bonnichsen and K. L. Turnmire (eds.), Ice-Age people of North America: environments, origins, and adaptations, pp. 104–155. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press. Goebel, T., M. R. Waters, and M. Dikova 2004 The archaeology of Ushki Lake, Kamchatka, and the Pleistocene peopling of the Americas. Science 301:501–505. Gualtieri, L., O. Glushkova, and J. Brigham-Grette 2000 Evidence for restricted ice extent during the last glacial maximum in the Koryak Mountains of Chukotka, far eastern Russia. Geological Society of America Bulletin 112:1106–1118. Gusev, S. V., A. V. Zagoroul’ko, and A. V. Porotov 1999 Sea mammal hunters of Chukotka, Bering Strait: recent archaeological results and problems. World Archaeology 30:354–369. Kiryak, M. A. 1996 Bolshoi Elgakhchan 1 and 2, Omolon River basin, Magadan District. In: F. H. West (ed.), American beginnings: the prehistory and palaeoecology of Beringia, pp. 228–236. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press. Kiryak, M. A., O. Y. Glushkova, and T. A. Brown 2003 Upper Paleolithic sites in the Tytylvaam River valley (polar Chukotka). Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 4(3)[No. 15]:2–15. Kiryak, M. A., and A. A. Orekhov 2000 Archaeological investigations in the northern Far East (half-century of research). Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 1(4)[No. 4]:38–48. vii

Khlobystin, L. P. 2005 Taymyr: the archaeology of northernmost Eurasia. Washington, D.C.: Arctic Studies Center, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. Kuzmin, Y. V. 1994 Prehistoric colonization of Northeastern Siberia and migration to America: radiocarbon evidence. Radiocarbon 36:367–376. Kuzmin, Y. V., and S. K. Krivonogov 1994 The Diring Paleolithic site, Eastern Siberia: review of geoarchaeological studies. Geoarchaeology 9:287–300. 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. Kuzmin, Y. V., and K. B. Tankersley 1996 The colonization of Eastern Siberia: an evaluation of the Paleolithic age radiocarbon dates. Journal of Archaeological Science 23:577–585. Laukhin, S. A. 1997 The Late Pleistocene glaciation in the northern Chukchi Peninsula. Quaternary International 41/42:33–41. Lebedintsev, A. I. 1998 Maritime cultures of the north coast of the Sea of Okhotsk. Arctic Anthropology 35(1):296–320. 2000 Early maritime cultures of northwestern Priokhot’e. Anchorage: Shared Beringian Heritage Program, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Lozhkin, A. V., P. M. Anderson, T. V. Matrosova, and P. S. Minyuk 2007 The pollen record from El’gygytgyn Lake: implications for vegetation and climate histories of northern Chukotka sine the late Middle Pleistocene. Journal of Paleolimnology 37:135–153. Lozhkin, A. V., P. M. Anderson, S. L. Vartanyan, T. A. Brown, B. V. Belaya, and A. N. Kotov 2001 Late Quaternary paleoenvironments and modern pollen data from Wrangel Island (northern Chukotka). Quaternary Science Reviews 20:217–233. Mochanov, Y. A. 1993 The most ancient Paleolithic of the Diring and the problem of a nontropical origin for humanity. Arctic Anthropology 30(1):22–53. Orekhov, A. A. 1998 The development of maritime adaptations among the early populations of the northwest Bering Sea region. Arctic Anthropology 35(1):263–280. 1999 An early culture of the northwest Bering Sea. Anchorage: Shared Beringian Heritage Program, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Pitul’ko, V. V. 1993 An Early Holocene site in the Siberian High Arctic. Arctic Anthropology 30(1):13–21. 1999 Ancient humans in Eurasian Arctic ecosystems: environmental dynamics and changing subsistence. World Archaeology 30:421–436. 2001 Terminal Pleistocene–Early Holocene occupation in northeast Asia and the Zhokhov assemblage. Quaternary Science Reviews 20:217–233. Pitul’ko, V. V., and A. K. Kasparov 1996 Ancient Arctic hunters: material culture and survival strategy. Arctic Anthropology 33(1):1–36. Pitul’ko, V. V., P. A. Nikol’sky, E. Y. Girya, A. E. Basilyan, V. E. Tumskoy, S. A. Koulakov, S. N. Astakhov, E. Y. Pavlova, and M. A. Anisimov 2004 The Yana RHS site: humans in the Arctic before the Last Glacial Maximum. Science 303:52–56. Slobodin, S. 1999 Northeast Asia in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene. World Archaeology 30:484–502. 2000 Perspectives in archaeological research of the early complexes in Northeastern Asia. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 1(4)[No. 4]:49–60. 2001 Western Beringia at the end of Ice Age. Arctic Anthropology 38(2):31–47. Vasil’ev, S. A., Y. V. Kuzmin, L. A. Orlova, and V. N. Dementiev 2002 Radiocarbon-based chronology of the Paleolithic in Siberia and its relevance to the peopling of the New World. Radiocarbon 44:503–530. Vasil’evskii, R. S. 1998 Fishing as an early form of maritime adaptation on the Pacific coast of Northeast Asia. Arctic Anthropology 35(1):281–295.

viii

West, F. H. (ed.) 1996 American beginnings: the prehistory and palaeoecology of Beringia. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.

ix

Preface

Figure 1. Map of the survey routes of the archaeological crew led by M. A. Kiryak.

I have been occupied with archaeological investigations in Chukotka for the last quarter century. The most intensive and systematic work has been carried out in the west, in the Bilibino District. The adjacent territories of the Chaun, Anadyr’, and Iultin districts were occasionally studied, as well as the North Even District, which falls within the Magadan Region (Fig. 1). The results of surveys and excavations conducted before 1992 were reported in the monograph Archaeology of Western Chukotka in Connection with the Yukagir Problem (Kiryak 1993a), which was published unfortunately during one of the most difficult times for Russian science and was issued with minimal circulation. Materials from some sites did not go into it: Orlovka II, Srednee Ozero V (Bilibino District), Lake Glubokoe, Lake Rechnoe, and Bakarevskaya (Anadyr’ District). In recent years new sites have been discovered: Tytyl’ IV, Locus 3 (Bilibino District); Uimyveem (Anadyr’ District); Kymyneiveem; Ilirnei (upper reaches of the

Kymyneiveem River); Ekityki; and Tadlevaam (Iul’tin District). The materials from some of them have been published in specialized journals and collected volumes of the Northeastern Interdisciplinary Scientific Research Institute, Far Eastern Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences (SVKNII DVO RAN),1 prepared by the Laboratory of Archaeology, History, and Ethnography, and issued with minimal circulation, or were presented at regional and international conferences (Kiryak 1994, 1995a, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c, 1997, 2003). An article about the unique but small complex at the Orlovka II site was issued in 1985 in a collection of SVKNII DVO RAN (Kiryak 1985); supplemented by new materials, it was republished in 1995 in Korea (Kiryak 1995b). The Orlovka complex was not entered into the periodization of the Stone Age of Western Chukotka (Kiryak 1993a) 1

1

See page 131 for abbreviations.

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka since it was hoped that excavations would continue at this site. Unfortunately, those excavations were not carried out. Based on the technological and morphological characteristics of the stone assemblage, Orlovka II remains the oldest Paleolithic site in the region.

excavations with small archaeological crews (maximum of four people) at Lakes Rauchuvagytgyn and Tytyl’, which are located above the Arctic Circle, where in June the water is still bound by ice, and in June and August snowfall occurs. Under such conditions, long-term operations of broad scope cannot be conducted , especially if one must consider making the return route by floating along the river in rubber boats, or with luck, in a chance ATV or truck. Such are the conditions of present-day polar archaeology in our Northeast Asian region.

In the interest of greater elucidation of the early prehistory of the northern Far East, I consider it necessary to release previously unpublished archaeological materials, as well as those obtained in the last 10 to 12 years, including some that have come to light in special collected works but have not appeared before interested readers. By “interested readers” I mean not just scientists, but also history teachers, museum workers, and leaders of regional amateur groups and clubs of neighboring Yakutia and southern regions of the Russian Far East.

But however I succeeded over these years, I am obliged to my constant assistants and traveling companions over these complicated routes—Volodya Sharshakov and Dmitrii Inanto, volunteers from the Chukotka villages of Omolon and Keperveem—to whom I express my sincere gratitude.

The goal of this book is to introduce all multicomponent artifact complexes from the Chukotkan archaeological sites that I have discovered so that researchers will have broad access to them. In accord with this goal, illustrative materials were selected, including those few in number as well as isolated finds, thus giving this work the character of a primary source.

I offer special thanks to A. A. Kolmakov for help in maintaining our safety under the conditions of the wild tundra, as well as our mobility on water and land in the area of Lake Tytyl’ and its shores. We are indebted to the benevolence and moral support of members of the Bilibino Museum of Local Lore, and especially its director, M. O. Ivanitska, for the success of our work in the Bilibino District.

In the chapter dedicated to ethnic interpretation of the archaeological resources, I use the numerous results from the study of the “Yukagir problem” of past years, which are reflected in the mentioned monograph (Kiryak 1993a), as well as new materials that shed light on the ethnogenesis of the Paleo-Asiatics. I touched upon some aspects of this problem in a previous book, Early Art of the Northern Far East as a Historical Source (The Stone Age) (Kiryak 2002).

I am immeasurably thankful to Tat’yana Alekseevna Fokas, wise and skilled editor of my work, and Svetlana Al’fredovna Skleinis, who creatively personifies in its publication her professional mastery. They both breathed life into the cold stones of remote millennia. With gratitude I thank the “architects” of the book: Klara Ivanovna Boldyreva and Viktoriya Vyacheslavovna Fadeeva, who patiently made up not only its cover, but also the interior construction.

Archaeological materials, obtained during surveys and excavations, are housed in the repositories of regional museums—partially in Bilibino and Anadyr’. But the bulk of the artifacts is in the Magadan Regional Museum, which all these years has financed my work in Western Chukotka. Some collections are preserved in the repository of the SVKNII DVO RAN.

Without financial support from the Magadan Regional Museum, neither my research work nor this monograph could have come about. I offer my deepest regard and gratitude to the Director of the museum, S. G. Bekarevich, for his support of science.

I conducted multi-year, systematic field surveys and

2

Chapter I Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka “When before me opens Eternity, my soul, having visited all the places familiar in childhood, inescapably charmed by the lake, returns here and finds peace.” Diary entry, Lake Tytyl’, 8 September 2004.

The History of Archaeological Investigation

A. Mochanov and the Northeast Asian Interdisciplinary Archaeological Expedition (SVAKAE), led by N. N. Dikov. Crews of these expeditions, independent of each other, conducted the first surveys along the shore of Lake Tytyl’ in 1977. As a result of the work by the PAE crew, the multicomponent sites of Tytyl’ I–V were discovered. The SVAKAE crew (led by M. A. Kiryak) found seven sites, but the lack of documented information by the Yakutian archaeologists did not permit their discoveries to be identified with ours.

Chukotka has always been attractive to researchers of prehistory and early history. Over the extent of many thousands of years, transit routes ran through here and migrational streams of the early population penetrated into extreme Northeast Asia and on to America. Archaeological sites are the sole testimony that document these events, and thereby remain a most important historical source. The first excavations were conducted in the northern Far East in 1787 by G. A. Sarychev, a member of the Northeastern Geographic-Astronomical Expedition. On Cape Bol’shoi Baranov (Western Chukotka) Sarychev partially excavated eroding depressions of early houses, and thereby, in the words of A. P. Okladnikov, laid down the beginning of “polar archaeology as a science.” A small number of cultural remains (fragments of ceramics, a stone knife, and so on) made up the first archaeological collection from extreme Northeast Asia. Okladnikov, who investigated these houses in detail in 1946, interpreted them as early Eskimo and dated them to the Punuk stage (Okladnikov and Beregovaya 1971).

In this same year, the northeast PAE crew followed a survey route along the Malyi Anyui River (a right bank tributary of the Kolyma River), having discovered in the river basin several sites: Novyi Ilirnei, Olennaya, Kantveem I–II, and Yagodnaya I–III. As a result of this work four sites (Tytyl’ I, II, V, and Kantveem I) were assigned by the Yakutian archaeologists to the Ymyyakhtakh culture (Fedoseeva 1980). In 1978, with a SVAKAE crew (led by Dikov), we began systematic investigation of the Tytyl’ Zone (Fig. 2). Initially, archaeological work was concentrated in the southern sector of the lake, within the limits of the shore line. This was due to the presence of the local sovkhoz (Ilirnei Village), which resolved transportation problems for the investigation of the opposite shores. The modern fishing industry was intentially begun at the narrow throat of the lake, which functioned and continues to function as a crossing for wild reindeer. It was around this crossing that most traces of occupation and use by people in the Holocene were found, including settlement sites, workshops, and temporary camps. Altogether eight multicomponent sites were found.

The expedition undertaken by Okladnikov in 1946 investigated the territory of Yakutia that borders Western Chukotka, and more precisely, the banks of the Kolyma River. On its lower reaches four sites were revealed through survey: Pomazkino, Labuya, Kresty Kolymskie, and Petushki (Okladnikov 1955a:428). Analysis of the material obtained and comparison of it with the few finds made up to this time within the continental regions of Eastern Chukotka (Okladnikov 1953:405–412) permitted him to conclude that there was a connection between the early hunting culture of the continental regions of polar Yakutia, the Kolyma Region, and Chukotka. Settlement of Chukotka occurred, in his opinion, at the end of the Neolithic and early Bronze Age (in the second and first millennia B.C.) from the west by members of those tribes that lived on the lower reaches of the Lena River. Based on Okladnikov’s (1955a:428) notion, these were the ancestors of the Yukagir. Over the 30 years following Okladnikov’s excavations, Western Chukotka remained an archaeological blank spot on the map of extreme Northeast Asia.

In the central zone of Lake Tytyl’ we found and excavated Mesolithic complexes: Tytyl’ I–III; Tytyl’ IV, Locus 3; and the Neolithic sites of Tytyl’ IV–VIII. Informationally significant materials were obtained as a result of excavations of Late Neolithic sites, in particular a deep house at the Tytyl’ IV site (radiocarbon dated to 4290 ± 100 BP; MAG1094). At the Tytyl’ V site, with mixed cultural remains (from Mesolithic to Remnant Neolithic), 200 m2 were excavated.

Systematic study of west Chukotkan antiquity began 25 years ago by members of two archaeological expeditions— Prelensk Archaeological Expedition (PAE ), led by Yu.

The Nizhnetytyl’ [Lower Tytyl’] Zone (with nine sites of Early and Late Neolithic times) and the Verkhnetytyl’ [Upper Tytyl’] Zone (with fourteen multicomponent sites

3

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Figure 2. Map of the layout of archaeological sites on Lake Tytyl’.

of the Mesolithic to Remnant Neolithic) were gradually investigated.

Eropol, Okonaito, and Yablon), the Ekityki (with a lake of the same name), the Tadlevaam (tributaries of the Amguema), the left bank of the Kymyneiveem River (with Lake Ilirnei), and the Velikaya River. We surveyed all these rivers (some of them twice) in rubber boats. Clusters of sites were found on lakes north of the Arctic Circle—Srednee, Lipchikgytgyn, Utkugytgyn, Ilirnei (upper), Ilirnei (lower), Tytyl’ (Bilibino District, Malyi Anyui River basin); Ekityki, Ilirnei (Iul’tin District); and on lakes in the Anadyr’ basin (Anadyr’ District), including Bol’shoi Nuteneut, Rechnoe, and Glubokoe.

In 1995, on the eroded surface of a river terrace in the valley of the Tytyl’vaam River (which enters Lake Tytyl’ on the northeast side), a wedge-shaped core and a ski-shaped spall were found, marking an Upper Paleolithic culture, the first discovered in Western Chukotka. In addition to the Tytyl’ archaeological “junction” (Fig. 2), where more than 30 sites were found, other areas in Western Chukotka have been examined since 1980. These areas include the banks of the Rauchua and Mlelin rivers, the right and left banks of the Malyi Anyui (and its tributary the Pogynden River), the Bol’shoi Anyui (and its tributary the Orlovka River), the Oloi (with its tributary the Andylivan with a system of lakes). In adjacent territories the crew explored the basins of the Kolyma, Omolon (and the mouth of its tributary the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan), the Korkodon, the Anadyr’ (with its tributaries the Main,

As a result, a large number of multicomponent sites (with Late Neolithic being predominant), three late burial sites (ethnographic times), and various (in form and assignment) surface stoneworks and ritual burial sites of reindeer antlers were discovered. The density of Neolithic sites (minimally from five to nine) explains in some degree the term “lake Neolithic,” once proposed by Okladnikov, and which meant not qualitatively a different phenomenon of the New Stone

4

Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka Age, but rather a manifestation of the tendency of primitive hunters and fishermen toward semi-settlement. As a rule, this settlement pattern is characteristic for sites of the Late Neolithic (based on my own regional observations) and not observed in the Remnant Neolithic, which is probably connected with the transition to reindeer herding.

December and January, –40° F. In some years the minimum temperature reaches –85° F. The average monthly summer temperature fluctuates between 55 and 59° F, reaching a maximum on some days in July of 75 to 93° F. Strong winds come in January-March, the prevailing direction of which are north-northwest and north-northeast. Average annual precipitation is 16 inches, a large part of which falls in August. Breakup in the rivers occurs at the end of May; rivers begin to freeze again at the end of October.

A significant part of the archaeological materials I obtained from these sites has been published (Dikov 2004; Dikov and Kiryak 1989; Kiryak 1979, 1985, 1993a, 1993b, 1993c, 2002).

The region of investigation enters into the zone of typical and southern hypoarctic tundras of the Western Chukotka District and the larch taiga of the Anyui and part of the Omolon districts. Vegetation cover is extremely poor, with primarily lichens, mosses, dwarf birch, and rose willow. However, 30 km to the south, in the Malyi Anyui River valley, forest vegetation predominates, with poplar and chozenia groves and, on the flood-plain terraces, groves of tree-like alder and white birch.

The Ymyyakhtakh archaeological complex and a variant, the North Chukotkan, were assigned to an ethnic community that participated in the ethnogenesis of the Yukagir (Kiryak 1993a). We interpret the Late Neolithic complex (or late Ymyyakhtakh in its northern variant) of the Rauchuvagytgyn I site as proto-Yukagir on the basis of graphic materials, principally, engravings on stone.

The mammalian world is typical for the northern tundra. The hoofed animals here are wild reindeer and snow sheep; carnivores are the wolf, fox, brown bear, and wolverine; fur-bearing animals are the ermine, weasel, and snowshoe hare; and rodents are the Siberian lemming and the vole.

The geography of the sites investigated embraces the interior regions of Chukotka, and not the coastal territories (Fig. 1). 1. A Key Cluster Area of Stone Age Sites at Lake Tytyl’ (Bilibino District)

Birds in the region are the wagtail and red-throated pipit; on the lake shores nest the loon, red-necked grebe, northern pintail, and common teal.

A Brief Geographic and Geomorphologic Description of the Area1

The chief element of relief in the territory under examination is Lake Tytyl’ with a glacier-dammed origin. It fills the valley of the Tytliutin River, running from the north along the axis of the Ilirnei Ridge (North Anyui Range). The elevation of the lake is 1,654 feet above sea level. The flowing lake consists of five basins of different size joined by short tributaries, for a total length of 18.8 km. The depth in its central part is about 70 m. The northern segment of the lake, extending 10.3 km, is an oval stretched from north to south, with a maximum width of 4.5 km in the central part. On the western shore are several small islands—fragments of glacier moraine. In the area around the mouths of the Tytliutin and Tytyl’vaam rivers can be seen river-mouth sandbars reaching widths of 0.6 to 0.7 km. Because of the great transparency of the water, river-mouth cones can be seen on air photos stretching along the shore from north to south. In the south the lake noticeably narrows due to projecting capes—fragments of stadial terminal moraines. The width of these arcs reaches 0.8 km; the length is 3.0 to 3.5 km. Along the shores fragments of low lake terraces can be observed, testaments to gradual lowering of the lake level. Sandbars and, in places, the drying shores in the southern part of the aquatory, also attest to this. On the western shore fragments of fluvioglacial terraces of different levels are preserved—from 8 to 10 m and 30 to 35 m above water. In the northern part of the lake, the shores are straightened and have a stepped profile. The steep and precipitous slopes, with relative elevation of 90 to 100 m, are replaced by gently sloping areas, the surface of which was smoothed out by glacier. South of the lake the relief is hilly and ridged with large interridge depressions, often

The region investigated is located in the southeastern part of the Anyui and the northwestern part of the Anadyr’ highlands, on the southern slope of the Ilirnei Ridge (northwestern Chukotka). The Ilirnei Ridge is a segregated mountain massif that extends noticeably in a northwestern direction for more than 140 km. The elevation of the mountains in the axial part of the range is 4,265 to 4,920 feet above sea level (asl), dropping in the peripheral parts to 3,115 to 3,280 feet asl. The relief of a large part of the range is represented by a massive inner-mountain area with flat and rounded projecting peaks. Only in the central, most elevated, part does the relief have an alpine appearance. The primary rivers, draining the north and south slopes of the range, are joined among themselves by intersecting valleys. Such passes exist between the Tytyl’vaam and Tytliutin rivers and the tributaries of the Yarakvaam River, which falls into Chaun Bay of the East Siberian Sea. The distance from the north shore of Lake Tytyl’ to Chaun Bay is 150 km in a direct line. In the territory under investigation the modern climate is subarctic, sharply continental. It is characterized by winters lasting about eight months and short summers. Based on data from the Ilirnei Meteorological Station, the average annual temperature of the air is about 9° F. The minimum average monthly temperature is –22° F; in Deciphering of the geomorphological situation by air photos was done by O. Yu. Glushkova, leading scientific researcher of the Quaternary Geology Laboratory, SVKNII DVO RAN. The computer graphics were carried out by V. I. Rachinskaya, chief specialist in the Laboratory of Neotectonics, Geomorphology, and Problems of Placer Formation, SVKNII DVO RAN. 1

5

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka swampy or filled with lakes. The hills are oval in form. They line up in a chain, forming a series of arc-shaped ridges. The perimeter of the steepest and highest ridge is 15 km with a width of about 3 km. The tops of the hills are flattened. Their relative height above the modern channel is 100 to 160 m. The lakes that fill the lowlands between the hills have subsided to 80 to 85 m.

with a multitude of small channels of intermittent streams skirting the unthawed area. With the thawing, fields of cobble-gravel are bared that have a characteristic light color because of the absence of any plant or lichen cover on them. The Aufeis actively cuts the slopes of the valley, smoothing it. The intensive erosional activity of the Aufeis is carried out primarily along the right side of the valley. As in the majority of other floodplain icings, this one appears upon the freezing of running water in the river in winter. As a result, the channel and subchannel waters run on the surface, forming a large ice field. Thawing occurs from the moment of stable transition of the temperature to a point above 0° C. As in several other glaciated regions, formation of the Krasnaya Aufeis was due to the dynamics of the Sartan and Holocene glaciers.

Characteristic for the region is the presence of numerous traces of glacial activity. Glacial cirques developed on the mountain heights. The overwhelming majority of valleys on the north and south slopes of the range are joined by deep intersecting valley passes with traces of glacial modification. The valleys are straight, having a transverse profile of a typical glacial trough. Their bottoms are filled with moraine and deposits of fluvioglacial streams; in some parts they are partitioned by terminal moraines. Based on the results of geological survey with a scale of 1:200,000, two glacial horizons can be distinguished on the southern slope of the Ilirnei Ridge—the Anyui and the Ilirnei—which correspond to the Zyryanka and Sartan late Pleistocene glaciations. South of the region being investigated, in the valley of the Malyi Anyui River, are moraines of middle Pleistocene age. Lake Tytyl’ emerged as a result of blockage of the Tytliutin River valley caused by a huge terminal moraine. This moraine evidently marks the boundary of maximum expansion of the Sartan glacier. This was a complex valley glacier stretching about 34 km that was made up of several other valley glaciers descending the Tytliutin, Tytyl’vaam, and Lukovaya rivers. In the mountain heights these glaciers became joined through intersecting valleys with glaciers that moved to the north. The thawing of the glaciers occurred in stages, just as in other regions. The maximum extent of the Sartan glaciers, according to radiocarbon dating, is marked at 17,000 to 20,000 years ago (Glushkova and Gualtieri 1998). Then their gradual degradation began. In some high mountain valleys of the Ilirnei Range the glaciers were preserved over the extent of a larger part of the Holocene. In the valleys such forms of glacial relief as fragments of fluvioglacial terraces and outwash fields predominate. Moraines, usually covering the bottoms of valleys, were preserved only in the form of narrow bands at the foot of slopes at an elevation of 25 to 30 m above river level. At the foot of steep slopes they are usually covered by talus; in the valleys streams were deformed by modern outwash cones.

Gradual, though very significant, warming of the climate at the end of the late Pleistocene-beginning Holocene about 10,000 years ago led to the thawing of the large valley glaciers. Observations in other regions indicate that the early hunters of the north moved, following the receding glaciers and the pursuant large quantity of wild animals. Toward the beginning of the Holocene, passage between the valley of the Tytyl’vaam River on the south slope of the Ilirnei Ridge and the Burlivaya River on the north slope was possibly opened up. Migrations, not only of herds of reindeer but also possibly of the last populations of mammoths, a favorable factor, evidently occurred in summer along this passage, situated at a maximum elevation of 2,953 feet asl. The animals, which went in winter to the relatively warm valley of the Malyi Anyui River, moved at the beginning of the spring snow melt through the intersecting valley to the north into the Chaun Lowland and farther into coastal regions. The migration of early people took place not only along the valley of the Tytyl’vaam River, but also along the valley of the Tytliutin River. A second favorable factor in the location of settlements at this place was undoubtedly the presence of a large lake with a great quantity of fish— an additional source of food over the course of the whole year. The third factor was the large floodplain icing, which attracted animals in summer, saving them from insects. A natural salt lick created with the thawing, was a place frequently visited by numerous animals. The fourth factor in the location of settlements was the very steep, in places precipitous, southeast slope of Krasnaya Mountain, which was a favorite place for snow sheep, an additional source of food for the early hunters.

One of the significant elements of the landscape in the Tytyl’vaam River valley is a modern Aufeis or floodplain icing 3.6 km long. Since this Aufeis is located at the foot of Krasnaya Mountain (1,281 m), it received the same name, in distinction from most of the nameless icing fields in the region. On the right bank of the river the thickness of the Aufeis is so great that some parts of it do not melt in summer. A rounded icy mass with an area about 2 km2 and pierced through by deep cracks is preserved until the end of summer. In the central part of the mass two small rounded outcrops rise several meters above the surface of the ice field. A large part of the Aufeis thaws toward the end of summer. In the area of the melting Aufeis, in the bottom of the valley, the microrelief of the surface emerges

Traces of occupation by people during different periods of the Stone Age are noted on the fluvioglacial and flood-plain terraces in the valleys of the rivers that empty into Lake Tytyl’ and on the morainal hills (lateral moraines) that ring the perimeter of the lake. Diachronic Complexes of the Tytyl’ Archaeological Sites The Tytyl’ I Site The site is on a morainal hill 20 to 22 m high situated in the southwest sector of the lake at the narrowest place, which functions even to the present as a reindeer crossing. I found

6

Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka traces of intensive retouch all have edges with a groovedtoothed (Pl. 1:6, 9), grooved (Pl. 1:4), or a convex-concave (Pl. 1:7, 8) profile. Similarities to the basic categories in the complex of cultural remains that were collected earlier from the surface and in profiles permit dating the last group of artifacts to early Holocene times as well. The Tytyl’ I Site, Locus 6 Examination of a fragment of the 3–4 m high terrace surface, located 15–17 m below (on the slope) the Tytyl’ I site, revealed cultural remains in the surface deposit that were identical to those in the Tytyl’ I complex (Pl. 2). A pencil-shaped core (Pl. 2:1) has circumferential flake removal of knife-like blades. A core blank has a prepared edge and the partially preserved cortex (Pl. 2:11). There is a “tablet” or spall from the platform rejuvenation of the prismatic (?) core (Pl. 2:8).

Figure 3. Arrangement of houses and external hearths at the Tytyl’ I site.

Lamellar spalls (Pl. 2:2–4, 12, 13) with traces of use.

the site in 1977 through the huge accumulation of debitage (flakes, spalls, and pieces of raw material) on the slope of the hill descending toward the lake. On the surface of the moraine, at its edges, large cobbles indicated four houses with hearths surrounded by small cobbles, half concealed in the surface layer. Four more hearths were found outside the houses, not far from them (Fig. 3).

Blades and knife-like blades and bladelets served as burin blanks—angular (Pl. 2:5, 6) and diagonal (Pl. 2:7). End scrapers were made on large flakes (Pl. 2:9, 10); double (convex-concave) scraper-spokeshave, on a blade spall (Pl. 2:14).

The cultural remains collected within and near the houses, as well as the artifacts found upon profiling the slope at the workshop, where raw material was worked, permitted, based on the technical-typological characteristics,2 determining the complex of the Tytyl’ I site as Mesolithic, chronologically close to the early stage of the Sumnagin culture and consequently no younger than 8,000 years.3

Siliceous slate, tuffite, and obsidian were used as raw material. The site was earlier called Tytyl’ VI (see Kiryak 2002). The collected artifacts are identical to finds at the Tytyl’ I–III sites (Kiryak 1993a) and the Ekityki IV complex (see p. 84).

In 1996, the surface and slopes were closely examined, as a result of which cultural remains similar to those obtained during the first survey were found in the surface deposit.

The Tytyl’ IV Site The site is stationed on a morainal hill 6–7 m high that encloses the narrow neck of the lake (Figs. 2, 4). In 1977, at the beginning of our first survey work on Lake Tytyl’, a small modern hut or pit house, a surface berm, and a fish-drying shed were located in the area of the site. This enterprise belonged to the sovkhoz “40 let Oktyabrya” in Ilirnei Village; three people attended to the fishing.

Cores. A prismatic core with a straight, pressure retouched platform, has blades removed in a circle (Pl. 1:1). A spall from a prismatic core reveals a fragment of a retouched platform with parallel flaking of blades (Pl. 1:3). A fragment of a conical core with circular removal of blades is oval in cross section (Pl. 1:2) Scraper. The scraper is of subtriangular-oval form, with a flattened body and a broken-oval working edge with traces of secondary modification of the blade by fine round retouch; the subtriangular haft region was left without modification, with the exception of the base with trimming (Pl. 1:5).

On first examination of the surface of the hill a large number of artifacts was collected and a depression of an early pit house was recorded. Analysis of the surface material showed its diachronic nature (from Mesolithic to Late Neolithic). In the following years, test units were laid out on the surface of the hill and excavations uncovered a house that belonged to the Late Neolithic. Charcoal collected from the hearth gave a radiocarbon date of 4290 ± 100 BP (MAG-1094).4

Lamellar spalls. Sections of lamellar spalls and flakes with “Technical-typological” characteristics or indices refer to features of both technical production and typology.—Trans. 3 For more detail about the Tytyl’ I site and the chronologically close sites of Tytyl’ II–III, see Kiryak (1993a). 2

4

7

For more detail on the finds from the site, see Kiryak (1993a).

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka In 1992, in the southern depression of the morainal hill, on a surface destroyed by an off-road vehicle, we found a place with artifacts of early Mesolithic appearance. Later, artifacts of late Mesolithic time were collected between there and the top of the hill with an early pit house. Thus, we tentatively separated the whole area of the site into three loci. In spite of the fact that the surface of the site was overgrown with thick grass at that time, because of the impacts of technogenic and anthropogenic factors (each summer-fall season up to ten visitors arrive here) the early cultural remains appear on the surface; this applies especially to Locus 1, an area on top of the moraine hill. On each of our trips to the lake we carried out surface collection at this site. Over the last few years a representative complex of artifacts was formed. The Tytyl’ IV Site, Locus 1 The Tytyl’ IV site, Locus 1, occupies an area of about 400 m2. The collected artifacts were made from a variety of raw materials: siliceous slate, hornfels, obsidian, chalcedony, jasper-like stone, and tuffite. Cores. The primary flaking is represented by cores of various forms: prismatic cores with single or double platform (Pl. 3:1–4); one specimen of a conical core (Pl. 3:5); a blade spall from a core (Pl. 3:6); and an exhausted microcore (?). Blades and knife-like bladelets. Bladelets were used as blanks for scrapers, as cutting instruments (Pl. 4:1), and as grooved tools (Pl. 4:4). Some specimens reveal small facets of irregular retouch (Pl. 3:13). Knife-like bladelets, generally sections (Pls. 3:8–10; 4:7–9, 11–16), were probably used as inset instruments. Ribbed bladelets (Pl. 4:10) could have been used as blanks for three-sided points.

Figure 4. Location of the Tytyl’ IV site.

Since 1987 intensive exploitation of the area around the site by the fishing business has continued, which includes construction of a house, a bathhouse, and subsidiary lodgings. For the layout (covering of the cold storage room) a large quantity of sod was required. For this purpose half of the hill (the most densely settled area in antiquity) was bared with the aid of a bulldozer, and all of the cultural remains that showed on the surface went into the pockets of amateur collectors. (At this time the lake was often visited by leaders of the region and their guests). In 1991, a pigpen was laid out and pigs were raised as a subsidiary economy for the sovkhoz; they finished the destruction of the cultural layer that had been located under the poor sod covering. I write about this with bitterness because my oral and written appeal to the director of the sovkhoz and to higher officials in charge of culture in the regional center were left unattended at that time.

Points form the most numerous category in the collected stone assemblage. Among them are dart (?) points with traces of damage to the tip or edges of the blade (Pl. 3:20, 21). Points include those of triangular form, of elongated (Pl. 3:23) or normal (Pl. 3:26, 27) proportions, as well as specimens with thinned lenticular cross section (Pl. 4:5, 6). The collection contains leaf-shaped points with the blade narrowing toward the base, a straight base, a completely retouched surface (Pl. 3:22, 25), and retouched along the edges on both sides of the blade (Pl. 5:1); there are specimens of laurel-leaf (Pl. 3:28; Fig. 5:2), three-sided (Pls. 3:24; 6:17; 7:4), and subrhomboid (Pl. 7:5) forms. Two fragments of a stem lightly marked by retouch has bifacial retouch along the edges of the blade (Pls. 5:9; 6:16). A micropoint on an obsidian flake is peculiar. It has a rounded blade, is partially retouched along the edge, has a subrectangular stem modified by retouch, with the tip of the blade broken (Pl. 5:3). Two fragments are indeterminate as to type (Pls. 3:20; 7:6). In some cases, fragments of points were reformed into other instruments, in particular into burins (Pl. 5:4).

At present there is a private hunting-fishing enterprise in this area. Owing to its aid in transportation we have been able to further discover and investigate new sites along the lake shore. But the damage inflicted upon the archaeological site from the 1970s to the beginning of the 1990s is irreversible. Of all discoveries in the lake zone, the Tytyl’ IV site was the most densely settled site in antiquity, due to its favorable position at a reindeer crossing, with an excellent view of the northern shore and river valleys, and of the southern, with its favorable reindeer moss pastures and approach to the river, carrying its waters to the Malyi Anyui.

Scrapers (end) are represented on blades (Pls. 3:7; 4:17; 6:7) and sections of blades (Pl. 3:11, 12). Several

8

Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka semi-oval form, with single working edge, and the working edge is formed by the finest rectangular edge retouch (Pl. 4:11). A knife with a triangular-oval working edge, formed by stepped retouch, was made on a slate slab; a broad handle, almost entirely lost, is set off by a steep groove that is preserved only on the undamaged part of the artifact (Pl. 6:9). Slate slabs with minimal (unifacial or bifacial edge) modification of the working edge were used rather widely in the site as material for knives (Pl. 6:5). Burins. In the collection are angular burins made on knifelike bladelets and lamellar flakes (Pl. 5:3, 6); dihedral burins on knife-like bladelets, and fragments of them (Pl. 5:7, 8). A multi-faceted shoulderless burin has a retouched body (Pl. 3:29). An angular burin was made by means of a burinating spall from the edge of a flat damaged arrow point (Pl. 5:5). Gravers could be made on flakes (Pls. 3:30; 5:14) and knife-like bladelets with retouched working edge (Pl. 3:8, 10).

Figure 5. Location of the Tytyl’ IV site, Locus 3.

Punches. Among the artifacts of this category is a specimen with a retouched handle and tip trimmed by microspalls (Pl. 6:10). Flakes of chalcedony with projecting points could be used (without secondary modification) in this same capacity (Pl. 5:11–13). Sometimes artifacts completed but damaged were reformed into punches: a sturdy tip was made on a piece of a microcore by counter-removal of narrow lamellar flakes (Pl. 5:10).

scrapers were made on flakes, among them specimens of subtriangular (Pl. 4:22) and subtrapezoidal (Pl. 6:4) form with a high working edge; there is a bifacial specimen of leaf-shaped form (Pl. 6:3). The collection contains a large rounded scraper made on a cobble (Pl. 5:17). It is carefully retouched on one surface; along the perimeter it is modified by fine retouch; the opposite surface is partially faceted; and a large area of cobble cortex is preserved on it. In the surface collections are scrapers with hafts: on one specimen with a high and straight working edge the stem is hardly noticeable (Pl. 6:1); on a second, with a subrectangular-oval working edge, the subrectangular stem is carefully set off (Pl. 6:2). Instruments of semi-lunar(?) form with a slightly grooved working edge are probably scrapers (spokeshaves?) (Pls. 5:14; 6:12). An artifact of subtriangular form, percussion flaked along the perimeter, could have served as a blank for a tongue-shaped scraper (Pl. 3:14). Flakes, as disposable instruments, served as scrapers (Pl. 4:18, 19).

Two slate slabs are in the collection. One of them was probably used as a retoucher, since transverse retouch can be traced on one of its edges (Pl. 8:1); at the same time, traces of the finest sharpening retouch, forming a sloping working edge (knife?), are on the opposite edge. The second small slab was possibly used as a whetstone—one side is polished at the center (Pl. 7:8). Ceramic fragments were collected that had smooth walls (Pls. 3:19; 6:14) and waffle imprinted walls (Pl. 3:17, 18) characteristic of the Late Neolithic of Yakutia and Chukotka. On two specimens, conical (Pl. 3:17) and cylindrical (Pl. 3:19) holes had been bored (punched?) under the rim.

Adzes. Adzes were rather widely used in the site. The surface collections contain blanks, percussion flaked on both sides (Pl. 7:2), and several specimens with trimmed blade (Pls. 3:15, 16; 7:1). Specimens prepared with a carefully polished surface reveal traces of damage to the blade during the process of work (Pl. 7:3). A characteristic feature is the beveled butt on all described samples. The form of the adzes varies; most of them (including those found during the first years of investigation at the site) are rectangular in plan. One adze is of subtrapezoidal form (Pl. 7:3). There is a subtrapezoidal specimen with “ears” (Pl. 6:13). The forms of the adzes indicate that they belonged to certain cultural traditions that existed during various stages of the Neolithic.

It is difficult to distinguish in the collections complexes belonging to specific periods. Judging by some elements, one can speak of the mixing of materials that belong to the Holocene—from the Mesolithic to the Late Neolithic. Among the surface artifacts are items of illustrative activity. An image of a bear is represented in a portable stone sculpture (Pl. 8:2).5 The Tytyl’ IV Site, Locus 2 On a 15 m2 area (with a broken sod surface) on the south slope of the hill, 20 m from Locus 1, a small complex of artifacts was collected (Pl. 9), among them a hammerstone

Knives are represented by large specimens, including an ovoid leaf-shaped biface with edge retouch along the perimeter of one surface and local areas of edge retouch on the other (Pl. 7:7); on the part around the handle, trimmings were made for durability of the attachment. The knife is of

For more detail on finds of early art, see M. A. Kiryak (Dikova), Early Art of the Northern Far East as a Historical Source (The Stone Age) (2002). 5

9

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka (pestle? mallet?); pecking and grinding were used in its preparation; the handle part is a regular sphere-shaped form; part of the lateral surface was damaged (Pl. 9:3). Also in the collection are: a large prismatic core, similar to the one found in Locus 1 (Pl. 3:1); two end microscrapers on knifelike bladelets with steep working edges (Pl. 9:1, 2); and a stemmed micropoint on a bladelet with retouched stem and triangular body modified by edge retouch.

Locus 3, with a complex of early Holocene artifacts. It is located in the southeastern part of the shore zone of Lake Tytyl’ (Bilibino District), on a level area in a narrow gully surrounded on all sides by morainal hills with small ridges 2 to 8 m high (Fig. 5). The sod on the surface of the site was broken up. The site is distinguished by an empty spot on the background of the surrounding landscape of sparse vegetational cover in the tundra zone of the polar region. The subsod layer had been laid bare and subjected to the direct influence of natural factors, which contributed to a more intensive patination of the stone. Artifacts lay on the surface in a jumble with cobbles and gravels; some of them were damaged. Some items, owing to technogenic influence, as well as the washing by melt waters and rains of small particles from the layer, got caught under small cobbles where the remains of brown humic fill could be traced.

The last three artifacts attest to an early Holocene origin for the complex. The core is probably Late Neolithic in age. The Tytyl’ IV Site, Locus 3 In 1991, an archaeological crew from the SVKNII DVO RAN under the author’s leadership found the Tytyl’ IV site,

Figure 6. Plan of the central part of the Tytyl’ IV site, Locus 3: 1 – core; 2 – end core; 3 – core blank; 4 – spall from a core; 5 – scraper; 6 – burin; 7 – graver; 8 – ribbed blade; 9 – flaked cobble (raw material); 10 – blade; 11 – cobble; 12 – notched tool; 13 – blank; 14 – knife-like bladelet; 15 – chisel-like instrument; 16 – lamellar spall; 17 – shaped artifact; 18 – flake; 19 – stone (small cobble); 20 – core fragment.

10

Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka The maximum depth of the deposit with the finds was of 6–8 cm from the modern ground surface. The thickness of the pebble-gravel layer, being the base of a moraine formation, could not be successfully determined because the permafrost began at a depth of 0.4 m. As a result of the surface collections and removal of the gravel by hand, cultural remains were recovered from an area of 400 m2 (the largest concentration was recorded in an area of 25 m2). The character of artifact distribution and their relation to five randomly placed large cobbles (Fig. 6) provides a basis for supposing the presence here in antiquity of the small tenttype summer house of north Asian peoples. The collection of 397 items, including debitage, represents a single and “homogeneous” (in cultural-chronological regard) complex of artifacts. The primary raw material for making the tools was predominantly local rocks: tuffite and siliceous slate. A few items were made of obsidian, flint, and jasper. In the search and selection of raw material, preference was given to small cobbles of geometric form, which is indicated by the blanks and cobble spalls.

or alternating), file-like formation of the edges, and the burin spall. A distinctive feature of the Tytyl’ industry is its unifacial character. The collected stone assemblage from the Tytyl’ IV site, Locus 3, can be separated into two components—microtools and mesotools. We will examine the typical tool kit from these. The microtool group includes 78 items: burins, punches, perforators, chisel-shaped instruments, and notched tools. Burins. The most representative is a series of burins on knife-like blades and sections of them (16 specimens). Instruments of the angular type predominate. The working edges were formed by means of breaking the end of the blade at an angle to the long axis of the blank and striking off a burin spall (Pl. 11:19–24). One burin is of the lateral type (Pl. 11:28). Notched instruments. Four tools on knife-like blades and sections have a notched character (Pl. 11:16, 17).

Cores. Primary flaking in the industry of the Tytyl’ IV site, Locus 3, was reflected by twelve cores and four core blanks. Cores were represented by single and double platform prismatic (Pl. 10:7, 9, 12–14), conical (Pl. 10:8–10), and near pencil-shaped types, two transitional specimens— from end (subwedge-shaped) to prismatic (Pl. 10:4, 6). The collection also contained a wedge-shaped core with end removal of blades (Pl. 10:5), and a core for obtaining lamellar flakes and amorphous flakes.

Punches. Two punches on knife-like blades have angular and lateral (Pl. 11:14, 15) tips. End scrapers (?). Two bladelets have transverse sharpened working edges—straight-beveled and slightly convex (Pl. 11:26, 27). Spokeshave (?). A fragment of a bladelet has a beveled edge; at the corner of the artifact a lightly notched working edge was formed by blunting retouch (Pl. 11:18).

The removal of microblades from prismatic, conical, and pencil-shaped cores was carried out around the entire perimeter of the platforms; in several cases cornices were preserved. All the specimens of cores are the result of intensive and complete use in their basic assignment; three of them have traces of being transformed into another instrument. The platforms were formed by the removal of lamellar and amorphous flakes; some have step fractures. With the rejuvenation of the platforms by a straight (perpendicular to the vertical axis) or diagonally directed blows, large flakes were obtained that served as blanks for tools, predominantly scrapers. On the basis of several specimens of scrapers and spalls from platform rejuvenation, we can conclude that blades that served as blanks were removed by the method of parallel counter flaking from large prismatic double platform cores of shortened form and oval cross section. In the collection there are three core blanks; two of them were prepared as prismatic cores (Pl. 10:1, 2), the third is a preform for a transitional form—from wedge-shaped to prismatic (Pl. 10:3). All the blanks are unifacial and convex, have flat or slightly concave back, which is left without modification, and a convex ventral surface modified by complete retouch or partially retained cobble cortex. The cross section is semi-oval. The platform was prepared by narrow blade removal or was left without modification; on one specimen it is beveled.

Knife-like bladelets. In the collection are 43 knife-like bladelets and 10 sections; 37 of the bladelets and 6 of the sections have traces of retouch on the lateral edges. They are typologically indeterminate as tools (Pl. 11:12, 25); the remaining specimens have no traces of use. The collection of mesotools contains 84 items. End scrapers are the dominant group with 39 specimens. The blanks used for them are blades and sections (14 specimens), lamellar flakes (10 specimens), rejuvenation spalls of core platforms (8 specimens), flakes (5 specimens), and cobble spalls (2 specimens). Scrapers. A technical peculiarity can be traced in the preparation of end scrapers—smooth articulation of the working edge on the lateral sides—which gives the artifact a form close to oval or truncated oval (Pls. 12:1; 13:1). Sections of blades or individual blade blanks were modified on only one end (Pls. 12:1–10; 13:1–6, 12; 14:2, 7, 8). A single specimen of an elongated blank—a cobble spall— was used as a scraping instrument without preliminary modification (Pl. 13:13). Among the scrapers, tools with a high working edge predominate, made by percussion retouch and having a stepped character with a multitude of breaks parallel to the plane of the ventral side. The working edge was trimmed by small-faceted pressure retouch. Another characteristic feature can be distinguished: In most

The technique of secondary working at the Tytyl’ IV site, Locus 3, included percussion and pressure retouch (regular

11

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka cases the working edge is joined to the plane of the ventral surface at an angle close to 90°. Three scrapers have a low (thin) working edge (Pl. 13:7, 8).

blades, and series of angular burins on knife-like blades and blade sections (Mochanov 1977). But in the Sumnagin culture complex, which is based predominantly on the small blade technique, parallelograms, end micro-scrapers, and points are present, which are not in the Tytyl’ assemblage. The presence among the Sumnagin people of axes and adzes with “ears,” which also means bifacial modification, sharply distinguishes these complexes (Mochanov 1977).

Based on the position of the working edge, it is possible to distinguish the following types: Tools with a convex arc-shaped working edge (Pl. 12:1–3, 6–9), situated perpendicularly to the long axis of the blank, predominate; there are also scrapers with a straight-beveled edge (Pls. 12:5; 13:12). Some specimens probably fulfilled the function of spokeshave (Pls. 12:10; 13:3, 9). Two instruments have an angled working edge (Pl. 13:11, 14).

The technical-typological characteristics draw together complexes of the west Chukotkan Tytyl’ IV site, Locus 3, and the east Chukotkan workshop site of Puturak. Analogous also are some types of cores, the technique of flaking based on the removal of large rejuvenation spalls from the platform, the crude blades that were used as primary blanks for tools. The types of scrapers are identical. And both complexes have points and no bifaces. But it is also impossible to overlook the differences. In the Puturak complex there are lamellar points—flatiron-shaped (Dikov 1997:92–93)—which are not present in the Tytyl’ complex.

Characteristic for this industry was the use of large rejuvenation spalls from core pressure platforms (“tablets”) as a basis for making scrapers (Pl. 14:1, 3–6); among such scrapers are specimens with the working edge around the whole perimeter (Pl. 14:5). Two artifacts with shaped contour along the perimeter stand out from the ensemble of scrapers (Pl. 12:11, 12), possibly not being scrapers but some other artifact.

The complex of the Tytyl’ IV site, Locus 3, is the most similar to the Sumnagin culture of Yakutia, and probably approaches it in the temporal functioning of the site. It is notable that the Sumnagin complexes are predominantly oriented toward a small-blade industry, whereas among the Tytyl’ people a large-blade assemblage (end scrapers) predominates, as well as the tendency to reform large spalls from core platform into scrapers. This is possibly connected with the functional specifics of the sites and the raw material used in them.

Knife (or graver?). This category includes a specimen with a double working edge on a lamellar flake (Pl. 11:8). Chisel (?). An instrument on an elongated subtrapezoidal flake is morphologically distinct. The arc-shaped working edge, slightly polished, was formed by two counter burinating spalls, possibly reforming a scraper into a chisel (Pl. 15:3). Points. Three points are in the collection—two are of truncated leaf-shaped form (Pl. 15:13, 14), and one is threesided. Without use-wear study, artifacts on amorphous and lamellar flakes belong to functionally indeterminate tools (Pl. 15:1–12).

Summarizing analogies and considering the presence of elements belonging to Upper Paleolithic cultures, that is, blanks of microcores, wedge-shaped cores, and classical end scrapers on blades, it is possible to assign the Tytyl’ complex to the earliest part of the Holocene, possibly to the end of the ninth and eighth millennia before the present.

Art objects were found at the site—a figurine of a bear in a sitting position and a fragment of a small slate slab with engraved lines (see Kiryak 2002).

The Tytyl’ V Site The site of Tytyl’ V is located at the southeastern part of Lake Tytyl’ on a moraine hill 6 to 10 m high (Figs. 2, 7). We discovered it in 1977. The surface of the site is sod-covered, with the exception of gravel and small pebble slopes, from which we collected surface material throughout all our visits, predominantly flakes, many of them very tiny. The first complex of the stone assemblage, consisting of several bifaces (knives, spear points, and blanks), fragments of arrow points, and knife-like blades, was described in 1978 and published (Kiryak 1979).

Debitage from production amounts to 215 flakes, including a group of blade forms with traces of retouch (Pl. 11:1–7, 9–11). A technological feature of the stone industry at the Tytyl’ IV site, Locus 3, is its unifacial character. Edge retouch (complete retouch is absent) and the burinating spall are used in the process of secondary modification. The closest analogies to the Tytyl’ IV, Locus 3, complex can be traced in the assemblage of the Tytyl’ I site and isolated finds at Tytyl’ II and Tytyl’ III, the artifacts of which can be joined in one cultural-chronological complex on the basis of technical-typological parallels.

In 1991 an area of 72 m2 was excavated (Fig. 8) at the site, which revealed the following stratigraphy: (1) sod, 2–12 cm; (2) humic brown sandy loam with gravel and small pebbles, 4–20 cm; (3) compacted coarse gravel. The artifacts were spread in the humus layer under the sod at a depth of 24–47 cm from the ground surface. Simultaneously a profiling of the slope was carried out, at the foot of which was a cluster of flakes (Fig. 7).

The Tytyl’ complex is analogous to the Sumnagin culture of Yakutia in several ways. Parallels can be traced in the two-component nature of the Sumnagin assemblage with its predominance of microliths, types of end scrapers on large

12

Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka and a scraper. In this same place, fragments of ceramics and of a limb bone of a reindeer were also found. Grid I-8 contained a large concentration of ceramic fragments (a broken vessel?). Clusters of flakes, numbering 223 and 136 respectively, were concentrated in Grids B-5 and F-4/G-4. No constructions of permanent houses or traces of them were found, nor hearths with arranged stones, characteristic of numerous sites in the entire shore zone of Lake Tytyl’. Judging by the large quantity of cultural remains, this place was repeatedly visited. Near the hill on which the Tytyl’ V site is located a reindeer trail, which appears to be a continuation of the place where reindeers cross the narrows of the lake. Such a large quantity of material—heads of arrows (predominantly fragments), darts, and spears; knives (numerically the second largest category of stone tools at this site); and clusters of split bone—could be indirect evidence of intensive reindeer hunting by those who waited for them to come along the path, with the hill being a reliable cover for hunters. Siliceous slate, chalcedony, obsidian, and jasper-like stone were used as raw material at the Tytyl’ V site. Cores. Prismatic single-platform cores were the products of primary flaking. Bladelets were flaked off around the whole perimeter of the platform (Pls. 16:8–12; 17:6; 19:1). Two specimens had a flattened body; one of them retained an area of the natural surface of the material in the working plane (Pl. 19:1). Among the cores are specimens with a rib opposite the working front (Pl. 16:11), and with a crudely percussion-flaked projection or convex counterfront (Pl. 16:10, 12).

Figure 7. Location of the Tytyl’ V site.

During the excavations, 85 points of spears, darts, and arrows (counting fragments) were obtained; 3 point blanks; 65 knives (counting fragments); 8 blanks of knives; 23 bifacially worked blanks of indeterminate assignment; 13 scrapers and 4 blanks; 7 cores; 204 knife-like bladelets; 8 burins; 4 gravers; 3 ribbed bladelets; 2 large blades; 2 adze-like artifacts; 3 combination artifacts; 1 retoucher; 3 shaped stones; 1,872 flakes; and 140 pieces of ceramics.

Knife-like bladelets. Knife-like bladelets were flaked from cores. These were used without retouch, were retouched partially, or were worked by edge retouch on both sides, with some specimens having a grooved-toothed edge (Pl. 17:9). They were used as gravers (Pl. 19:2), files (Pl. 19:9), notched instruments or spokeshaves (Pl. 19:4), and blades for inset knives (Pl. 19:3); also, burins were made on them. We note that the share of lamellar burins on knife-like bladelets is exceptionally small; these are angular burins (Pl. 19:10).

In the part of the site that was opened (Fig. 8) were two ashy spots (possibly traces of campfires). One large spot with traces of whitish-gray ash dust with an area of a little more than 1.5 m2 was in grids D-3, C-4, D-4, E-4, and D-5. A large part of the bone remains (fragments of reindeer limb bones) were near it, and the overwhelming part of the stone assemblage and ceramics was concentrated around it. In the center of the ash spot in Grid D-4 was a burbot vertebra.6 The second ash spot, of smaller dimensions, was southeast of the first (in grids F-5, G-5, F-6, and G-6). Here fragments of a reindeer limb bone and pieces of ceramics were found. The cultural remains were spread over the whole area of the excavation, but in some places they were in clusters. Blanks and fragments of knives, arrow points, and a retoucher lay close together in grids F-2 and G-2. Fragments of knives, points, blanks of knives and a scraper, pieces of ceramics, and a multitude of flakes were concentrated in grids F-3 and F-4. In Grid C-6, besides knives, knife-like bladelets, and other artifacts, were 12 fragments of points and 1 whole specimen. In Grid H-8 a cluster of blanks of the same raw material was noted; it included knife blanks (of double working-edged rectangular, as well as leaf-shaped form), a chisel-shaped instrument, a three-sided point, a core,

Blades are a small category in the stone industry of the Tytyl’ V site. Two were found in the material complex, both obtained from large cores and probably with blanks for end scrapers (Pl. 19:12). One of the ribbed blades had very impressive dimensions (Pl. 16:2). Points. A large series of points was obtained at the site, the largest part represented by fragments that cannot be classified. A large point (spear?) in the form of a truncated oval has wide lamellar scars on both surfaces, secondary modification by sharpening retouch on the edge of the tip, and a straight base (Pl. 17:1). Another point (of a dart?) has traces of crude modification on both surfaces, a rounded tip, a slightly grooved base, and is trimmed secondarily (Pl. 17:2). A dart point of truncated leaf-shaped form with a lightly grooved base and carefully retouched tip has

Identification was carried out in the Ichthyology Laboratory of IBPS DVO RAN. 6

13

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Figure 8. Plan of the excavation and profiles of the Tytyl’ V site: 1 – knife; 2 – knife fragment; 3 – scraper; 4 – knife blank; 5 – scraper blank; 6 – nodule; 7 – fragment of a blank; 8 – core; 9 – core fragment; 10 – graver; 11 – burin; 12 – combination tool; 13 – ceramics; 14 – burin spall; 15 – spall from a core; 16 – adze-like artifact; 17 – unidentified tool; 18 – abrader; 19 – drill; 20 – point blank; 21 – fish vertebra; 22 – ribbed blade; 23 – retoucher; 24 – point; 25 – point fragment; 26 – knife-like bladelet; 27 – flake; 28 – bone; 29 – raw material; 30 – spear point; 31 – miniature sculpture.

14

Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka elongated trimming on one side in the area of the haft (Pl. 16:3). A fragment of a large leaf-shaped biface with convex lenticular cross section is possibly from a dart point (Pl. 16:1). Also, an elongated-triangular biface with gem-quality trailing retouch is probably a fragment of a dart point (Pl. 16:4).

chalcedony and obsidian) and stemmed ones with leafshaped blade were gathered with the first collections. Analyzing this series (up to 10 specimens) and imagining the shaft that was used for such heads, one could conclude that they were most probably a teaching device, used by children to increase accuracy of shooting while hunting small fur-bearing animals or attaining hunting skills.

Present in the stone assemblage are large fragments (Pl. 20) that could belong to the same category of hunting tool. Among the fragments are three-sided forms (20:2, 3), leafshaped forms (Pl. 20:5, 6, 8), and one specimen with a subtrapezoidal stem (Pl. 20:7). There is a fragment of a point blank or the back of a knife with a single working edge (Pl. 20:1). Arrow points are diverse. Most widespread among the stemless forms are three-sided file-shaped ones, and all samples are fragmented (Pls. 17:14; 18:10, 11; 19:14; 21:3). Points of willow-leaf form with rounded base are a representative ensemble in the collection (Pls. 17:11–13; 18:2, 3). Two specimens are of truncated leaf-shaped form with narrow lenticular cross section (both differ by the care and artistry of modification of the blade); one point has a straight base (Pl. 17:4), a second has a rounded base (Pl. 21:1). Two points have an elongated-triangular form, both with carefully retouched blade (Pls. 17:3; 21:2); the first with a straight base, the second with an indented base. The edges of the blade on a large specimen were refined by additional edge modification with tiny narrow retouch. The cross section of a point fragment (the base was missing) is subrhomboid in form (Pl. 18:1). Three fragments with convex lenticular cross section have only the triangular upper part of the blade (Pl. 18:7–9).

Knives are represented in large number. Two types of blanks were used to make them: individual slabs, and nodules percussion flaked on both sides. A specimen with a double working-edge and subtrapezoidal form has one convex-concave working edge, the other straight (Pl. 17:8), formed by edge retouch on both sides. One knife with a single working edge was made on a smooth slate slab and the smoothly arc-shaped working edge was created by bifacial edge retouch (Pl. 17:20). Large elongated bifaces were also used for making knives. Fifteen specimens were collected from the surface during the first visit to the site; one was obtained during excavation. The last is a fragment of a biface with a convex lenticular cross section and sharpened working edge; the butt was beveled (Pl. 17:22). Broad leaf-shaped blanks served as the basis for some specimens that were used in making stemless knives or knives with a lightly marked stem (Pl. 17:21). Among the fragments of bifaces may be fragments of knives (Pl. 20). Broad knife-like bladelets could also have been used as inset working edges of knives.

Stemmed points are also diverse. One specimen has a broad trapezoidal stem joined to the blade at an angle, which forms “ears” or “shoulders,” and the edge of the blade is rounded (Pl. 17:5). A second point has an elongated subtriangular stem, rounded overhanging shoulders, and broad leaf-shaped blade, partially damaged (Pl. 18:6). On one of the specimens the stem is marked only at the side of one edge (Pl. 18:4). There is a specimen with a broad straight stem (elongated) and rounded base; asymmetrical triangular shoulders project from the base to the blade at the points of transition (Pl. 21:4). The blade form for a similar category of points is triangular or triangular-rounded, as on a second specimen from this collection (Pl. 18:5). Points of such type, widespread in the North Chukotka culture, were generally made on blades.

Scrapers. The most numerous category at the Tytyl’ V site after points is scrapers. Specimens among them made on large lamellar spalls with a high back of archaic appearance can be distinguished. Surface artifacts left by predecessors in an earlier period in neighboring territories may possibly have been reused. A bifacial end scraper on a lamellar flake has one notchedconvex working edge and an arc-shaped one, both formed by steep retouch (Pl. 18:15). Similar scrapers were found at the sites of Tytyl’ I and Tytyl’ IV, Locus 3 (see above). The second specimen, made on a section of a blade, has a symmetrically convex working edge (Pl. 21:8).

In the Tytyl’ collection are two specimens made on obsidian bladelets. One of them has a rounded subtriangular stem, asymmetrically projecting triangular shoulders (one straight, the other raised), and a triangular blade; it is modified by edge retouch, changing to complete retouch on one side in the upper part of the blade (Pl. 17:16). A second, miniature point has the straight stem modified by edge retouch and the truncated leaf-shaped blade lightly retouched on the tip (point), while both surfaces preserve attributes of the knife-like bladelet (Pl. 19:13).

Large lamellar spalls also served as blanks for end scrapers; they were given an oval form and a short hafting stem by means of percussion flaking and retouch (Pl. 22:2–4). A specimen with a pointed working edge has the body left without modification (Pl. 19:15). Lateral (Pl. 22:1) and angular (Pl. 22:5) scrapers were formed on large lamellar spalls.

We note that micro-points are characteristic for the Tytyl’ V site. Several stemless triangular micro-specimens (of

Two large scrapers in the collection have bodies modified by retouch; both are elongated; one has a symmetrically

15

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka arc-shaped working edge (Pl. 18:14), the second a straightbeveled working edge (Pl. 19:5).

An artifact of rib (reindeer?) might have served as a point (Pl. 19:16).

Microscrapers, typical for the Late Neolithic, are most characteristic for the complex we are describing. They were made on flakes of generally good quality raw material (chalcedony and jasper-like stone, more rarely of good siliceous slate, and even more rarely of obsidian). The special assignment of microscrapers probably also determined their form. In the collection is a round specimen with a lightly marked small haft (Pl. 21:9), and an oval one with sharpened narrowed ends (Pls. 18:15; 19:11); on the latter, the working edge is damaged. Two scrapers have a subtriangular form (Pl. 18:17, 18). There are atypical (convex-concave) specimens with one (Pl. 19:7) and two (Pl. 19:6) working edges.

A fragment of a probable reindeer rib (?) with an illustration of a bird (?), made as if in mirror image on opposite sides of the artifact, is extremely interesting (Pl. 17:17). A fragment of baleen was found in the excavation (Pl. 17:7). Ceramics. From the excavation a large quantity of ceramics was collected that can be classified in three types: smoothwalled (Pls. 16:6; 21:13; 23:10), small-celled waffle (Pls. 16:7; 21:10, 11; 23:3, 4, 7), and large-celled waffle (Pls. 17:19; 23:8, 9, 11) with rhomboid cells. Ceramics were found with rectangular impressions under the rim (Pl. 23:1) and smoothed furrows (Pl. 23:5, 6). A large part of the fragments have black burnt food outside and in; some specimens preserve the pure reddish or dark-brown color of the surface of the vessel after firing. Fragments of smoothwalled and waffle ceramics are encountered together. Based on the specimens of smooth-walled and large-celled ceramics found, the forms of these vessels are impossible to establish. A fragment of small-celled ceramics from Grid I-3 gives an idea of a vessel of spherical form with straight rim smoothly changing into the curve of the body. Traces of paddle stamping can be seen on the surface of the vessel and on the flat section of the rim, and conical holes were pressed through along the whole body below the rim of the vessel.

Burins at the Tytyl’ V site are not numerous. In addition to the cited angular specimen on a knife-like bladelet, there are multifaceted forms made on flakes or exhausted cores. A specimen on a flake has a carefully retouched body and a distinct shoulder (Pl. 18:160). A short burin on an exhausted core has a partially retouched body; two shoulders are marked by burin spall scars (Pl. 21:5). An exhausted core was reformed into a bifacial burin that preserves the core-like body without additional modification (Pl. 21:7). A single-shouldered burin was formed on a longitudinal spall from a core with minimal retouch of the haft segment (Pl. 21:6).

Small stone sculptures. Shaped stones occupy a special place in the material complex of the site (Pl. 17:18, 19). Two fragments of sculpted images of fish were found (Pl. 22:6, 7), one with the head missing (Pl. 22:6). A second small sculpture of a fish was made of obsidian, the initial form possibly being a blank of an arrow point. Both sides of the artifact were carefully modified by narrow trailing retouch. The flat upper part of the head was modeled by steep retouch like the working edge of a high scraper; further the line of the head changes into a fin-like projection. The lower part of the head in the vicinity of the gills was modified by narrow facets radiating fan-like. A second projection is noted closer to the stomach—a lower fin. On one side can be seen additional working by round concoidal retouch probably imitating fish scales. The second side was left without modification. The figurine was possibly broken in the process of being worked and subsequently discarded. The “tail” of the artifact is absent. The small sculpture in all probability embodied one of the inhabitants of the lake, possibly a representative of the loach family. The length of the fragment is 3.0 cm, the width is 1.5 cm.

A fragment of a three-sided point was also reformed into a burin (Pl. 18:12). Drill. A shouldered drill with a retouched haft is a unique instrument (Pl. 18:13). The working point, made by the removal of lateral elongated spalls, is lightly polished. An adze was recovered from the surface of the brokensod area. The instrument is trapezoidal in form, with straight butt, and smooth lenticular cross section. Traces of percussion flaking are preserved on the surface of both sides; the working edge is slightly damaged (Pl. 18:20). Abrader. During excavations an abrading instrument was found that was rectangular in plan and in cross section (Pl. 16:13); all four sides are lightly ground, on one can be seen a groove—a sign of sharpening bone (?) working edges. A retoucher was made on a flat oval cobble with traces of working along the edges. There are indeterminate artifacts in the collection. An artifact of regular leaf-shaped-rhomboid form is bifacially modified. The edge of the artifact is carefully formed by the finest retouch along the whole perimeter (Pl. 18:19). The function (lateral inset? point?) can be established only with use-wear study.

An image of an owl was found in Grid G-5. The figurine (Pl. 19:18) was made on a lamellar flake (or scraper) of dull-orange chalcedony. The bird is illustrated in its characteristic pose: the body given in profile, the head face on. The early master skillfully employed the texture of the raw material: two-layered color and internal spheroid darkbrown porosity. The upper plane of the blank had uneven orange cobble cortex; the opposite side had the dull-white surface of the flake. The contour of the back and front part

Artifacts of bone. Grid B-6 contained a fragment of an antler with the sharpened end broken off in antiquity (Pl. 16:13). The object could have been a pressure flaker.

16

Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka of the bird are defined by steep unifacial retouch; the line of the back changes smoothly into the crest on the head; the line of the breast is convex-rounded in the place of the crop (owls, unlike other birds, do not have a crop). Below, at the feet, it is terminated by a notch. In the upper part of the figurine, as it changes into the head, the blank has a high edge (as on lamellar end scrapers), a part of which was taken away by transverse removal of the cobble cortex, which laid bare two spheroid depressions in the dull-white background of the second layer of the blank, the “sketching” of the eyes of the bird as if surrounded by eyelashes. The removal of cobble cortex on the “face” part was carried out by such method that the narrow orange band of the crown of the head and of the barely marked crest was preserved. The blank was broken diagonally. Thus, the lower line of the figurine emphasizes the lowered tail and folded wings. A facet of retouch in the region of the feet, under the lower notch, bared two small brown stains that can be interpreted as imitation of talons. The image provides very crudely the form imagined by the early craftsman inasmuch as it reflects only the technique and a few features outlined by an immobile line. In addition, there is no perception of color, the changes of which are impossible to outline. Contemplation of this miniature work by an early artist gives, upon observation, the impression of a distinct knowledge of nature and fine artistic taste. The height of the sculpture is 1.8 to 2.5 cm, the width 1.8 cm.

exploitation of the lake by the fishing enterprise—by which the sod layer has been destroyed and the cultural layer laid bare and mixed. The Nizhnetytyl’ I–III Sites Isolated items were collected on the surface of a moraine hill located in the southwestern sector of Lake Tytyl’ (Fig. 2), where the river leaves the lake. Leaf-shaped arrow points with rounded butt (Pl. 24:4) and with marked waist near the base (Pl. 24:2) were found at the Nizhnetytyl’ I site. Both were of siliceous slate. A miniature point on an obsidian knife-like bladelet, partially retouched (Pl. 24:5), was found on the surface of the Nizhnetytyl’ II site. A fragment of a small dagger (?), made on a slab of siliceous slate (Pl. 24:1), was found in the surface deposit of the Nizhnetytyl’ II site (?). An end scraper of tuffite on a fragment of a large blade (Pl. 24:3) was taken from the surface of the Nizhnetytyl’ III site. The collected artifacts belong to different periods of the Stone Age. A large part of them (Pl. 24:1, 2, 4) are identified with similar Neolithic finds at the sites of Tytyl’ IV and Tytyl’ V. The end scraper (Pl. 24:3) has parallels with such artifacts in the complexes at Tytyl’ IV, Locus 3, and Tytyl’vaam IV, Locus 2. It can be assigned to the early Mesolithic or even to the Upper Paleolithic. Points on knife-like bladelets are characteristic for the late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic. However, miniature specimens, generally of obsidian (in the region of Lake Tytyl’), are also encountered in the Late Neolithic complexes of the Tytyl’ IV and Tytyl’ V sites.

In the ensemble of small stone sculptures of the Tytyl’ V site there are such beings as a mammoth (Pl. 19:5), a salamander (Pl. 20:9), a ground squirrel (Pl. 22:8), and a ptarmigan (Kiryak 2002). In addition to sculpted images are graphics on bone (Pl. 17:17) and stone in the complex from this site (see Kiryak 2002). Analysis of the stone assemblage obtained at the Tytyl’ V site permits assigning its basic components to Late Neolithic times. Three-sided file-shaped points and waffle ceramics characteristic of Late Neolithic cultures of Yakutia and Chukotka (Ymyyakhtakh and North Chukotka) can serve as markers. But clearly, arrow points with a rectangular stem and triangular blade (and modifications of them), widespread in the North Chukotka culture, are not characteristic for the Ymyyakhtakh culture. This makes the latter culture distinctive, and possibly emphasizes the local nature of the North Chukotka culture or other ethnocultural influences.

Excavations were not conducted at the Nizhnetytyl’ I–III sites.

At the same time, analysis of the artifacts from the Tytyl’ V site showed a mixing of the cultural remains of different periods from the Early Neolithic (and even Mesolithic) to the Paleometal (by Yakutian chronology). The latter is especially clearly demonstrated by large-celled ceramics. Planigraphic division of the diachronic complexes is impossible because of the insubstantial area of the site and natural-climatic factors (the polar zone of tundra and constant winds, which do not promote plant cover of a large part of the area). The technogenic factor also acts negatively—the use of ATVs and tractors in the process of

First, artifacts were collected from the broken-sod surface, the primary share of which are flakes and knife-like bladelets. The following artifacts are included in this: gravers (knives?) on knife-like bladelets (Pl. 24:6, 7), a fragment of a point on a knife-like bladelet reformed into an angle burin (retouch was applied to one surface of the flattened stem, the other surface remained without modification) (Pl. 24:8), an angle burin on a lamellar flake (Pl. 24:9), a dihedral burin on a microblade, and multifaceted burins on small flakes. Two specimens had the haft area retouched on only one side, a third had retouch

The Nizhnetytyl’ IV Site In 1987, during survey along the western shore near the mouth of the lake on a 6–9 m high hill (Fig. 9), cultural remains were found that were striking in the brightness of the raw material (yellow, orange, green, and pink flakes and artifacts of flint, hornfels, siliceous slate, and chalcedony). Because of the difficulty in reaching the site, it could not be examined until 1995.

17

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka with a conical hole. The debitage consisted of 955 flakes, with about 50% microflakes. In addition, 13 cores, 6 multifaceted burins, 48 knife-like bladelets, and 132 flakes were obtained from the profiling and test pits. I will dwell on the most characteristic artifacts. Cores. Primary flaking at the Nizhnetytyl’ IV site is represented by various cores: prismatic, conical, pencilshaped, and cores with blades removed from the end. All the cores are of a gray color (of different shades), were made of tuffite, silicified slate, and hornfels. Among the prismatic cores, variants with one retouched platform and the removal of blades all around (Pls. 25:1; 26:1, 7) and two platforms with the removal of bladelets along the whole perimeter can be distinguished (Pls. 25:6, 8–10; 26:2, 3). Among the prismatic cores there are unilaterally convex specimens with a flattened back (Pls. 26:5–7; 27:5). Conical cores are represented by fragments with elongated proportions (Pl. 27:1, 2) with circumferential removal of flakes, by a flattened specimen of normal proportions (Pl. 26:4), and by two core fragments (Pl. 25:4, 5). Flatness is characteristic for the cores at this site (Pl. 28:3–5).

Figure 9. Location of the Nizhnetytyl’ IV site.

covering both surfaces. Two tiny figurines were found on the surface (Kiryak 2002)—a sitting bird (of obsidian) and the head of a reindeer with short crescent antlers (of green siliceous stone). These artifacts were collected on the eastern flank of the site—located on a level area south of a 11–12 m terrace (?), which with its bench shields the site on the north. From the site area, the central and southern parts of the lake and the large reindeer-moss pastures that extend to the south and southeast can be easily seen. Sheltered on the northeast by a high moraine hill, the Nizhnetytyl’ IV site occupies a favorable (southern) position, and is well warmed by the sun and protected from northern winds. On the southwestern flank it is turned toward the lake; along its eastern flank flows a stream that dries up during the driest part of the year.

Cores in the Nizhnetytyl’ collection are predominantly pencil-shaped (Pls. 25:2, 3, 11, 12; 27:3). Among the cores from the Nizhnetytyl’ IV site there are specimens with microblades flaked from the end: a core of rectangular form on a large flat lamellar flake with the platform formed by retouch (Pl. 26:8) and a core of subsquare-rounded form with a retouched platform and repaired base (scraper-spokeshave?), formed probably on a spall from a rejuvenated core platform (Pl. 26:9).

In the Nizhnetytyl’ IV site area, during various field seasons, testing was conducted for clarification of the culture-bearing zone and profiling of the south side at the foot of the point of the higher hill, which protects the site on the north. A small excavation was placed in the center of a level area (with a slight incline to the south): 25 m2 were opened. The stratigraphy of the site was: (1) sod, 3–4 cm; (2) gravel-cobble layer with fill of humic sandy loam, thickness of 15–17 cm. Immediately under the sod were two small boulders by a small fireplace (an ashy mass at their base). The primary part of the finds was concentrated around the small boulders, though small clusters were noted on the eastern flank and south of the fireplace near two small boulders in grids B-4 and B-5 (Fig. 10). In the material complex obtained from the test pits and profile during the excavation were the following artifacts: 17 cores and core fragments, 3 core blanks; 16 multifaceted burins and 3 burins on knife-like blades, 1 burin on a lamellar spall; 5 blanks (of burins, of scrapers); 1 chisel-like instrument; 4 scrapers; 4 large blades and 1 blade section; 1 ribbed bladelet; 1 point fragment; 237 knife-like bladelets; 22 ceramic fragments; 1 object in the shape of a small multirayed star, 1 pendant on a fragment of a small slate slab

Among the cores with end removal, there are a boat-shaped specimen (Pl. 31:1) and a core of atypical form (Pl. 28:2). Large lamellar spalls (Pl. 3:12) and percussion flaked nodules (Pls. 3:13; 6:5) were selected as a blank for cores. Blades and knife-like bladelets. There are few blades in the Nizhnetytyl’ complex (Pls. 27:14; 28:8). Judging by the retouch on their edges, they were used in work operations. Some possibly are like cutting instruments; others, with grooved working edge, could have been used as spokeshaves or straighteners. Knife-like bladelets are most numerous in the stone assemblage of the complex from the Nizhnetytyl’ IV site. A small portion of them have no traces of retouch or have isolated, possibly chance facets on the longitudinal edges (Pls. 27:6, 15, 19; 28:10; 30:11, 13, 14), but most were retouched on one or both edges. They could have been used as gravers (Pls. 27:15, 17; 28:11), as files (Pl. 27:16), or as combination tools (Pls. 30:9; 31:3, 7). The working edges of angle burins (Pl. 30:12), dihedral burins (Pl. 30:6), and

18

Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka

Figure 10. Plan of the excavation of the Nizhnetytyl’ IV site: 1 – flakes; 2 – split reindeer bone; 3 – graver; 4 – ribbed blade; 5 – knife-like bladelets; 6 – cluster of flakes; 7 – charcoal stain; 8 – stone; 9 – core; 10 – spall from a core; 11 – adze-like artifact; 12 – burin; 13 – shaped artifact; 14 – blade; 15 – ceramics; 16 – biface blank; 17 – core blank; 18 – core fragment.

possibly lateral burins were formed on knife-like bladelets. However, a large part of the knife-like bladelets and sections of them were probably used as lateral insets for arrow and dart points, though no bone heads were found.

burins of this type occupies half the body of the artifact, was carefully worked by the removal of longitudinal and narrow burin spalls (not just the ventral surface was affected), and acquired the form of the base of a flattened conical core. The margin of the working edge had an arc-shaped form with angular projections. On some specimens, a “shoulder” was marked out during the process of trimming the working edge (Pls. 28:12; 29:2). In distinction from specimens with a large body and high working edge, there is a flat body and low working edge on one artifact, which is connected with the morphology of the blank itself (Pl. 29:4).

Multifaceted burins are numerous in this category. A subgroup of artifacts of boat-shaped form can be distinguished from them, for which a blank made by a special method was used: lenticular (in the form of a stretched oval) in longitudinal section, it had a flattened (in the raw material blank or obtained in the process of percussion flaking the nodule) ventral surface and convex dorsal surface, completely worked by flat retouch (Pls. 28:7, 12, 13; 29:1–3, 13). The working edge, which on most

The second subgroup of multifaceted burins includes tools on flakes, typical for the Neolithic, with complete or partial retouched body and working edge, close to polyhedral

19

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka Gravers. Retouched flakes (Pls. 27:7; 30:4, 20) and knifelike bladelets were used as gravers (see above).

(Pls. 28:17; 29:5–10). Their working edge, as a rule, is terminated by a short point. One specimen was made on a completely retouched three-sided blank (Pl. 29:14).

A chisel, subrectangular en face, square in cross section, has a subtriangular-oval back, which preserves the edge of the primary percussion-flaked blank. It is carefully polished on three sides; the working edge is toothed, which was formed during the manufacture (Pl. 31:10).

The third subgroup is made up of multifaceted burins with a core-like body (Pls. 27:11; 29:11, 12). They were made on exhausted cores; the end, lying opposite the working edge of the burin, retains the retouched platform of the core.

Shaped objects. In addition to two figurines in the surface collections (see above), two objects of shaped profile were found in the site complex during the excavation. One of them has been identified as an image of an astral object (Pl. 28:6), the second (Pl. 30:18) is indeterminate.

Worn out instruments (insets), retouched flakes, and lamellar spalls were reformed into burins. The burinated working edge (the point) was separated by means of one burinating spall (Pls. 27:9, 10; 29:15; 31:5, 6). Burins on knife-like bladelets were similar to those described above.

Pendants. Two fragments of slate slabs, one with a drilled conical hole, the second with a hole probably of natural occurrence, make up a special category (Pl. 6:7, 8).

Scrapers. The collection contains three end scrapers made on large flakes. One scraper, on a lamellar flake, has a straight working edge formed by steep retouch. The lateral edges are also faceted and the dorsal surface worked by the finest flat flake removal (Pl. 28:14). A second scraper on a flake with the negatives of earlier blade removal has a slightly arc-shaped working edge with traces of trimming by small-facet circumscribing retouch (Pl. 28:15). A third specimen was formed on a subtriangular-oval cortical flake with negatives from percussion flaking and an area that preserves the cobble surface. The working edge was formed by steep retouch that partially embraces the lateral edge (Pl. 28:16).

Ceramics, obtained in the excavation, are smooth-walled, multilayered, with a temper of fur (?), and belong probably to one vessel (Pl. 27:8). The complex of artifacts obtained through surface collection and in the excavation has diachronic components, which is attested to by the diversity of the raw material and the technical and morphological features of the assemblage. Some types of cores (end, pencil-shaped) and boat-shaped burins most probably belong to the early Mesolithic. A large part of these samples was obtained when profiling of the foot of the point). Boat-shaped burins analogous to those in the Nizhnetytyl’ cluster have been found at the Ust’Timpton site (Yakutia) in cultural layer IV, in which two horizons are distinguished and dated to 7,000 and 9,000 BP, respectively. Points on knife-like bladelets also belong to the early Holocene (see above).

Points are represented by five specimens. A leaf-shaped point on a lamellar flake, with the blade worked by edge retouch (Pl. 30:3), and a miniature chalcedony specimen of triangular form (Pl. 31:9), came from a test pit. Two fragments of a leaf-shaped point with partially retouched blade were found in the excavation, the base being left unmodified (Pl. 30:19). The preparation of points on blades and knife-like bladelets was carried out. In the collection are two such specimens: a fragment of a lamellar point from the surface collections (Pl. 24:8) and a fragment of a large point on a blade with the base worked by edge retouch (Pl. 30:2).

At the same time, ceramics were found in the excavation, which in Northeast Asia appear in the Neolithic. Charcoal from the hearth provided a date of 2395 ± 40 BP (CAMS96455), which reflects the concluding stage of the Late Neolithic in Western Chukotka. Under the sod at the Nizhnetytyl’ I site was a shaped stonework—a cultural rock feature (Fig. 11).

Punches. Both specimens were made on flakes whose subtriangular working edge terminates in a projecting point set off by the removal of two lateral microflakes (Pl. 30:17, 21).

The Verkhnetytyl’ IV Site, Locus 1 The site of Verkhnetytyl’ IV, Locus 1 (Fig. 12), is located on a flat moraine formation 10–12 m high, which stretches 100–110 m from north to south along the shore, sloping off steeply to the west, south, and east, and sloping gently only to the northeast direction. A glance indicates that the whole area of the hill abounds in cultural remains of ancient periods. These are primarily heteromorphic flakes of silicified slate, tuffite, chalcedony, and obsidian.

Knives are represented by four specimens of bifacially formed artifacts. (1) A backed single-edged specimen of shortened proportions; a convex working edge changes into a rounded end, the base is thinned by trimming along the long axis of the artifact (Pl. 30:15). (2) A fragment of a double-edged knife with lenticular cross section probably initially had a leaf-shaped form (Pl. 30:16). (3) The third specimen, rectangular with two working edges and a narrow lenticular cross section (Pl. 31:2), could have been used as a lateral inset. (4) A subrectangular fragment possibly belongs to a double-edged knife (Pl. 31:4).

A substantial part of the early site in the west and northwest has broken sod and a compact surface composed of small pebbles and gravel with a sandy-loam fill. Along the whole hill are large projecting boulders (roches moutonnées)

20

Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka displaced toward the east. In some areas along the western edge are bald spots covered by large-grained gray sand. In such a patch, a biface fragment was found projecting from the ground. Upon removing it, the presence of a cache with a large number of stone artifacts was revealed. Poor sod cover can be observed on the eastern flank of the site, as well as on the northeastern slope, where the thickness of the sod reaches 20–25 cm. Directly at the base of a large flat boulder, on the broken sod surface, as well as partially under a thin layer of sod, was a second cache that contained 26 whole and 40 fragments of stemmed points typical for the Northeastern Siberian Late Neolithic culture. A large number of similar points was found on Aion Island and in the Ekiatap cemetery, and seven such samples were discovered at the Tytyl’ V site.7 No excavations were conducted at the Verkhnetytyl’ IV site, and survey was limited to the cleaning of caches and collecting the artifacts from the surface of the hill and the northeastern slope descending toward Locus 2 (Fig. 12). Cores. Primary flaking at this site was on prismatic cores with single-platform (Pls. 32:1; 33:2; 34:10, 11) and conical cores, which sometimes acquired a pencil-shaped form in the terminal stage of use (Pls. 33:1; 34:9). Prismatic and conical cores demonstrate the circular removal of knife-like bladelets; the exception is a flattened core with a segmented platform (Pl. 33:1). The cores that remained at the site were not favorable for further use.

Figure 11. Plan of a cultural rock feature (clastoform) at the Nizhnetytyl’ I site.

Exhausted specimens. Blades (Pl. 32:2), lamellar spalls, and instruments made on them attest to the initial parameters of the cores (Pl. 34:1–3). Based on the utilization of cores, knife-like bladelets, which also served as blanks for tools (burins, scrapers, arrow points), were removed from them (Pls. 33:3–5, 16; 34:7). Points. This is the most numerous category of the stone assemblage collected from the surface of the Verkhnetytyl’ IV site, Locus 1. Stemmed arrow points are represented by several variants. A point of regular proportions with a triangular-elongated blade and straight shoulders grading into a subrectangular stem narrows slightly toward the base and has a rounded edge. Both surfaces are faceted by trailing diagonal retouch (Pl. 32:7). Based on the technique of preparation and shape, a second specimen (Pl. 32:6) is similar, the only difference being that its blade is of more elongated proportions, the shoulders are asymmetrical (one is straight, the other is arc-shaped and smoothly joins the stem), and the stem is damaged (the base is absent). Figure 12. Location of the Verkhnetytyl’ IV site.

A third specimen is a modification of the first two (Pl. 32:5), with an asymmetrically projecting, shortened triangular blade, and the shoulders lightly set off (one is straight, the

7

21

For more detail, see the section “Tytyl’ Caches.”

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka second is arc-shaped, smoothly changing into the stem; the latter is of rectangular form with straight base).

working edge has traces of trimming and breaks; tiny retouch occupies the right margin and is partially preserved on the left.

A point with triangular blade is distinctive, changing at an obtuse angle into a short and broad triangular stem, both sides being carefully retouched (Pl. 33:13).

An end microscraper on a lamellar flake has a carefully retouched high working edge (Pl. 33:9).

A fragment of a rather large blank of a three-edged fileshaped point (Pl. 32:8) reveals ribs of the joining edges that are pointed; the edges narrow toward the base, and the stem is only lightly marked. An undamaged specimen of a completely formed similar point was given to the Bilibino District Museum for exhibition.

An end scraper on a flake retains the primary surface of the percussion flaking on both sides. The convex working edge was formed by flat retouch and trimmed by fine steep retouch (Pl. 33:11). On a rounded end scraper on a flake, the arc-shaped working edge was carefully retouched, the adjoining edge worked by dentate retouch, and the ventral and dorsal surfaces preserve the surface of the primary percussion flaking (Pl. 34:4).

In the group of points there are specimens of truncated leafshaped and leaf-shaped form. A unilaterally-convex point with steeply concave base (Pl. 33:12) was carefully worked on both sides by counterretouch.

Two scrapers are on large flakes with retouched working edges occupying half the perimeter. Both instruments partially retained without modification the cobble cortex on the dorsal surface (Pl. 33:10, 20).

A truncated leaf-shaped point has a straight base and flat lenticular cross section (Pl. 34:13).

Three microscrapers of chalcedony have a completely retouched body and a working edge formed by narrowfacet retouch. The first specimen is triangular in form (Pl. 33:17), the second trapezoidal (Pl. 33:18), and the third pear-shaped (Pl. 33:19).

A fragment of a truncated leaf-shaped point has a straight base and lenticular cross section (Pl. 34:14). A laurel-leaf point was not complete for use because of the poor quality of the raw material and it was not completely retouched (Pl. 34:18).

Three end scrapers are on knife-like bladelets. A double scraper was made on a curved bladelet, on which convex working edges were formed by means of small round retouch on the proximal and distal ends (Pl. 33:3). An end scraper on a fragment of a bladelet has the convex subtriangular working edge set off by small-facet round retouch (Pl. 33:4). An end scraper on a fragment of a bladelet has a grooved working edge that was formed by small-facet round retouch that also embraces the right margin. Small facets are also concentrated on some parts of the left margin (Pl. 33:5).

A willow-leaf point (Pl. 32:9), being damaged, was subjected to reforming, probably into a lateral inset (?). Another leaf-shaped point was left unfinished (Pl. 33:15). The characteristic feature is a retouched surface made by long diagonal trimming on both poor-quality specimens. The remaining points are fragmentary: two specimens are of elongated triangular form with straight base (Pl. 33:14, 18); the rest have only a fragment of the blade preserved (Pls. 32:14; 34:16, 17).

Drills. The site’s material complex contains two drills: one was formed on a ribbed bladelet (Pl. 33:6), the second (shouldered) on a retouched flake. The triangular working end was retouched, and the haft area was worked by blunting retouch (Pl. 33:8).

A large leaf-shaped (?) fragment might belong to a dart point or knife (Pl. 34:12). Scrapers make up a significant group.

Burins are represented by three variants: a multifaceted single-shouldered burin on a three-edged blank, the body partially retouched (Pl. 34:5); a multifaceted singleshouldered burin on a flat flake, the body not retouched (Pl. 34:6); and angle burins on knife-like bladelets (Pl. 34:7, 8).

On an end scraper on a lamellar spall from a core (Pl. 34:1), part of the platform was made into the working edge of the scraper by means of tiny retouch. Blade-removal scars were preserved on the dorsal surface.

Adzes are represented by two blanks of rectangular and subtrapezoidal form. Both specimens have traces of percussion flaking, but no grinding (Pl. 32:3, 4).

On an end scraper on a blade (Pl. 34:2), the dorsal face was worked by overall flat retouch. The regular arc-shaped working edge was situated on the proximal end, carefully retouched, and has small-facet trimming, with retouch embracing the right margin.

Flakes were also used as instruments, which is attested to by retouch and a jagged edge. Some specimens have dentate working edges (Pl. 33:7, 21).

On an oval end scraper on a large lamellar flake with negatives of lamellar removals (Pl. 34:3), the arc-shaped

In the surface materials are two miniature obsidian

22

Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka sculptures—an anthropomorphic image (Pl. 33:22) and the head of a bear cub (Pl. 33:23).8 Finds in Locus 1 are represented by diachronic cultural remains—from the Mesolithic to the Late Neolithic, with the latter predominating. Full-scale archaeological investigations should be conducted at this site. The Verkhnetytyl’ IV Site, Locus 2 Locus 1 was connected with the constriction on the high (15–17 m) rocky ridge (Locus 3), which stretches from southwest to northeast. Its surface was almost completely broken up sod. At the constriction, where a fragment of ceramics and several flakes were found, a 2 x 4 m trench was excavated. The stratigraphy of the trench was as follows: (1) sod, 18–32 cm; (2) humic sandy loam with gravel, 13–23 cm; (3) compact pebble-gravel base of a moraine formation (Fig. 13). After removal of the sod, and a carbonaceous spot was revealed, further excavation of the layer showed a cluster of ceramics in the humus layer. To the north were two small boulders lying in a depression with a dense thick accumulation of charcoal near their base (the depression made in antiquity for a hearth structure). Near one of the small boulders was another cluster of ceramic fragments. In addition, within the boundaries of the hearth were stone artifacts. Knives. One fragment (the part around the haft) is of dark-gray hornfels (Pl. 35:3), the other a teardrop-shaped specimen of smoky-red chalcedony (Pl. 35:4). Figure 13. Plan and stratigraphy of the trench in Locus 2 at the Verkhnetytyl’ IV site: 1 – sod; 2 – humus layer; 3 – body of the terrace (bedrock); 4 – knife; 5 – knife fragment; 6 – ceramics; 7 – flakes; 8 – punch; 9 – cluster of ceramics; 10 – fire pit; 11 – charcoal cluster; 12, 13 – stone.

A punch was made on a retouched flake of dark-gray hornfels (Pl. 35:5). Fragments of ceramics are of the same type: a thin-walled vessel has a ceramic paste without organic temper. On the outer walls are traces of beating by a small-celled (waffle) paddle (Pl. 35:1, 2). On some fragments cylindrical holes were noted that were located under the rim. No other types of ceramics were observed. A charcoal sample consisted of a rather impressive mass.

The Verkhnetytyl’ IV Site, Locus 4 Examination of Locus 4, located 100–120 m east of Locus 3, was another area of broken sod surface where knife-like bladelets, fragments of lamellar points, and end scrapers on knife-like bladelets were collected.

The Verkhnetytyl’ IV Site, Locus 3

Points. Two fragments of obsidian points are analogous to the finds described in Locus 3: they have a base worked by edge retouch on the ventral side and a tip faceted by edge retouch on both sides (Pl. 36:4). A point fragment on a knife-like blade of silicified slate (Pl. 36:6) has the tip (?) or base formed by bifacial edge retouch. A lamellar point fragment (Pl. 36:9) has an elongated triangular stem set off by unifacial edge retouch.

Visual examination of the terrace (Locus 3) yielded only chance finds, among which two prismatic cores and points on prismatic blades were the most remarkable. Two points and a fragment of laurel-leaf form had retouch on both sides of the base and tip, the body preserving attributes of the knife-like bladelet (Pl. 36:1–3). Of two fragments of lamellar stemmed points (Pl. 36:5, 7), one has a subtriangular stem formed by retouch (Pl. 36:5), the other has a partially faceted rectangular stem that is set off by edge retouch applied to the ventral side (Pl. 36:7). All the points were made on knife-like bladelets of obsidian.

8

End scrapers. There are two end scrapers with straight working edge and traces of irregular retouch on the lateral edges (Pl. 36:11, 13), and two specimens with slightly convex working edge and retouch on the lateral edges (Pl. 36:14, 15).

For more detail about the sculptures, see Kiryak (2002).

23

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka Inherent in the artifacts collected in Locus 4 was carelessness in the modification of the instruments. They cannot be compared with the exquisitely formed end scrapers and the stemmed point from the Tytyl’ IV site, Locus 2 (Pl. 36:8, 10, 12).

The edge of the moraine served the early hunters as an outstanding observation point—from there the lake shore and adjacent parts, and the distant region to the southwest with the passage to the reindeer moss pastures could be easily examined. At the same time, this territory, open to severe and constant winds, lacked favorable conditions for seasonal sites. These sites are located below, on knolls along the shore.

The fragments of the material complex obtained at the Verkhnetytyl’ IV site attest to their diachronic nature. In Locus 1 the overwhelming part of the artifacts are of Late Neolithic appearance, if one judges by the three-sided file-shaped blanks of points and points with rectangular stem and body of triangular form. These and the others are characteristic for the North Chukotka culture. Finds in loci 3 and 4 can be preliminarily assigned to an earlier time, possibly the terminal stages of the Mesolithic. Ceramics obtained at Locus 2 are outwardly no different from Late Neolithic, but their thin-walled character, homogeneity of paste, stamp with fine exquisitely worked cells (it is possible that the wooden (?) or bone (?) paddle for compacting the paste was made with the aid of a metal instrument) permit assigning them to the Late Neolithic or even to the Early Iron Age (based on the Yakutian chronological scale). What is more, ceramic specimens of this time were obtained at the Tytyl’ V site with a different stamp on the outside of the vessel (large-celled, rhomboid). Ceramics from the trench at Locus 2 cannot be assigned to the Late Neolithic Ymyyakhtakh or North Chukotkan cultures in view of the fact that they have a different paste composition (no fur or plant fibers are in it) and the paste is single-layered, in distinction from the Ymyyakhtakh and North Chukotkan style, which has two layers or more. The charcoal from the trench at Locus 2 provided dates of 2810 ± 40 BP (CAMS 96453) and 2405 ± 40 BP (AA 60204). For sites of the Late Neolithic, and even more so for the Iron Age, a scatter date of 400 years is undoubtedly large.

The Verkhnetytyl’ VI Site The site is located 0.5 km south of the mouth of the Tytyl’vaam River, on the east shore of the lake. It is stationed on a moraine hill 9–10 m high and has an extent of more than 200 m and is about 80 m wide. The western side and its flank drops off steeply to the lake, while the northeast part of the hill changes smoothly into a swampy flood plain of the river. Approximately one third of the area of the site (the northeast side) is entirely broken up sod. The surface is represented by compact broken redeposited (rolled) material covered by a fine layer of sand and gravel. On the south (the primary area), the site is sod-covered, but there are areas not covered by sod along the edge of the hill and on the slopes to the west and east. On the north flank, where the activity of natural factors was more intensive— in particular strong winds in the valley of the Tytyl’vaam River, which represents an uninterrupted approach to the Chaun River basin (Arctic Ocean)—thick tussocks of sod look like high bumps on the smooth surface of the bedrock. Profiling was carried out in these areas. On the north flank of the site, on the lateral slopes, and partially the upper area (the level at 3–5 m below the basal area) the following artifacts were collected: 85 knife-like bladelets, 2 cores, 4 fragments of points, 2 scrapers, 1 ribbed blade, and 4 indeterminate blanks. On the south flank of the site 3 cores, 106 knife-like bladelets, 1 fragment of a point, 4 sections of blades, 2 burins, and 2 percussionflaked cobbles (core blanks?) were found upon examination of small bald spots on the east side and a band along the western edge.

The Morennoe Site Three hundred meters southeast of the Verkhnetytyl’ IV site is a small hill. A high (over 20 m) ridge, formed by an end moraine and consisting of a steep side of the lake valley, stretches from it. In the surface deposit along the very edge, for a distance of over 1 km, we collected from its surface 36 cores exhausted to micro-dimensions, 5 blanks of cores, 280 microblades, 6 scrapers, and 1 three-sided file-shaped dart point.

The upper area was divided into a network of squares where artifacts were collected from the surface. An excavation was placed close to the center of the site (Figs. 14, 15). The profile revealed the following stratigraphic situation: (1) sod, from 3 to 16 cm; (2) humic brown sandy loam, from 6 to 25 cm; (3) cobbles and gravel with sandy-loam fill constitute the body of the morainal hill (see Fig. 14).

The micro-cores are prismatic and conical (in the stage of full utilization); only one specimen had end removal of blades. There are microblades of regular prismatic form, without traces of use, and scrapers on flakes (Pl. 35:6–11), widespread in the Neolithic. No other categories in the assemblage or pieces of raw material or flakes were found, nor any production areas or household complexes. The artifacts were scattered rather regularly along the edge, with no clusters. It can be suppose that microblades were made in passing.

The stone assemblage from cut-bank profiles and excavations comprised the following artifacts: 2 cores, 75 knife-like bladelets, 8 sections of knife-like bladelets, 3 ribbed bladelets, 13 blades and sections of them, 3 fragments of blades, 6 whole points and 5 fragments, 2 scrapers and 1 fragment, 1 punch, 2 burins, 2 knives, 4 blanks, 11 artifacts with indented-dentate edge, 2 pieces of raw material, and 1,901 flakes, including 84 lamellar flakes.

The raw material consisted of variegated hornfels, jasper, silicified slate, chalcedony, and obsidian.

24

Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka

Figure 14. Stratigraphy of the northern part of the Verkhnetytyl’ VI site: 1 – sod; 2 – humus; 3 – body of the moraine (bedrock).

Figure 15. Plan of the excavation in the northern part of the Verkhnetytyl’ VI site: 1 – split cobble; 2 – point; 3 – blade; 4 – fragment of an unidentified artifact; 5 – scraper; 6 – dentate-notched instrument; 7 – burin; 8 – knife-like bladelet; 9 – lamellar spall; 10 – graver; 11 – ribbed blade; 12 – pointed tool; 13 – flakes.

25

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka Tuffite, siliceous slate, hornfels, chalcedony, obsidian, and, in limited quantity, flint and jasper were used as raw material.

form, unilaterally convex with rounded base, is almost completely retouched on the dorsal face and partially on the ventral. The base is thinned by narrow facets (Pl. 37:7).

The type kit of the artifacts follows.

A large biface (initially erroneously assigned to the complex of the Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 2), possibly the blank of a spear (?), was obtained from the excavation. Both edges have a dentate contour (the consequence of purpose in the primary percussion flaking) with local areas of smallfaceted retouch (Pl. 43:3).

Cores. Primary flaking is represented by cores of different forms. On a subcubiform core the bladelets were flaked from an unprepared platform (Pl. 38:2). A prismatic single-platform core has a projecting front and counterfront (Pl. 38:4). A double-platform prismatic core has a flattened body and counter flaking of bladelets (Pl. 38:5). On a double-platform core, the pressing off of bladelets was produced around the whole perimeter of the carefully prepared platform (Pl. 39:2). A prismatic core has a rectangular platform. The flaking front is straight and located in the same plane. The lateral sides were worked by flat transverse retouch, one of them articulating with the counterfront by a finely retouched edge. The counterfront has traces of percussion retouch (Pl. 40:2). A preform found beside the above-described core is identical in form and modification (Pl. 40:4). A conical core has encircling removal of microblades (Pl. 38:1). The cores found are notable for their shortness, which probably attests to their substantial exhaustion.

End scrapers. An oval scraper on a section of blade, with a symmetrical convex working edge, has the negatives of blade removal and an area of cobble cortex on the dorsal face (Pl. 38:3). Four end scrapers on knife-like bladelets revealed convex working edges formed by steep retouch on the distal end of a blade, and two specimens broken (Pl. 37:12, 14). A scraper on a fragment of a (lamellar?) flake had a working edge with traces of secondary modification. The tip, which was formed as a result of a breakage, could have been used as a punch (Pl. 37:11). A scraper on a lamellar flake has a straight-beveled steep working edge, with retouch also spilling on the lateral edges (Pl. 37:15). A large hafted end scraper is on a flat blade. Both surfaces and the steep longitudinal edges of the haft have traces of percussion flaking. The working edge is slightly worn (Pl. 40:1).

Blades and knife-like bladelets. The blades and blade sections in the collection from the site have rather impressive dimensions (Pls. 38:9, 10; 39:1, 3, 4; 41:2–6, 9, 10). Knife-like bladelets are from large (Pls. 38:6, 7; 39:7–9; 41:8) to microspecimens (Pl. 39:5, 6).

In the collection are angle and lateral scrapers on spalls (Pl. 39:17, 18). A macroscraper on a large piece of raw material was obtained from the excavation. The percussion-flaked convex working edge changes into a straight working edge that terminates in a sharp point (Pl. 43:2). The artifact possibly served as a combination instrument.

A series of lamellar spalls was obtained from the excavation. Among them were a ribbed blade (Pl. 38:11), an edge spall (Pl. 39:10), and a spall from a core that includes a segment of the platform (Pl. 39:11).

Burins are represented by two types: a dihedral burin on the proximal segment of lamellar spalls (Pl. 40:3), and an angle burin on a knife-like bladelet (Pl. 41:7).

Large lamellar spalls served as blanks for tools: gravers (Pl. 39:13), spokeshaves (Pl. 39:14), scrapers (Pl. 39:15), and combination instruments with indented-dentate edge (Pls. 38:8; 39:16, 17; 41:1, 2, 7, 9).

Adzes. Among the artifacts obtained from the excavation is an adze blank with “ears” (Pl. 43:4).

Knife-like blades were used in large degree for making arrowheads (Pls. 37:3, 4, 10; 38:13–16).

Cutting instruments (?). In the assemblage of the site are artifacts of indeterminate assignment, as, for example, a sharp-angled spall with two parallel working edges formed by unifacial edge retouch. It possibly served as a (chopping?) knife.

Points are primarily stemmed. Among them are points on blades and knife-like blades with partially retouched bladelet, straight shoulders, and retouched stem (Pls. 37:3, 6, 9; 38:16).

Tools with indented-dentate edge form a special group (Pls. 41:1, 7; 42). Use-wear study of one of the artifacts showed that it served as a file (Pl. 42:1).

A stemmed form is also represented by points of another type: with a blade that preserves the surface of the knifelike bladelet untouched (Pl. 37:4), a completely retouched point (Pl. 37:5), and a point with a truncated leaf-shaped blade with slightly hanging shoulders, trapezoidal stem, and complete retouch of both surfaces (Pl. 37:8).

Among the flakes are specimens with use-wear. Preliminary analysis of the complex from the Verkhnetytyl’ VI site leads to the conclusion that it is mixed in character, due to the specific accumulation of cultural remains from different periods in the partially broken-sod, and the surface of some parts of the moraine hill was possibly never sod-

There are lamellar stemless (?) point fragments in the collection. These are possibly the upper part of the blade (Pls. 37:10; 38:12–14). A stemless specimen of willow-leaf

26

Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka covered in antiquity by virtue of the natural conditions of this polar region. In the first visit to the site, examination of the broken-sod surface—70 to 80 m2 in its center—revealed a very large cluster of artifacts, which completely covered the “bald spots.” Most of the surface deposit consisted of multi-faceted flakes, predominantly of gray (of various shades) tuffite and siliceous slate. From among the flakes came a collection of morphologically diagnostic forms— points and scrapers. In this numerically small group, a small stemmed point with a completely retouched blade and slightly drooping shoulders was very distinct (Pl. 37:8) and did not enter into the group of points made on knife-like bladelets. A similar specimen is in the complex of the Upper Paleolithic Bol’shoi El’gakhchan II site (Kiryak 1996a).

revealed five Upper Paleolithic sites (Tytyl’vaam II–V and Podgornaya, Locus 1). The discovery of archaeological sites in the Tytyl’vaam River valley in direct proximity to Lake Tytyl’ is as it should be. The selection of a place in the polar zone of Western Chukotka for numerous and possibly long-term sites is not by chance but was brought about by favorable geographic and geomorphological conditions. The region of investigation is on the southern slope of the Ilirnei Ridge, on the left bank of the Tytyl’vaam River. It embraces a part of the river valley and the slopes surrounding it for a distance of 4.5 km from the eastern shore of Lake Tytyl’, to the mouth of an unnamed left-bank tributary. In the stratigraphic profile of the Ilirnei Ridge are sedimentary, sedimentary-volcanic, and volcanic strata of the upper Triassic; lower, middle, and upper Jurassic; lower and upper Cretaceous; and the Paleogene periods.

A microscraper on a rectangular flake with a beveled working edge also falls from the Mesolithic complex (Pl. 37:15). Characteristic for the leading complex of the site are end scrapers on knife-like bladelets. During the process of excavation a series of dentate and indented-dentate instruments was obtained, also not characteristic for Mesolithic complexes of the Northeast Asian region, and is close to the Sumnagin culture of Yakutia. But such artifacts were found in the Upper Paleolithic Tytyl’vaam IV site, which is located only 3 km from the Verkhnetytyl’ VI site. A large biface with dentate edges also gravitates toward the named Tytyl’vaam complex (Pl. 43:3), whereas the unifacial (all sites of the Sumnagin type have unifacial tools) nature of the Verkhnetytyl’ complex is characteristic for the Mesolithic. A tongue-shaped scraper (Pl. 40:1) is also analogous to one (Pl. 54:14) from the Upper Paleolithic Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 1. The form and technique of working coincide, and the difference is only in the fact that the latter is fragmented.

The slopes of the mountain massifs on the lower course of the Tytyl’vaam River are composed of volcanic formations of intermediate composition—predominantly lavas. Also observed are extrusions of andesite, andesite-basalts, tuffs, tuff-lavas, tuff-breccias, and dacites of 100 to 1,000 m thicknesses. Rocks are pierced by dikes of dioriteporphyrites, andesites, and andesite-dacites. In the basin of the middle course of the Tytyl’vaam River (Pobeda Peak with an elevation of 4,990 feet asl), volcanic formations of acid composition, predominantly of tuff, are spread. At springs in the Burlivaya River basin subvolcanic formations, represented by rhyolites, extrude onto the ground surface. In addition, in the Tytyl’vaam River basin and its left tributary, the Stremninnaya River, are visible early and late Cretaceous granodiorites and leucocratic granites.

All this attests to mixing of the cultural remains from different periods. However, the basis of the material complex from the Verkhnetytyl’ VI site is the late Mesolithic complex concentrated in the central part of the moraine hill.

Pleistocene sediments at the bottom of the valley are represented by thin glacial and fluvioglacial deposits from the period of the last glaciation, including massive rocks, boulders, gravels, loams, and sandy loams. The low terraces, river flood plains and streams, and alluvial and colluvial cones of debris have an early to late Holocene age and are represented by gravels, sands, sandy loams, loams, massive rocks, cobbles, and rubble. On the slopes and the expanses between the streams, collapsing talus and colluvial and solufluction deposits predominate.

Archaeological Complexes in the Valley of the Tytyl’vaam River In light of problems of the origin of early traditions and cultural and ethnic connections on both sides of Bering Strait, we feel the recent discovery of several Upper Paleolithic sites in the Tytyl’vaam River valley (Western Chukotka), located above the 67° north latitude, is important (Fig. 16). The informational value of the discovered sites is reinforced not just by their northernmost position in the region, but also by the stratigraphic context and radiocarbon dating.

In the area of its entry into Lake Tytyl’ the channel of the Tytyl’vaam River is forced to the left side of the valley. There it is possible to trace fragments of the 1.5–2 m high flood plain, the 3–4 m high first terrace above the flood plain, and outcrops of the 8–10 m high fluvioglacial terrace. Below the slope a Sartan moraine was preserved, partially covered by talus. The river, divided into several shallow channels, meanders weakly. The flood plain in the area of investigation, on the left side of the valley, is fused with cones around the stream mouths. The microrelief of its surface is hilly with numerous fragments of swampy and dried out disappearing channels. Once every few years this

A wedge-shaped core and a ski-shaped spall found in 1995 on the eroded surface of a terrace provided the prospect of finding sites there that are earlier than those that had been formerly discovered among the features along the shore of Lake Tytyl’. In 1998 more detailed surveys were carried out, as well as excavations in 2000 and 2002 that

27

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Figure 16. Geomorphic situation and arrangement of the archaeological sites around the mouth of the Tytyl’vaam River: 1 – stream; 2 – flood plain,1.5–2.0 m elevation; 3 – 1st terrace above the flood plain, 3–4 m high; 4 – alluvial-colluvial detritus cones; 5 – lake; 6 – shoreline shoal; 7 – ice fields (a – multi-year; b – areas of seasonal thaw); 8 – moraine of the last Late Pleistocene glaciation; 9 – the same, covered with talus at the foot of slopes; 10 – fragments of fluvioglacial terrace, 8–10 m high; 11 – trough shoulders; 12 – erosion bluffs; 13 – archaeological sites and their current number; 14 – geomorphic boundaries (a – established; b – presumed; c – ice field boundary).

area of the valley is flooded during high water and spring snow melt. The surface of the first terrace above the flood plain is 3 to 4 m high, as on the left bank; thus the right side of the valley was complicated by small elongated lakes. The river actively cuts the first terrace above the flood plain forming a bluff extending more than 2 km.

Tytyl’vaam III, Loci 1–3, are located on the first terrace above the flood plain at 4–6 m high; and the Podgornaya site is situated on a lateral moraine more than 20 m high (see Fig. 16).

Traces of human activity throughout the Holocene are noted along both sides of the Tytyl’vaam River valley. We will dwell on the earliest sites, which are closely grouped on the left bank around the river mouth.

The site is located on an outcrop of a fluvioglacial terrace on the left side of the Tytyl’vaam River valley near the mouth of a stream. The area was examined visually; no excavation was conducted. Four knife-like bladelets, one whole and two fragmented arrowheads, and one scraper were found on the surface.

The Tytyl’vaam I Site

Early people selected the level and dry, relatively well drained surface of the fluvioglacial terrace for settlement. At present, due to deep freezing of the composite ground material, only isolated outcrops of it were preserved. Most of the terrace was washed away by the river and a low alluvial terrace 3–4 m high was formed.

Points. A triangular point is bifacial with an asymmetrically beveled base (Pl. 44:1). Another point (fragment), bifacially worked, is unilaterally convex with both edges trimmed by multifaceted retouch (Pl. 44:2); judging by the morphology of the artifact, it could have been used as a knife. An elongated-triangular (?) point fragment has the body completely worked by retouch (Pl. 44:3). Siliceous slate was used as raw material.

The Tytyl’vaam I–II sites; Tytyl’vaam IV, Locus 1; and Tytyl’vaam V are located on fragments of the 8–10 m high fluvioglacial terraces. Tytyl’vaam IV, Locus 2, and

28

Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka A scraper on a high flake of chalcedony has a symmetrical arc-shaped working edge, while the left edge has negatives of narrow-faceted retouch (Pl. 44:4); the angle of their articulation forms a pointed projection (a punch?).

is debitage (nodules, spalls, pieces of raw material, and flakes). Cores are represented by six specimens. One is a singleplatform core (14.5 x 11.7 x 9.0 cm), for which a large cobble served as a blank. An oval platform was made by removal of large multifaceted flakes arranged perpendicular to the long axis of the core. The sides, with traces of longitudinal lamellar flake scars, come together at an obtuse angle, forming a lightly projecting counterfront. At the point of articulation of one of the sides with the flaking surface an arc-shaped rib, which partially embraces the base of the core, was formed by small percussion flaking. The lightly projecting flaking front, with a preserved area of cobble cortex, records traces of parallel blade removal (Pl. 45:1).

There are knife-like bladelets of obsidian with regular prismatic edges (Pl. 44:5). The Tytyl’vaam II Site At the Tytyl’vaam II site (Fig. 17) a denuded area at the southern extremity of the terrace was cleared and profiled, as was the northeast edge of the damaged berm, which was composed of large gravel and boulders. The surface was partially sod-covered, although the thickness of the sod was not great—1 to 5 cm. In some areas the stones making up the berm were bared, as well as the multitude of artifacts around them. The thickness of the fill (brown humic sandy loam) containing the cultural remains was from 12 to 20 cm.

A second single-platform core (9.3 x 8.9 x 5.6 cm) was obtained from similar raw material (a silicified piece, possibly a pebble). It had a straight platform arranged perpendicularly to the vertical axis of the core that was made by lamellar flake removal. The smoothly projecting flaking surface has parallel spall scars that are directed at an angle to the long axis of the core. Traces of trimming can be seen at the edge of the striking platform, on the side of the front. Spall scars can be seen on the sides, the vertical ribs of which enclose the blade removal front. On one of the sides, at the juncture with the counterfront, are multistage facets of bifacial trimming, which formed a convex-concave rib. At the articulation of the second side with the counterfront a similar rib was partially formed from the middle to the base of the core. The opposite side of the core is flattened by the removal of broad lamellar flakes (Pl. 45:5).

At the same time, a small 4 meter-long point on the southern edge of the site was trimmed and artifacts were collected, which, based on the composition of the raw material and the technical-typological characteristics, was identical to finds on the berm and in the surface collections. This permitted seeing the entire complex as a single whole. The archaeological material includes cores and core-like blanks, blades, bifaces, cutting instruments, and indenteddentate artifacts (files? screblos?), which make up less than 5% of the complex, the overwhelming share of which

A subprismatic core (8.7 x 4.5 x 5.0), rectangular in plan, square in cross section, with a platform made by lamellar removals, and a working front with a projecting rib shows counter, single-front blade removal. The surface opposite the working front and one of the sides retained cobble cortex (Pls. 45:4; 46:2). In addition to primary cores, there are secondary cores formed on flakes and spalls in the complex. A core (4.6 x 2.4 x 2.0 cm) on a wedge-shaped oblong spall has one bladelet removed from the unprepared platform (Pl. 48:2). A rectangular double-platform end core (5.4 x 2.5 x 0.9 cm) was made on a slightly concave lamellar flake (Pl. 51:4). It has two laterally-beveled retouched platforms. One of them is perpendicular to the flaking front for microblades; the second is articulated with it at a sharp angle, forming a wedge-shaped base. Standing opposite the working surface is the convex-indented rib of the counterfront, formed by multistage retouch along the edge of one of the sides, which preserves the primary surface of the flake. A transverse microcore (5.1 x 4.4 x 2.2 cm) is represented by a specimen on an angular flake of siliceous slate that in cross section has the form of a wedge (Pl. 52:3).

Figure 17. Location of the Tytyl’vaam II site.

29

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka Microblades were removed from an unformed platform. The working surface was slightly convex. The attributes characteristic for wedge-shaped cores (sides, rib of the counterfront, and base) retain the surface and edges of the flake without secondary modification.

Its working edge has traces of modification by fine dentate retouch (Pl. 51:7). In fact, macrospalls could have been used as planes (Pl. 51:3). The undulating working edge can be traced on one of the edges of one such specimen (Pl. 46:7). There are combination instruments in the collection. One flake was given two working edges by steep retouch: the long edge is indented, the transverse edge is convex. The instrument could have been used as a spokeshave-scraper (Pl. 52:6). A large amorphous flake (8.5 x 6.0 x 3.0 cm) has the concave working edge of a scraper (spokeshave?) formed by crude percussion flaking, while nearby, on a small projection, the working edge of a microscraper was made by steep small-faceted retouch (0.6 x 0.4 cm).

A core blank (9.8 x 5.7 x 5.0 cm) has a convex working front prepared by the removal of transverse spalls and a triangular percussion-flaked platform (Pl. 51:1). A series of subcuboid, oval, and subtriangular nodules with traces of percussion flaking can be distinguished in the collection. These show the negatives of amorphous and lamellar spalls, breaks and sharp-angled projections, and on some specimens areas of cobble cortex were preserved. Three of them fall within the dimensions of 8.0 x 5.5 x 4.8 cm to 4.3 x 4.5 x 3.9 cm; the remaining are larger—from 11.0 x 6.8 x 4.4 cm to 10.3 x 6.0 x 4.8 cm (Pls. 46:1; 47; 48:1, 5).

Bifaces are represented by two specimens: a crudely percussion flaked blank (Pl. 51:5) and a fragment of a thin artifact (Pl. 52:7). The complex contains a tool (possibly a file inset) with an indented-dentate working edge that occupies half the perimeter of the edge.

Lamellar spalls and blades. Although microcores are present in the complex, microblades are absent. The production of large lamellar blanks and blades dominates the stone industry of the site (Pls. 44:7; 46:5, 6; 48:3, 4; 51:6; 52:2). A large part of the latter are represented by short sections (Pl. 52:3, 5). The impressive dimensions of some blades can be judged by the dimensions of specimens obtained with the stripping of the berm (12.2 x 6.0 x 3.1 cm and 11.9 x 4.8 x 2.3 cm), as well as the size of the ribbed blade (Pl. 46:8).

The waste contained a substantial share of temporary tools. Traces of utilization were preserved on blades and on lamellar, cortical, and amorphous flakes (Pls. 44:8; 51:2; 52:8). Two small sculptures were found in the profiling: a bear (Kiryak 2002) and a combined image of a mammoth-bison (Pl. 51:8).

Chopping knives. In the artifact complex from the Tytyl’vaam II site are two cutting instruments made on parallelogram-like slab blanks. On the first, with double working edge, one working edge was formed by edge retouch on both sides; the second, only on one side (Pl. 49:1). On the second specimen, with single working edge, the working edge was retouched on one side (Pl. 49:2). On both instruments there are traces of percussion flaking on the lateral edges.

The Tytyl’vaam III Site, Loci 2 and 3 Cultural remains were collected from the broken-sod surface of sand that forms the edge of the first terrace above the flood plain. It is 5–6 m high and extends 400–500 m along the left side of the valley of the Tytyl’vaam River (Fig. 16). The artifact complex contained one core blank, two cores, one scraper, and three lamellar flakes. Tuffite and platy siliceous slate were used as raw material.

Macrotools could have been used as cutting instruments. One such artifact, on a large spall with negatives of helical removals and crude percussion flaking, has the concaveconvex working edge pointed on both sides by notched multifaceted retouch (Pl. 50:1). A second instrument, on a suboval macroflake, has a convex working edge made by percussion flaking. On the opposite edge are traces of percussion flaking and areas of irregular retouch (Pl. 50:2).

Cores. The core blank is a large wedge-shaped specimen (12.5 x 8.5 x 5.2 cm) with a beveled platform and crudely worked sides that articulate in the form of a zigzagging rib. The base is a small wedge-shaped projection; the front reveals the scar left by one lamellar spall (Pl. 52:1). A core (prismatic?) with a slightly beveled platform and straight front shows the negatives of lamellar flaking (Pl. 53:1).

Skreblos. Skreblo-like instruments (scrapers and large spokeshaves) were generally made on flakes. An end scraper on a lamellar flake has a beveled working edge formed by steep retouch (Pl. 44:6). An end scraper (skreblo) made on a cortical spall has an arc-shaped symmetrical working edge prepared by percussion flaking; the left edge has a sharply dentate outline; the right edge, smoothly articulated with the working edge, retains a rib of the primary spall (Pl. 46:3). A second spall was also possibly used as a scraper (Pl. 46:4). A skreblo was made on a spall that is oval-subtriangular in plan and cross section with a large bulb of percussion.

On a core with microblades removed from the end, a flake of subwedge-shaped form was removed without additional modification of the sides and the platform, and the base was only slightly faceted. The front shows the negatives of three microblade spalls (Pl. 53:6). An end scraper was made on the distal segment of a large blade (Pl. 53:2). Flakes were probably used as temporary

30

Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka

Figure 18. Location of the Tytyl’vaam IV site: 1 – marsh; 2 – dry surface; 3 – intermittent stream; 4 – spit.

instruments, attested to by traces of spalls and irregular retouch (Pl. 53:3–5).

flat boulder, beside which was a shallow pit (30–40 cm in diameter, 15–18 cm deep), filled with artifacts. The pit contained a wedge-shaped core (Pl. 54:5), two core blanks—wedge-shaped and end (Pl. 54:1, 4), a biface (Pl. 54:11), an end scraper on a blade segment (Pl. 54:13), and 69 large flakes. On the very bottom of the pit were several pieces of charcoal that were collected for radiocarbon analysis.

The Tytyl’vaam IV Site, Locus 1 Topographically the site is located at two loci: Locus 1 is on a 7–8 m high fluvioglacial terrace cut by the Tytyl’vaam River; Locus 2 is situated on the first terrace above the flood plain (4–5 m high) adjoining the river on the southwest (Fig. 18).

During the process of excavating the primary area of the site (Locus 1), 329 artifacts were obtained, excluding finds in the cache pit. They included one core, three blades and one blade spall, two discoid bifaces, two bifacially worked points, three artifacts with dentate working edge, one knife or chopping knife, and one burin on a flake, the rest being debitage.

During the inspection of Locus 1, about 1,000 artifacts were collected, among which less than 2% consisted of morphologically determinable forms: cores, skreblos, cutting tools, biface fragments, and pointed tools. The remaining part is debitage—pieces of blanks, angular spalls, nodules, and flakes (among the last there are only 28 microspecimens). The raw material used was tuffite and siliceous slate.

We will examine the complex obtained at Locus 1 together with finds from the surface collection. Cores. Primary flaking is represented by two cores with parallel blade removal—a double platformed one (Pl. 45:2) and an orthogonal one (Pl. 45:3), as well as wedge-shaped microcores (Pl. 54:1, 5).

The terrace has poor sod covering and the edges of cobbles, boulders, and clusters of flakes protrude from the ground surface. The northern edge of the terrace was entirely bare, with a talus-covered drop toward the river. A bank profile was begun here, which to the south revealed a weak stratigraphic context (sod from 2 to 5 cm thick, a layer of humic sandy loam with gravel to 4 cm thick, and densely compacted pebbles of various sizes with sandy and gravelly fill, which makes up the body of the fluvioglacial terrace).

Blades and knife-like bladelets. Blades and sections of blades were found with regular edges and traces of utilization (Pls. 57:1, 2; 58:7), and knife-like bladelets with dentate edge (Pl. 59:9, 10). Together with these were large lamellar spalls (Pl. 56:4).

Large cobbles were revealed in the cleaned surface (20 m2). Based on their location, it was possible to suppose their association in antiquity with a surface dwelling, possibly analogous to modern summer structures of northern peoples (Fig. 19). Most of the artifacts were associated with a large

Bifaces. The most significant bifaces in the tool kit are two discoid ones (Pl. 55:1, 2). Their functional assignment could not be determined without use-wear study. A fragment of a spear point is an impressive bifacially formed tool

31

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Figure 19. Plan of the excavation and stratigraphy of the Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 1: 1 – wedge-shaped core; 2 – wedge-shaped core fragment; 3 – core blank; 4 – biface knife; 5 – discoid biface; 6 – scraper; 7 – knife; 8 – dentate-notched tool; 9 – blank; 10 – burin; 11 – graver; 12 – blade; 13 – flake; 14 – stone; 15 – cluster of flakes; 16 – thin sod, brown humic sandy loam; 17 – body of the fluvioglacial terrace (bedrock).

(Pl. 56:1). The lateral ribs of the edge of the large blade have a large-toothed outline. Five fragments of bifacially worked tools were collected from the surface: a biface with sharpening retouch on the lateral edge (Pl. 56:2, 3), a fragment of an artifact percussion flaked only on one face and along the perimeter (?) of the other (Pl. 57:9), and a fragment of a biface with a thin cross section (Pl. 57:10).

Burins. In the complex of artifacts from Locus 1 are two specimens on flakes which, by the presence of burinating spalls, can be assigned to dihedral burins (Pl. 57:3, 4).

A leaf-shaped (?) arrow point (fragment) with flat lenticular cross section was obtained from the profile (Pl. 54:11).

Dentate and indented-dentate artifacts belong to a distinct category of possibly multifunctional tools (scrapers, spokeshaves, gravers, files). Each of them must be examined individually by use-wear study. Meanwhile, a large number of such artifacts can be distinguished. They are made on lamellar spalls, macro- and mesoflakes. They have a part of the projecting edge formed by percussion flaking (Pls. 58:3, 4, 8; 59:1, 2, 5; 60:1–3), the stem sector marked off and the working edge formed to the marked stem (Pls. 56:5; 58:5, 6), and some specimens have sharply angular projections that steeply change into grooves (Pl. 60:1).

Scrapers. Working edges of scraper-like tools were formed on blades, lamellar flakes, and flakes with small dentate retouch (Pls. 57:5, 6, 7; 58:2; 59:3).

Cutting instruments. A chopping knife (?) was made on the distal end of a blade (Pl. 58:1). The triangular working edge is formed by small-faceted retouch, the haft part is unformed, and only an area of the left edge is faceted. Pointed instruments (?) could have been used as cutting tools: a damaged specimen with a retouched edge on one end and pointed projections on the opposite (Pl. 57:11), and two asymmetrical leaf-shaped artifacts (Pl. 59:7, 8) having double working-edges with the edges worked to the haft (marked by lightly projecting shoulders).

Debitage was used in work operations: many flakes were faceted (Pl. 57:6, 8).

Gravers or knives. Flakes with an edge pointed by retouch could have served as gravers or knives (Pl. 57:8).

With regard to the whole ensemble of finds, including the

32

Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka

Figure 20. Stratigraphy of the 1998 test pit at Locus 2 of the Tytyl’vaam IV site: 1 – sod; 2 – sandy loam with humic layers; 3 – sandy loam with small pebbles.

surface collections, the material complex from Tytyl’vaam IV, Locus 1, permits a tentative conclusion that the site can be interpreted functionally as a workshop, an area where the working of raw material occurred. This is corroborated by the large amount of debitage. However, the share of debitage from tool modification is small, as is also the tool kit.

Figure 21. Plan of the surface collections and the “floor” of the 1998 test pit.

small-grained ashy-colored sandy loam, 1–5 cm; (3) brown loam-sandy loam layer with streaks of black-brown humus, 13–37 cm; (4) yellowish-brown sterile sand, 5–18 cm; (5) compressed layer of sterile bright-yellow sandy loam (Fig. 22). The stratigraphic context of the site reveals deformational processes in Pleistocene accumulations of the alluvial terrace that were connected with a warming of the climate (traces of frost cracks, penetration or streaking of the upper deposits into the lower, and redeposition of cultural remains).

A test pit was placed in the lowest area of the fluvioglacial terrace, at the edge of the adjoining floodplain terrace (Figs. 20, 21). In it were half of a percussion flaked oval biface (Pl. 60:1), a pointed instrument, and flakes. The Tytyl’vaam IV Site, Locus 2 With an examination of blowout areas in the 4–5 m terrace at Locus 2 of the Tytyl’vaam IV site, a wedge-shaped core (Pl. 54:9), a ski-shaped spall, several microblades, and small clusters of microflakes were noted. A test pit (2 x 2 m2) was placed in one such cluster and in 2002 was expanded to an excavation area of 27 m2. The stratigraphy of the excavation was as follows: (1) sod, 2–14 cm; (2)

In the northern part of the excavation, in the cuts and “floor,” were a trace of a frost crack and streaks of subsod ashy sandy loam penetrating to a depth of 20–23 cm. A 33

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Figure 22. Stratigraphy of the Tytyl’vaam IV site at Locus 2: 1 – sod; 2 – whitish sandy loam; 3 – brown humic layer; 4 – sinter (“pockets”) of black-brown humus; 5 – yellowish-brown sterile sand; 6 – lenses of sterile bright-yellow sandy loam; 7 – plant cover on the modern ground surface.

65:4). Percussion-flaked nodules were used for obtaining blades and lamellar spalls (Pl. 63:1, 2).

cluster of artifacts was found along the gutter of the streak throughout its extent. In the south part of the excavation were contours of a depression (pit?) with fill of black-brown humus. The primary bulk of finds of 2002 can be assigned to this place (see Fig. 22).

Characteristic for wedge-shaped cores is the presence of a distinct or slightly emphasized crest on the platform (Pls. 54:3, 5, 7, 9; 62:2; 63:3; 67:1–5; 68:1–3, 5, 6). This effect is managed by trimming the sector of microblade removal. The trimming was carried out at a sharp angle to the front of flake removal (Pls. 54:1, 7, 9; 63:3; 67:3–5, 7–9). Sometimes the spall was taken off along the whole platform with a shifting toward one of the lateral sides (Pls. 54:1, 13; 62:2). In other cases part of the edge of the keel was flaked (Pls. 54:6; 68:9, 10).

The artifacts were in the brown humic layer. The thickness of the whole culture-bearing fragment was from 15 to 37 cm (Fig. 23). Some artifacts were lodged in a vertical or sloping position. A list of the cultural remains obtained through the whole opened area (27 m2) helps determine the function of the site. The collection consisted of 649 artifacts, including 29 wedge-shaped cores, 3 biface core blanks, 3 rejuvenation spalls from the crest-like platform of cores, 56 microblades, 2 ribbed bladelets, 3 large blades, 4 scrapers, 10 burins on flakes, 1 knife-graver, 2 fragments of arrowheads, 1 punch, 2 uniface choppers, 1 small pebble, 2 edge spalls from pebbles, 1 spall from a core, 2 large pieces of raw material, 3 nodules, 196 flakes and spalls of different forms, and 337 microflakes.

The process of platform rejuvenation is illustrated on three artifacts (Pl. 66:23–25). In the material complex of the Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 2, the whole process of obtaining microblades can be traced on the wedge-shaped cores. Thin oval (and possibly subdiscoid) bifaces that were flaked or split along the transverse axis were widely used in the technology of this stone industry. As a result of this operation the contours of the future platform were revealed, which originally, as specimens of the primary blanks, preforms, and rejuvenation spalls of platforms illustrate, could be level (Pl. 61:1), concave (Pls. 54:9; 64:3; 65:4), and convex or “humped” (Pls. 61:2; 62:2). The last is caused by a break with a projection in the percussion flaking of the biface, which was not removed but retouched.

The raw material used was tuffite, of gray siliceous slate, in rare instances greenish; and isolated spalls produced from basalt cobbles. Cores. The base for primary flaking was bifaces (Pls. 61:1, 2; 62:1) and large flakes, crudely struck and without the attributes typical of the wedge-shaped core properly formed. Only the working area was retouched (Pls. 64:3;

34

Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka

Figure 23. Plan of the excavation at the Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 2: 1 – wedge-shaped core; 2 – core; 3 – blade; 4 – burin; 5 – scraper; 6 – uniface chopper; 7 – spokeshave; 8 – flake with retouch (a tool?); 9 – lamellar spall from a wedge-shaped core; 10 – spall from a wedge-shaped core; 11 – ski-shaped spall; 12 – pebble; 13 – biface; 14 – tool with small spine; 15 – pectinate spall from the trim of the platform of a wedge-shaped core; 16 – piece of raw material; 17 – grooved-dentate tool; 18 – point fragment; 19 – microblade; 20 – burin spall; 21 – large flake; 22 – flake; 23 – ribbed bladelet; 24 – punch; 25 – 2000 test pit; 26 – boundary of lip; 27 – traces of dispersed charcoal.

Some specimens do not fit into the representative collection of Tytyl’vaam cores. A wedge-shaped unilaterally-convex one (Pl. 65:1) has sides that are entirely retouched and articulated by a sharp rib. The removal of blades occurred on the end; two microblades were flaked from the convex side (a similar technical method is noted at the Mesolithic site of Tytyl’ IV, Locus 3, and at Srednee Ozero V site); a small point, possibly for a utilitarian purpose, is set off by counter trimming near the base. There is also a subprismatic core, from which large blades and lamellar flakes were removed (Pl. 63:1).

side of the artifact, a sharp rib was formed. Also, flakes served as blanks for scrapers: a sloping beveled working edge with barb-like projections was formed on the thick part of a semi-oval flake, providing it with a wavy contour (Pl. 64:1). One artifact that was morphologically formed as a grooved scraper (spokeshave), attested to by the luster of the working edge, also served as an end core (Pl. 65:4). A rejuvenation spall from a core platform could have been used as a scraper (Pl. 65:2). A cutting working edge was set off by the removal of a microblade from its right edge. Scrapers were also formed on flakes (Pls. 65:7; 66:21).

Some specimens of wedge-shaped cores were formed on large flakes. One or both sides of these have no traces of careful bifacial preform modification and preserve the surface of the flake (Pls. 64:3; 67:7, 8).

Points (two fragments) of leaf-shaped form have a thin lenticular cross section and completely retouched blade (Pl. 54:10). Burins, angle and lateral, were made on amorphous flakes by the removal of one or two burinating spalls (Pl. 66:18–20). The haft area was not retouched.

There is an atypical specimen in the collection of wedgeshaped cores (Pl. 61:3). Blades and microblades. In the artifact complex of the Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 2, there are only isolated blades (Pl. 65:9). Most microblades have a bent profile, but those with regular prismatic facet are also encountered (Pl. 66:5–17).

A graver (knife), double-bladed, was made on a flat leafshaped flake (Pl. 65:8). The working edges of wavy contour were formed by edge retouch; the narrow ends were not subjected to retouch. Uniface choppers. There are two crude uniface choppers in the collection of artifacts from the Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 2 (Pl. 69).

Scrapers. Large blades served as blanks for end scrapers (Pl. 66:1–3), with the working edge exposed by careful modification. One of them (Pl. 66:2) was worn out (polished) as a result of intensive use. Scrapers were formed on lamellar spalls (Pl. 65:6): the sloping working edge is slightly beveled toward the right edge, has barb-like projections, and on the edge of the left border, on the back

Polisher (?). In the cultural layer a flat oval pebble was found with traces of polish and reddish-brown dye on the narrow end. Traces of light polishing can also be observed on one of the broad sides of the artifact (Pl. 64:2).

35

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka Flakes (Pls. 61:4; 64:4, 5; 65:5; 66:21, 22), blades (Pl. 66:4), and lamellar spalls were used as one-time instruments.

at a depth of 10–15 cm below the surface. The authors of the find emphasize the advantage of the position of the cache, which “has a view into three stream valleys, as well as toward the northeastern and eastern slopes of the hills” where reindeer trails pass (Sayapin and Dikov 1958:17).

The site can probably be interpreted functionally as a workshop specializing in the production of microcores. The Tytyl’vaam IV Site, Locus 3

The El’gygytgyn cache contained more than 50 items. Studying the artifacts from the cache, N. N. Dikov determined that the overwhelming majority of them “are completely finished tools of various types,” obtained from identical blanks in the form of oblong slabs of brown and grayish-yellow flint (from 7.5 to 10 cm long) that are rather crudely flaked, in large part, on both sides. Based on the morphological features he distinguishes six types of tools: spear points, scrapers, knives, wedges, gravers, and burin-like instruments, and, based on the small number of analogies at that time, the complex was dated to the second millennium B.C. (Sayapin and Dikov 1958:17).

East of Locus 1, 50 to 60 m, in an area at the edge of the terrace and on the slope of an area of 50 m2, was a cluster of artifacts. Among them were tools formed from large spalls and flakes with dentate retouch on the edges (Pl. 70:1, 3, 5), small retouch around the perimeter (Pl. 70:5), and with small-retouch beveled or wavy working edges (Pl. 70:4, 6, 12). A large blade, a knife-like blade, and a flake have traces of use-wear (Pl. 70:7–9). A burin (Pl. 70:10) and an end scraper (Pl. 70:11) were formed on lamellar spalls. Such finds are also typical for Locus 1. The segregated group has bifaces (Pls. 59:6; 70:13–15), the peculiarity of which is the presence of a short butt that constricts the body of the artifact, possibly for convenience of attaching it to a handle. This morphological feature (the butt) distinguishes it from the thin bifaces found in Locus 1 and at the Podgornaya site.

In 1996 we found a cache at the Verkhnetytyl’ site, Locus 1 (Western Chukotka). The site is located on a 10–12 m terrace (lateral moraine?) in the central part of the eastern shore of Lake Tytyl’ and occupies a strategically favorable location. From here the whole lake (18 km long, 3 km wide), its western shore, the valleys coming out to it on the north side, and the mouths of the rivers emptying into it can be easily checked from here.

The Podgornaya Site Artifacts were collected on the surface of the lateral moraine and gentle slope (left side of a glacial trough) more than 30 m above the river level (see Fig. 16).

In addition, the site is a staging point on the northern, foothill part of the lake, for the lake’s southern, reindeermoss rich tundra zone with rising hills is easily accessed, and the lake’s smallest and narrowest constriction is here, which still functions as a reindeer ford. Near the ford, on both shores, are as many as ten multicomponent Stone Age sites.

A tool with projecting beak-shaped edge was formed on a large spall by crude flaking. The base or handle part is constricted and flattened (Pl. 71:1). The edge of a large spall was adapted for a skreblo (?) with curved triangular working edge (Pl. 71:2). A thin leaf-shaped biface was excellently preserved. Both surfaces were modified by complete retouch. Along the edge of the whole perimeter of the artifact are traces of small-facet trimming (Pl. 71:4). A fragment of a similar artifact was also found (Pl. 71:3).

The moraine (?) hill with the Verkhnetytyl’ IV site, Locus 1, is an oval stretched in a northern direction with flattened sides and an absolutely flat surface with an area of up to 2,000 m2, a large part of which is poorly sod-covered and in some places denuded. Judging by the western precipitous slope of the site, the hill is formed of boulder-cobble material cemented by gravel-sand fill. Along its eastern slope, near the edge, at a distance of 20–25 m from each other, project large stones 30–45 cm high. At the foot of one of these, on the northeastern side in a bald spot of thin mossy sod, four fragments of arrow points were found.

Tytyl’ Caches Finding a cache is appealing, but to search for one is an occupation of little promise, especially in the boundless space of the Chukotkan tundra. Multiyear experience in survey work and, at times, intuition help in predicting the location of Stone Age sites. A cache, however, is revealed unexpectedly; you cannot predict its discovery. Such happened in 1991 when we were fortunate enough to find at the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan I site (basin of the Omolon River, a territory adjoining Western Chukotka) a Late Neolithic cache of 265 objects (for a detailed description of the finds, see below).

Upon removing a small strip of sod (15 cm wide, 35 cm long) along the base of the stone, a whole cluster of points and point fragments was revealed, for a total (along with the surface finds) of 66 items. The raw material for the overwhelming part of the collection was a poor-quality slate of whitish-beige color, five specimens being made of light keratinized slate and one of white semitransparent quartz.

In Chukotka the first cache, or “storehouse,” according to its discoverers—members of the Institute of Permafrost Studies (AN SSSR)—was found in 1955 on the shore of Lake El’gygytgyn (Sayapin and Dikov 1958:17). They found it under a boulder on a terrace slope, with artifacts

Twenty-six specimens were undamaged, 13 have the tip broken (Pl. 72:6), the remaining are fragmented (Pl. 72:5).

36

Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka Judging by the specimens and identifiable parts, the majority of points have a broad straight (Pl. 72:3, 6, 8) or slightly narrowing and rounded stem (Pl. 72:2, 4), triangular blade, and projecting shoulders (Pl. 72:3, 5, 6). Modifications are points with one shoulder (Pl. 72:2, 4, 8) or a small projection in its place (Pl. 72:1, 4). Five have a form close to asymmetrically leaf-shaped (Pl. 72:7).

flakes, and one that was reformed from a damaged polished instrument (an adze or an axe). Crude workmanship and absence of careful forming of the working edge permit one to suppose that the assemblage of the cache is a collection of blanks. At the same time, the presence of small-faceted retouch in concentrated areas can be traced on some objects. In most cases percussion flaking and retouch of the artifact occur on one side, the second (reverse) side retaining the surface of the primary flake.

Fourteen points were modified by complete diagonal retouch on both sides (Pl. 72:1, 4); nine specimens were retouched on only one side (Pl. 72:3), and the remaining were partially faceted on one (Pl. 72:2, 5, 6) or on both sides (Pl. 72:7, 8). The negligence of the trimming is noteworthy: the multitude of small fractures on the blade or stem, the asymmetry of the tip, and the curve of the body on most points. The size of undamaged specimens fluctuates between 5.5 and 3.1 cm.

Notable is the fact that a group of objects (Pl. 73:3, 5–8, 11) that could have served as blanks for points or knives are broken. This gives the impression that some artifacts only imitate their prototypes inasmuch as the working elements do not correspond to a functional assignment, although, if they are considered blanks, then they are possibly all in their correct form.

Based on the typology of the points, the cache belongs to the bearers of Late Neolithic North Chukotka culture, dating from the beginning of the second millennium to the beginning of the first millennium B.C. (Dikov 2004:108). The poor quality of the raw material, the crudeness and negligence in working, and fragmentary nature and partial damage of most of the objects in the collection possibly support the idea that the cache was most probably not intended for use in a direct assignment, but represented votive offerings to a spirit (of stone?) or the stone, at the foot of which it was openly placed (although it contains a group of points that could be used for shooting). It is possibly no accident that the collection contained a specimen of white quartz, which symbolizes (according to ethnographic sources) a connection with the sky and the “upper world.”

We will examine the most significant artifacts of the cache, characterizing them tentatively as blanks of a specific category based on the morphology of the object. A chisel (adze?) blank on a fragment of a broken adze subtriangular in cross section. The articulation of the two percussion-flaked surfaces forms a zigzag edge along the whole long axis of the artifact; a third (convex) surface preserves polishing and the polished facets of the initial instrument. Additional modification is absent (Pl. 73:1). A blank with a trapezoidal cross section (Pl. 73:2) retains the opposite surfaces of the initial slab. The lateral sides have the negatives of lamellar spalls and small facets of irregular retouch along both edges of the base. A blank of a spear (or dart?) point, bifacially worked (Pl. 73:3). The ribs of the facets form the dentate edges on the artifact, the profile of which has a bent form. On the end a stepped fracture (trace of damage) can be seen.

In 2000 we conducted a survey and excavations in the Tytyl’vaam River valley 6 to 7 km north of the Verkhnetytyl’ IV site. In the crossing from the river valley to the southern part of Lake Tytyl’ we again examined the area of a site in the crossing and found entirely by chance another Late Neolithic cache.

A blank of a three-sided (file-like) point (Pl. 73:4), one side of which preserves the primary “casing” of the slab, the second partially (on the side of the cortex surface) has traces of large-faceted retouch, the third has traces of coarse percussion flaking with fractures. The body of the blank is slightly bent in profile.

On the poorly sod-covered gravel surface of the northern edge of the site of Verkhnetytyl’ IV, Locus 1, the corner of a large artifact appeared, upon removal of which a second large object was revealed. After clearing a small area an oval pit was revealed, which contained densely (very tightly) packed stone artifacts that were possibly in a skin (?) bag in antiquity.

A fragment of a three-sided blank of a file-like point (Pl. 73:5) has a cross section of a regular equilateral triangle. All sides are faceted; their articulations formed zigzag-shaped ribs.

The cache consisted of 87 items, all (except one) of the same kind of material—gray siliceous slate (?) in the form of separate slabs, which explains the smooth brown (oxidized?) areas of the primary surface that were preserved on the objects. Dropping out of this complex are a burin or punch (?) on a three-sided flake of white-transparent quartz. The dimensions of the objects fluctuates from 3 to 13 cm. The overwhelming majority of them were made from irregular forms of lamellar flakes, though there are 12 artifacts on elongated nodules, 11 from amorphous

A fragment of a three-sided blank of a file-like point (the stem-like base?) with two sides covered with large faceted retouch, the third preserving the surface of the slab. In cross section it is an isosceles triangle (Pl. 73:6). A fragment of a biface blank, possibly a spear point (Pl. 73:7), with lenticular cross section. An area of slab cortex is partially preserved on one surface.

37

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka A fragment of a spear (or dart) point, bifacially worked, has a lenticular cross section. On both edges are traces of small-facet retouch (Pl. 73:8).

is partially worked on one side, on which are preserved the remains of slab cortex. The second side is a surface of the flake with a bulb of percussion. The refined (left) edge is faceted by blunting retouch; the other (right) steeply convex edge has traces of percussion flaking and local retouch.

A bifacially worked artifact (knife blank?). Areas of primary flaking were partially preserved on both surfaces. It has a unilaterally convex (arc-shaped) outline in plan, a lenticular form in cross section (Pl. 73:9). Cortical areas of the slab can be traced on both ends.

A blank of a knife (?) with double working edge on a slab flake, with both edges retouched along the edge on opposite sides (Pl. 74:11). A spokeshave (?) blank has the convex edge worked by crude retouch; the concave edge by small-faceted retouch (Pl. 74:12).

A unilaterally convex knife (?) blank, the convex surface of which is completely retouched. On the opposite side is the concoidal relief of the flake. The broad end is damaged, and on it an area of primary cortex was only partially preserved. The narrow end is broken (Pl. 73:10).

A punch or burin (?) on a three-edged flake of white quartz has a tip made by the removal of short spalls. The haft part was not worked (Pl. 74:13).

A fragment of a blank of a leaf-shaped point or knife (Pl. 73:11), one surface of which is completely covered with retouch, the other only partially retouched along the edge.

A blank of a backed knife (?) has one working edge, on the back of which areas of slab cortex were preserved. The working edge has a grooved-concave dentate edge with traces of small-facet retouch on one side of the artifact (Pl. 74:14).

A scraper (?) blank has a unilaterally convex profile (Pl. 73:12). The back of the artifact is partially faceted, with areas of the slab surface and the primary flake being preserved on it. The ventral surface is partially retouched along the edge.

A knife (?) blank on a blade has the working edge and the narrow end adjacent to it sharpened: the working edge by bifacial retouch, the end by unifacial retouch through the opposite removal of a longitudinal lamellar flake. The edge of the backed part has traces of varied-facet retouch (Pl. 74:15).

Point blanks (Pl. 74:1–3) are crudely worked along the edge. The primary cortex was preserved on one specimen (Pl. 74:1); two others were worked on only one side, the second side being represented by the surface of the flakes (Pl. 74:2, 3). The stem is set off on all specimens.

A knife on a lamellar flake preserves an area of primary cortex on one side. The working edge was sharpened by small-facet dentate retouch (Pl. 74:16).

An arrow point has a rectangular stem and triangular blade (Pl. 74:4). The bifacially worked stem is damaged at the very base. One of the surfaces has traces of pits and fractures.

The most diagnostic part of the complex is represented by these specimens, concentrated in one place in the form of a cache. The remaining objects are less well expressed morphologically, but all have traces of retouch or are jagged along the edge. Examination of the use-wear is needed for a clearer determination of the composition of the assemblage. Typologically the cache is Late Neolithic and can be assigned to the North Chukotka culture.

A blank of a dihedral burin (Pl. 74:5), the haft of which has traces of crude percussion flaking, fractures, and pits on one side; the reverse is retouched along the edge. On both sides areas of slab cortex were preserved. A burin blank on a slab is only partially retouched along an edge on both sides (Pl. 74:6).

The two Verkhnetytyl’ caches are united in several ways: (1) common location; (2) the presence of a group of artifacts in fragmentary or damaged form; (3) some objects morphologically meant to be artifacts, but not destined for use; (4) the presence in each of the complexes of one object of white quartz, though this may be purely by chance; (5) both caches belong to the North Chukotka culture.

A biface—blank of a scraper (?) or perforator (?)—has a retouched haft with traces of concentrated small-facet retouch (Pl. 74:7), a slightly bent profile, and a lenticular cross section. A blank of a double burin on a blade (Pl. 74:8) has the corner and lateral working edges morphologically marked, but not functionally fit.

It is also necessary to note the peculiarities inherent in each complex. In the cache of points almost half are represented by whole specimens, the remaining are either fragments or “outlines.” In the cache of “blanks” one-tenth is made up of fragments, the remaining ones, including flakes, judging by the retouch, were used or could have been used as tools. These are not series of monotypic artifacts. Some objects—a point (Pl. 74:4), a burin (Pl. 74:5), a drill or perforator (Pl. 74:9), and a scraper (Pl. 74:12)—are not

A drill (?) blank with a three-sided working edge has the edges partially retouched, the haft flattened, and preserves areas of the surface of the primary flake. Along the upper part of the left edge are the natural stepped breaks of the slab (Pl. 74:9). A scraper (?) blank on a flake with bent profile (Pl. 74:10)

38

Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka functional. More elaborated and established forms of these artifacts are encountered in the known complexes of the North Chukotka culture. As a rule, a “favorite” raw material was used for these categories of the assemblage: angle and lateral burins were made on knife-like bladelets, predominantly of obsidian, and multifaceted burins on flakes of chalcedony, jasper, and multicolored siliceous slate, and were of small size. The last qualities are also characteristic for North Chukotka scrapers. Typologically identical points are represented in the preceding cache (see Pl. 72).

vessel) at the base of one of the stoneworks. The cultural rock features at the Nizhnetytyl’ I site and at the mouth of the Tytliutin River are situated on a surface with poor sod cover and their stones were bare. The stonework at the Nizhnetytyl’ I site (Fig. 11) was under a thin layer of sod (1.5 to 3.0 cm). By clearing the surface the entire configuration was revealed. Its dimensions were 1.5 x 2.0 m, the structure rounded, slightly oval. A large cobble on the central axis (head?) and symmetrically placed stones opposite (two in the upper sector and two at the base of the stonework) were turned outward and located beyond its boundaries, which provided a figure of zoomorphic (subtortoise-shell-like?) form. It is possible to suppose that this is one variety of palyakvyn. However, as Dikov described and we have observed, in two of the cited cultural stone features the interior stonework imitating a hearth and canopy (or canopies), which usually accompany the described burial layout, are absent. In the third, four small cobbles are scattered in the inner expanse, possibly drawn from the stonework. Most important is that all three Tytyl’ cultural rock features were spread out according to one principle, and have a similar configuration.

Different also are the methods of “storage” for the Verkhnetytyl’ caches: the first was placed at the very base of a stone on the ancient ground surface, while the second was closed in a pit, concealed from outside eyes, such as the above-mentioned El’gygytgyn “cache.” What prompted the early “composers” and possessors of these caches to such activities remains a mystery for us. It can only be supposed that a place that could be both a sanctuary and a storage place or depot during spring-fall reindeer migration, which the hunters unfailingly followed, must have played a substantial role.

A cultural rock feature at the Kupol gold field area (Yttyl’yveem II) (see Photo 6c, page 140) has internal structures of stone (an imitation of the structure of a yaranga?). On one side the stonework is open (an imitation of an entryway?).

Sites of Later Age Upon visual examination of the area of the early sites, objects of later origin, close to modern time, attract attention. These are most often traces of yarangas [wigwam-like dwellings – Eds.] and hearths left by relatively recent reindeer herders. A characteristic sign of these objects is a circular hearth with small fragments of charred reindeer bone densely surrounded by cobbles, in the center of which had been placed large stones (from one to three) or a crude stone scraper (inset), used at the present time for working skins. We obtained two specimens from the surface of modern Chukchi hearths not far from Srednee Lake in the upper reaches of the Oloi River.

In addition to cultural rock features, our attention is drawn to another structure of stones. In the Tytyl’vaam River valley, near the Tytyl’vaam II site, we discovered stone pits. They were first noted by a workman, a native resident of the Chukchi village of Keperveem, examining the region along the left branch of the Tytyl’vaam River. Having come to our camp, he revealed that he had seen ancient houses that he had been shown in childhood by his father, who explained to him their significance. Examination of the “houses” indicated that these were pits with large angular stone blocks, clustered in abundance at the foot of a rocky hill (see photos 3c and 4a, page 136). On first impression the pits are not of natural origin, but rather an underlying system can be traced to a definite plan. Four pits are located at different heights, one above the next at some distance from one another. No more than two persons could be accommodated in such a pit; the stones concealed almost the whole figure. These structures also could have served as shelters or fortifications, or enemy observation points during the historically known hostile clashes in Northeastern Siberia between the Chukchi and Yukagir, the Koryak and Even, or the native residents and the Russians during the period of colonization in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The location of the structures is favorable as a shelter: the hill shields them in the rear; on the northeast a high 5–6 m rocky outcrop stretched along the hill borders them; and between the outcrop and the hill is a wide natural corridor that runs to an easily attained pass, a reliable route for retreat and the possibility to escape unnoticed.

Sometimes shaped stoneworks (cultural rock features) are encountered, one such example being the palyakvyn (stone enclosure that is, traces of a surface burial or, more precisely, a laid out corpse), characteristic for the polar zone of Chukotka. This kind of site is described by Dikov (1997, 2004). Such objects are also encountered in the region of current study. At sites in the Lake Tytyl’ “cluster” were noted three monotypic stoneworks, but determining their role meanwhile appears to be impossible. One of the stoneworks was discovered at the Nizhnetytyl’ I site, the second at the Nizhnetytyl’ III site (see Photo 4b, page 137), and the third on the river terrace near the mouth of the Tytliutin River, which empties from the north into Lake Tytyl’. All three probably belong to one and the same category of ceremonial-ritual sites, given their identical form, dimensions, and cluster of ceramic fragments (collapsed

W. I. Jochelson describes the natural fortifications of the Koryak, formed by rocky outcrops, behind which they

39

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka concealed themselves and disappeared during sudden enemy attack. They built temporary houses among the rocks, usually at the mouths of rivers where fishing was conducted (Jochelson 1997:102). Okhotsk Even historical traditions include stories about hostile clashes with the kheieki in which them were always attacking and enduring defeat. It is traditionally believed that the kheieki are the settled coastal Koryak, though K. A. Novikova notes in her investigations that the Even also identified the Chukchi and the Itel’men by these terms (Novikova 1980). A member of the Second Kamchatka Expedition (1733–1743), Ya. I. Lindenau (1983:104, 169), wrote about Even clashes with the coastal Koryak at the end of the seventeenth and beginning of the eighteenth centuries A.D. The Even national traditions (Burykin 1991; Novikova 1980) tell about the battles of the Koryaks with the Even (Lamut). Novikova, an investigator of Even language dialects, believes, on the basis of Even traditions, that the term “kheiek” is derived from the word “kheie”—“top of the head” (Novikova 1980:142).

rightly they attracted the attention of a native resident of Chukotka who gave his interpretation of them, whereas we passed by, not noticing them. Such pit-like fortifications have also been noted in the Anadyr’ District of the Chukotka Autonomous Region. Three such structures, “blinds” in A. A. Orekhov’s terminology, were found by him on Cape Tonkii (the shore of the Anadyr’ estuary). They have a regular circular form and were made of stone blocks tucked in the talus, their internal space having a height of 1.5–1.7 m (Orekhov, personal communication). He also discovered such blinds in the Magadan Region on the shore of the Sea of Okhotsk— in Svetlaya Bay (Staritsky Peninsula) and on the Koni Peninsula. Orekhov, the first archaeologist of the Northeast Asian region to attract attention to such structures, provided a description of them and classified them as two types of fortifications—battle and hunting (Orekhov 2004). Study of sites of this kind begin to open unknown pages of the history of our region.

The traditions of the Oroch (Even) that she cites tell of their enmity toward the kheieki (Novikova 1980:142): they “hunted” and killed one another.

2. Local Archaeological Complexes of Western Chukotka A Complex of Stone Artifacts from the Srednee Ozero V Site (Upper Reaches of the Oloi River; Bilibino District)

When the kheieki “hunted” the Oroch, then usually only the tops of their heads appeared above the top of the mountains, small hills (and) slopes. Then only their tops occasionally appeared. This way they spied (watched) for days. Then, when it got dark and came night, they crept to that yurt, which they saw from the top of the mountain, to kill (its inhabitants). Usually when they were spying, then the Oroch saw by day the tops (of the heads) of the Koryak. Therefore, the Oroch called them kheieki (that is, “top-of-the-head people”).

The Srednee Ozero V site was discovered during a survey by the Western Chukotka Crew (directed by M. A. Kiryak) of the SVAKAE SVKNII DVO RAN in the basin of the Andylivan River (a left-bank tributary of the upper Oloi River). In the region where the site is located there are three large lakes situated in a narrow valley and joined by an unnamed stream. The stream, upon exiting the last lake, flows into a mountainous locality with a steep drop toward the Andylivan River valley and in this segment is called Gytgynpylgyn, which in translation from the Chukchi means “throat of the lake.” The formation of the surrounding landscape was produced under the influence of a glacier that left traces in the form of lateral moraines and fluvioglacial terraces. The whole string of lakes lies in a zone of tundra with scant low vegetation. In the vicinity of the lowest, largest lake (called Elergytgyn) are rich pastures for reindeer herding, one of the economic businesses in Omolon village.

The pit-shelters we found permit this version, and quite

Within the confines of the shore zone of Lake Srednee five diachronic sites were found. The Srednee Ozero V site is on a 6-meter fluvioglacial terrace on the right bank of the stream that flows from the lake (Fig. 24). In a broken-sod area of the surface several red jasper microblades were found. Judging by their location, the primary bulk of the artifacts was under the sod. An excavated trench (3 m) showed the following stratigraphy: (1) sod, 3–8 cm; (2) dark-brown humusy sandy loam, culture-bearing layer, 4–7 cm; and (3) the compact gravel-sandy loam base of the terrace (Fig. 25). In the Srednee Ozero V complex were 323 stone artifacts. The predominate artifacts were red, red-brown, and brown

Figure 24. Location of the Srednee Ozero V site.

40

Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka

Figure 25. Plan and stratigraphy of the trench at the Srednee Ozero V site.

jasper, 94%, and only 6% of multicolored hornfels, slate, flint, and quartz. The collection of stone artifacts contained 16 cores, 3 preforms, and 2 precores; 10 polyhedral burins and 2 whole and 3 fragments of burin blanks of the same class; 15 tools on microblades and 8 blanks of indeterminate assignment; 7 tools on flakes and pieces of raw material. The debitage is represented by 100 microflakes, 70 flakes, 47 microblades, 10 edge spalls, 3 ribbed blades, 7 burin spalls, and 16 pieces of raw material. In addition, the collection contains two fragments of flat elongated pebbles and two small rolled ones of red-brown hematite. The collected stone assemblage permits tracing all stages of primary flaking, from the blank to the completely exhausted core.9

means of a blow perpendicular to the surface of the working front (the direction is indicated by a dotted arrow). On one side of the preform with two subrectangular platforms (a straight one and a beveled one) the raw material cortex is preserved. The three remaining sides and both platforms are the surface of the blank. On one surface are the negatives of two primary flakes (Pl. 75:2). A subwedge-shaped preform has a straight subtriangular unworked platform and a longitudinal rib worked on one side by edge retouch. One lateral side partially preserves the raw material cortex; the second, the surface of the blank. The working front is marked by vertical trimming on the side of the platform (Pl. 75:4).

Cores. In order to obtain core blanks, large pieces were split into small parts. Additional percussion flaking gave the blank a definite form and the required dimensions. Sometimes test flakes were unsystematically removed or individual features were formed. The prepared preform was subjected to further modification. After the removal of tiny flakes and lamellar flakes and the retouching of the edges, it acquired the attributes of a precore: the platform (or two platforms) and the lateral ribs (or one rib) were formed, and the working front was marked or prepared.

A precore of subwedge-shaped form has a beveled platform worked by the removal of tiny flakes. One side preserves the surface of the blank. On the second side tiny flakes were removed perpendicular to the rib joining the lateral sides, which gave it a wavy outline; and part of the raw material cortex is preserved. The formation of the platform presupposes a front for microblade removal along the edge, which embraces half of the perimeter (Pl. 75:3). A core of subwedge-shaped form has a beveled platform, on the surface of which are some counter lamellar scars. The rib joining the lateral sides was formed by pressure microflakes on one side of the artifact and lamellar flakes on the other. The base was worked on two sides by edge pressure retouch. One of the lateral sides partially preserves the raw material cortex (Pl. 75:5).

In the Srednee Ozero V complex certain groups of cores correspond to preforms and precores. In the collection are five preforms and two precores. A preform reminiscent of a cock’s comb was worked bifacially with preservation of only a small area of the surface of the blank on both sides and a zigzag-like rib formed by their juncture (Pl. 75:1). No working front was formed. In its place was the level surface of the blank. Also, no platform could be obtained by removing a spall from the upper end, opposite the base, by

Several groups can be distinguished in the collection of cores. Cores of truncated-pyramidal form

The author uses the terms “blank, preform, precore, and core” to correspond with the sequence of working raw material during the process of making cores. 9

A two-platform core has a straight upper platform of

41

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka subrhomboid form and a beveled lower one. Microblades were produced by pressure from the upper platform. The front is convex oval, occupying half the perimeter of the platform that was produced by the removal of blades. The counterfront preserves the surface of the blank. The sides are flat; one was partially worked by very fine flake removal; the other is represented by the negative scar of a broad blade (Pl. 76:13).

On the back no flake scars went to the end, resulting in fractures (Pl. 77:7). A core with an oval-convex front, a prepared straight platform, and slightly projecting back partially preserve the level surface of the raw material, and partially the surface of the blank. After exhaustion, the core was subjected to additional working: On the base at the side of the back several sharpening spalls were removed perpendicular to the plane of the platform, possibly for the purpose of reforming the core into a cutting instrument (Pl. 77:8).

One two-platform core has a carefully prepared subrectangular upper platform and steeply beveled unformed lower one. One side is worked by complete retouch, the other was made by transverse flake removal, which formed a sharp zigzagging rib. The opposite end preserves the broad surface of the blank. The working front is straight with the negatives of the removal of four microblades (Pl. 76:14).

A core with a weakly convex front and retouched beveled platform has a slightly convex back that retains the surface of the blank and the negative of flattening flake removal (Pl. 77:5). Three specimens of unilaterally convex cores have a straight back and slightly beveled platform (Pl. 77:11, 12, 13). One of them has the blades flaked from an unprepared platform on one of the sides and an end, which partially preserved the surface of the blank (Pl. 77:13).

On a two-platform core similar to the preceding one are two ribs lying in the same plane, which were formed by transverse (perpendicular to the long axis of the core) removal of tiny flakes. The oval-convex working front embraces half the perimeter of the platform and is situated on both sides of one of the ribs. Flaking was carried out initially on one side, and then moved to the second after taking away the upper part of one of the ribs and trimming the platform by the removal of microblades. On one side are traces of complete working; on the other the surface of the blank is partially preserved (Pl. 77:6). One core has a straight, carefully retouched upper platform and beveled lower one. The lateral sides, almost completely preserving the surface of the blank, come together at a right angle and upon joining form a rib that is lightly trimmed by irregular tiny flake removal on both sides, which gives it a sinuous contour. The oval-convex working front is located symmetrically in relation to the rib. Microblades were produced along the end by pressure (Pl. 77:10).

A completely exhausted core was reformed into an instrument of the burin (?) type by the removal of a spall from the side of the base and modification of the edges (Pl. 77:14). Cores with the end removal of microblades A crest-like preform served, in all probability, as the initial form for the first specimen. The core has two sides: one completely worked by retouch, the other preserving the surface of the blank. Their juncture forms a rib that is worked on both sides by transverse removal of tiny flakes. The straight platform was carefully worked. In the area of its juncture with the rib two trims were made, which removed the projecting part of the rib. The working front is flat. The removal of blades did not go all the way vertically, due to step fractures. On the base the surface of the blank was partially preserved (Pl. 77:1).

On the largest core the platform was worked and slightly beveled toward the natural rib on the dorsal side. The oval-convex working front is restricted by two ribs of the initial blank. They were lightly trimmed during the process of making the precore. The counterfront and part of the working front preserve the surface of the blank (Pl. 77:9).

Similar to the first core is a second specimen repeating almost all the features of formation and differing only by the convexity of the working front and the removal of microblades along the whole vertical surface (Pl. 77:2). Both cores were reformed after their intended use into cutting (?) instruments by means of unifacially taking large flakes off the base in the direction of the platform; as a result, deep fractures were preserved (Pl. 77:1, 2).

Cores with a wedge-shaped base A core with a prepared platform slightly beveled toward the rib has two different-sized sides, which form at their juncture an edge with traces of modification. One side is completely retouched, the other partially. The working front is asymmetrically convex, with fractures from blades removed from only part of the height (step fractures). As a result of exhaustion, the core was reformed into a burin by the removal of a burin spall on the side of the base (Pl. 77:3).

A classic transitional form, from wedge-shaped core to prismatic, is a miniature core with a straight retouched platform and two adjoining sides, the juncture of which forms, through bifacial modification, a rib with a zigzag contour. Initially the removal of blades was done along the end but then was transferred to both sides, one of which preserves the surface of the blank (Pl. 77:4).

A core with a weakly convex front has a flattened back that preserves the coarse relief of the raw material. The oval, slightly beveled platform was retouched. Along the edges of the whole perimeter are traces of additional modification.

All the preforms, precores, and cores, with the exception

42

Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka of one specimen, were made from a red-brown jasper-like stone.

off the shoulder. The base was pointed during the process of making the blank (Pl. 78:1).

The number of microblades and edge and ribbed spalls in the Srednee Ozero V complex corresponds approximately to the number of removals from the cores examined above. In addition, the complex includes six microblades of larger dimensions obtained from three cores of green hornfels, greenish-gray siliceous slate, and white quartz. In the whole collection of microblades only six specimens can be assigned to the prismatic category (with a geometrically regular edge): four of them of red-brown jasper, and one of hornfels. The remaining cores have an irregular blade, uneven edges, or bent profile. It is difficult to suppose that they could be used as insets for a complex tool. There are no traces of use (retouch, crushing) on them. A relatively small number of the blades was used as blanks for various instruments. In the Srednee Ozero V complex a total of 15 tools are on bladelets (8 of red jasper, 1 of brown jasper, 3 of greenish-gray siliceous slate, and 3 of green hornfels).

A burin of red jasper has a unilaterally convex flattened body: One third of the length of the instrument consists of the working edge, which terminates in a point that likely was broken during use. The body is almost completely retouched, with the exception of a small area that preserves the surface of the blank, and has two ribs. Fractures that were formed during flaking of one of the ribs mark the projecting shoulder. The base is sharpened (Pl. 78:8). A burin of red-brown jasper has a working edge that terminates in a point and occupies a third of the length of the instrument. The subtriangular body is partially (on one plane) retouched. On the rest of the surface the relief of the blank is preserved. On the base is a beveled area (Pl. 78:7). A burin of brown jasper with a flattened body and subrectangular in cross section is partially retouched. The working edge makes up one third of the length of the instrument that terminates in an arc-shaped blade and has scars of narrow lamellar secondary flaking from trimming the blade. The fractures that were made upon formation of the working edge set off the shoulder of the tool. The base terminates in a small straight square area (Pl. 78:5).

Burins. After cores the most representative category in the assemblage is multifaceted burins, which, using the accepted terminology, can be called polyhedral, based on the form of the working edge. Of ten instruments, five were made of brown jasper, four of red jasper, and one of green hornfels. In the collection of polyhedral burins, groups and individual tools can be distinguished based on the form of the working edge and of the body of the instrument.

Three-shouldered burins A burin with a shortened working edge and straight blade shows traces of modification. The body preserves the surface of a three-sided (not equilateral) blank. Only one of the edges was worked by transverse retouch for the purpose of forming a rib. The fractures on the base of the working part of the instrument form shoulders of different sizes, which are caused by the form of the blank. The base terminates in a slightly beveled area (Pl. 78:6).

Shoulderless burins A point with traces of trimming, focused by the removal of burin spalls, was made on a burin of brown jasper. The working edge occupies half the length of the instrument. The body is completely retouched, two laterally opposite ribs formed, and the sharp edge removed within the working part of the instrument by long lamellar removals. The base has a small beveled area (Pl. 78:2).

A burin of red jasper on a three-sided equilateral blank has an elongated working edge that occupies half the length of the instrument. It has a convex blade. One edge of the body is retouched, the two remaining edges unmodified. The base is sharpened (Pl. 78:9).

A burin of green hornfels was made on a three-edged blank worked by complete retouch. The working edge occupies one third of the length of the instrument and ends in a point. Two edges of the blank were removed by short spalls within the boundaries of the working edge and a third rib is almost at the base, which terminates in a small beveled area. A trim was made in a handle for sturdier attachment (Pl. 78:4).

A triple burin of brown jasper stands somewhat alone. One of its working parts ends in a short beveled blade with traces of fine breaks. The two other blades were formed on the base of the instrument and a lateral projection. The body is partially retouched (Pl. 78:10).

A burin of red jasper has traces of modification on the working edge, which occupies half the length of the instrument. The body is partially retouched, and partially preserves the surface of the blank. A rib was formed by counter flaking; part of it was removed. The base terminates in a beveled area (Pl. 78:3).

The collection contains two preforms of polyhedral burins and three fragments. A preform on a three-edged blank of red-brown jasper has two thirds of the surface worked by retouch. A rib was created in wavy relief along the whole length of the artifact. The base is finished with a small slightly beveled area (Pl. 78:13).

Single-shouldered burins A burin of brown jasper has a flattened, unilaterally convex, partially retouched body. The working edge occupies more than half the length of the instrument. A steep fracture sets

A preform on a unilaterally convex blank is subtriangular in cross section. The upper part is fractured. One third of

43

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka the surface is retouched. The edge of the base is slightly beveled (Pl. 78:11).

Ninety-six percent of the stone assemblage obtained from the trench and in the surface collection was made of the same raw material (waxy-red, red-brown, and brown jaspers), which earlier may have consisted of one large piece.

Two fragments have completely retouched surfaces. One has a beveled base (Pl. 78:12); the other ends in a straight platform (Pl. 78:14). A third fragment with subtriangular cross section has two sides retouched; the third preserves the raw material cortex. The base is sharpened (Pl. 78:15).

All the cultural remains in the complex are microtools. Upper Paleolithic traditions are preserved in the technique of the primary flaking of the stone, which is corroborated by the presence of microcores with end removal of blades, as well as cores of transitional form—from wedge-shaped to prismatic.

Small pieces of raw material with sharp edges trimmed by retouch (Pl. 76:11) or with a burin spall removed (Pl. 76:10) could also have been used as burins. The collection contains three dihedral burins on microblades of red jasper. The point was made by the removal of two burin spalls (Pl. 79:2, 3).

Secondary working is of two methods: unifacial or bifacial edge retouch, and the removal of burin spalls. A single bifacially worked tool is a knife or inset of Late Neolithic appearance (Pl. 79:14) of greenish-gray siliceous slate, which, for several reasons (raw material, blank, secondary working) falls outside the complex.

An angle burin is of green hornfels. The working edge was formed by the removal of a burin spall directed parallel to the long axis of the blade. The side of the lateral edge toward the burin’s working edge has very fine retouch, which gives it a file-like contour (Pl. 79:8).

The products from flaking microcores—bladelets and edge and secondary spalls—served as blanks of microtools. Flakes and pieces of raw material were used as (disposable?) instruments to a limited extent. The preparation of angle, dihedral, and lateral burins on microblades was not characteristic; these categories are represented by isolated specimens and were replaced by polyhedral forms.

Scrapers. An end scraper on a blade of red jasper has a straight finely retouched end (Pl. 79:10). A second end scraper on a section of bladelet is similar. An end scraper on a blade of red jasper has a slantingly retouched end (Pl. 79:4). Punches. On two instruments of red and brown jasper the point was formed by the removal of a single short spall on the narrow end of the blade (Pl. 79:8, 12). The point of a punch on a bladelet of greenish-gray siliceous slate was formed by the removal of two opposite spalls along a lateral rib (Pl. 79:15).

A feature of the Srednee Ozero V complex is specialization of the stone industry in the production of microcores and polyhedral burins, which are similar to them in method of preparation. Neither ceramics nor ground stone tools were found in the site, which can be explained possibly in two ways (mutually supplementing or mutually excluding each other): by pre-Neolithic time of existence of the complex, or by the specialization of the workshop, which does not reflect the whole diversity of categories in the assemblage.

Knives. Two knives are on microblades of greenish-gray siliceous slate. Fine crushing can be seen along the working edge (Pl. 79:6, 7). Unique instruments. A microchisel (?) is on a ribbed blade of greenish-gray slate. The working edge was formed on the end by the removal of two short and deep spalls on both sides of the rib (Pl. 79:11). A file on a microblade is of red jasper. Stepped spall scars can be seen on the side of a rib (Pl. 79:9). A notched instrument on an edge spall is of greenish-gray slate with the negatives of fine flat retouch on one side of the artifact (Pl. 79:1).

Most complicated is the question of dating the complex inasmuch as neither charcoal nor bone remains were found. In this case, considering the stratigraphy, the palynological method is ineffective as well. The only possible methods remain comparative-typological analysis and analogy, but for the Srednee Ozero V complex they are not entirely reliable inasmuch as some categories of the assemblage (polyhedral and angle burins) have a broad temporal framework—from the Mesolithic to the Late Neolithic.

Flakes and pieces of raw material are encountered in the collection with areas of regular and irregular retouch, dents, and spall scars. Some of them were possibly core blanks (Pl. 76:3, 6, 7) or polyhedral burins (Pl. 76:2, 4). A few fragments and flakes could have been used as disposable instruments: scrapers (Pl. 76:9, 12), spokeshaves (Pl. 76:8), knives (Pl. 76:5), and files (Pl. 76:1). There is one pointed object of red jasper-like stone in the collection that is incompletely worked (Pl. 76:13).

Nevertheless, the closest analogies can be found in the complex of the Tsar’ Devitsa site (Angara River). Present in it are different variations of the wedge-shaped form, and a group of cores predominantly of small forms, up to microcores, is noted. Wedge-shaped forms are encountered “with unifacial platform, beveled toward one of the flat sides, making the edge similar to the working edge of a scraper or chisel.” Along with wedge-shaped, there

Analysis of the complex from the Srednee Ozero V site permits the following conclusions.

44

Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka are conical and prismatic cores here (Georgievskii and Medvedev 1980:106; Fig. 45:11,12, 14). These elements are also found in the Srednee Ozero V complex.

Island). Among the Imchin finds obtained from surface collections and from a layer in the excavations are conical and wedge-shaped cores, including microcores “with a beveled striking platform” (Vasil’evskii 1973:158) and punches on microblades (Vasil’evskii 1973:158). Multifaceted (polyhedral) burins are distinguished as a separate group. This group is very similar to the Srednee Ozero V specimens (Vasil’evskii 1973:Pls. XXVI:1–4; XXVII:2, 3).

The Tsar’ Devitsa complex contains scrapers “on the ends of regular prismatic blades” (Georgievskii and Medvedev 1980:Fig. 45:7). One of the specimens is a “scraper (?) on the end of a miniature prismatic blade.” Present in the Srednee Ozero V complex are three instruments of similar type.

Also in the Imchin collection are bifacially worked artifacts of rectangular form (Vasil’evskii 1973:Pl. XXV:2) and in the form of a stretched oval (Vasil’evskii 1973:Pl. XXVII:5).

In the burin category of the complex at the Tsar’ Devitsa site are three groups of burins. Most numerous are the multifaceted burins. Among them are those similar to ones at Srednee Ozero V (Georgievskii and Medvedev 1980:Fig. 46:1–6). Especially striking is the similarity of burins on three-edged blanks (Georgievskii and Medvedev 1980:Fig. 46:5; compare Pl. 78:9, 13, 14).

The majority of the Imchin artifacts “are made of a waxy-red jasper-like stone” (Vasil’evskii 1973:159). At the same time, there are in the complex at the Imchin site end scrapers on elongated lamellar flakes, scrapers with pointed projections near the working edge, and “boatshaped” artifacts similar “to blanks of wedge-shaped cores made by the Horoka or Yubetsu technique” (Vasil’evskii 1973:159–160). None of these forms are present in the Srednee Ozero V complex. The Imchin site dates to no later than 6000 BP (Vasil’evskii 1973:160).

Also noted in the complex from the Tsar’ Devitsa site were burins on the corner of a prismatic blade, represented by a small group (Georgievskii and Medvedev 1980:107). There is one specimen of this type in the Srednee Ozero V complex (Pl. 79:5). Among the artifacts from the Tsar’ Devitsa complex are tools with bifacial working (Georgievskii and Medvedev 1980:Fig. 47:2, 3). This possibly explains the presence of a bifacially worked artifact (knife? inset?) also in the Srednee Ozero V complex, though at first glance it is interpreted as a foreign object.

Some elements of similarity (wedge-shaped cores, microblades, angle burins, end scrapers on microblades, and blades with a beveled edge) are encountered in the assemblage of Holocene preceramic sites in Yakutia (Mochanov 1969:130). The presence of microtools— angle and lateral burins, punches, end scrapers, and blades with a beveled edge—is considered by researchers as a characteristic feature “for an early stage of preceramic culture” with a chronological framework determined as the eighth to fifth millennia B.C. (Mochanov 1969:131–132). It should be noted that there is a complete absence of bifacially worked tools in these complexes (Mochanov 1969:131).

At the same time differences exist between the complexes being compared. In the assemblage of the Tsar’ Devitsa site are cores of “EpiLevallois” form (Georgievskii and Medvedev 1980:106), a group of end scrapers on large blades, the working edges on blades, tools on cobbles (Georgievskii and Medvedev 1980:106–109), and artifacts of bone. These categories are not present in the Srednee Ozero V complex.

Some similarities with the Srednee Ozero V assemblage are encountered in the Western Chukotka site of Tytyl’ IV, Locus 3, which has similar types of cores (Kiryak 1994:Fig. 1:4–6) and tools on microblades (Kiryak 1994:Fig. 2, 3). But the Tytyl’ complex contains a large group of macrolithic tools made on large blades, lamellar flakes, and rejuvenation spalls from core platforms (Kiryak 1994:105, Fig. 3). The complex appears more archaic in comparison to Srednee Ozero. Paleolithic traditions are reflected in it, which are characteristic for early Holocene (preceramic) cultures of Northeast Asia. Concerning the place of the Srednee Ozero V complex in the series of cultures being examined above, it falls somewhere at the end of the series, immediately preceding the Early Neolithic, and was possibly formed in the sixth or fifth millennium B.C.

The researchers believe that “the lower complex at Tsar’ Devitsa is similar to the latest Mesolithic horizons at Ust’ Belaya and Verkholenskaya Gora,” Layer IX of the Baikal site at Ulan Khada, and sites of Ol’khon Island (Georgievskii and Medvedev 1980:115). Parallels to some elements of the Srednee Ozero V complex can be found among artifacts of the second cultural horizon at the Sosnovyi Bor site on the Belaya River (southern Cis-Baikal). These are microcores (wedge-shaped and conical), polyhedral burins, and end scrapers on blades (Vasil’evskii 1973:95, Fig. 4:10, 12, 16, 19). The complex of the second cultural horizon is assigned “to the final stage of the Mesolithic of Angara River basin and is synchronic with the first horizons of Ulyakha, Verkholenskaya Gora, Ust’ Belaya, and with the lower layer at Tsar’ Devitsa (8,000–9,000 years ago)” (Lezhnenko et al. 1982:95). Some categories of the Srednee Ozero V assemblage are analogous to the complex from the Imchin site (Sakhalin

Archaeological Sites in the Region of the Kupol Gold Field (The Results of Preliminary Archaeological Surveys) In 2003–2004, in compliance with requirements of the

45

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka Federal law “regarding objects of cultural heritage (sites of history and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation,” No. 73-F3 of 06-25-2002, according to the agreement with the Chukotka Mining and Geological Company Kupol, archaeological investigation was conducted in areas of projected work regarding the opening up of the Kupol gold field (at the border of the Bilibino and Anadyr’ Districts of the Chukotka Autonomous Region).

medium percussion retouch. It is possible that it was used as a retoucher.

In 2003 a member of the Magadan Regional Museum, I. E. Vorobei, carried out reconnaissance, and in 2004 we investigated the archaeological objects he found in test pits and profiling, and discovered new deposits in the vicinity of the land allotment built for the developing infrastructure.

Chalcedony, jasper, siliceous stone, and tuffite were used as raw material. Alluvial cobbles and broken slope deposits served as sources.

The region of investigation was located in the watershed zone of the Malyi Anyui River basin (Bilibino District) and the Anadyr’ River (Anadyr’ District). No previous archaeological investigations had been conducted in the designated region.

The Srednii Kaiemraveem II Site

A blank of dull chalcedony. There are flakes in the collection (36 specimens)—some with retouch, one double-edged microlamellar spall, four fragments of raw material, and two tiny flakes.

The site can be determined tentatively as Neolithic.

The site is located on the right bank of the river of the same name and associated with a cape-like point with an eluvial surface area and rocky outcrops. The distance to the river is 30–35 m. The northern end of the cape-like spur is precipitous and rocky with talus. The eastern slope is gentle (15–20°), the western steeper (35–40°). The profile of the spur is stepped. The relative elevation of the end is 9–10 m. On the south side is a hill reaching 14–15 m.

Sites in the Valley of the Kaiemraveem River (Anadyr ’ River Basin)10 The Srednii Kaiemraveem I Site

Locus 1 is situated on the flat eluvial surface 28 m south of the northern end of the spur. Cultural remains were collected from the surface deposit over an area of about 20 m2. These are primarily small ceramic fragments (to 0.5 cm). One of the pieces had cord imprint on the surface. Among the finds was a spall from the platform of a prismatic microcore blank of yellowish-gray-brown jasper with an inclusion of crystal quartz. The remaining items were flakes and slivers.

The site is located on the right side of the valley of the Srednii (Middle) Kaiemraveem River, toward an outcrop that rises 14–15 m above the river, and elevated 1 m above the flood plain terrace. The northern point is steep, with bare bedrock. The surface is sod covered. The microrelief is cryogenic with small mounds and depressions. Five meters from the northern extremity a pronounced saddle with a broken-sod, small- and medium-grained eluvial (exposed weathered bedrock) surface extends about 10–12 m.

Locus 2. Twenty-one meters south of Locus 1, on the broken-sod surface, were a piece of burned limb bone and a knife-like blade of siliceous slate.

Surface material was noted on the bare parts over the whole area 20–25 m2. Fifty-six items were collected.

Locus 3. On a broken-sod, flat, eluvial surface (38–40 m south of Locus 2) seven artifacts were collected in the surface deposit in a 2 x 7 m area. The complex contains four flakes, a fragment from a large cobble, an irregular double-edged bladelet, and a knife. A backed knife was made on a primary spall from a flat cobble. The working edge is arc-shaped, consists of two disconnected segmented parts, and is worked by two rows of fine-to-medium flat percussion retouch. In the central part of the arc-shaped working edge, between the two worked segments, is a small (1.5 cm) area of primary cobble rib.

A point of an arrow (fragment) with a flattened lenticular cross section and profile, of leaf-shaped form, and a slightly narrowed straight base. One face is worked by fine-tomedium edge retouch, the other with medium-to-large facial scale-like retouch with edges trimmed by fine subparallel retouch. The basal part was not worked, with the exception of one corner that is beveled by fine steep retouch. The stem was thinned by facets of subparallel longitudinal flat retouch. A knife-like artifact with a massive back. It was formed on a wedge-shaped fragment of siliceous stone with the negative of a large spall on one of the broad sides. A sinuous working edge with slanting teeth and a beak-like spur was formed by large percussion retouch all around. Large transverse negatives are on the butt and end, probably as a consequence of reforming an artifact of an earlier age.

The presence of cord-marked ceramics permits assigning the site to the Middle Neolithic, that is, the second half of the third to the beginning of the second millennium B.C., though a mixed (diachronic) character of the cultural remains is possible.

A nodule of yellow tuffite with a few facets of small-to-

10

Sandstone, chalcedony, jasper, hornfels, and siliceous slate were used as raw material.

Published on the basis of I. E. Vorobei’s field report.

46

Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka The Srednii Kaiemraveem III Site

the area does not have a pronounced edge. The hill is composed of small to medium pebbles with sandy fill. The microrelief is cryogenic with multistage transitions between multidimensional matrices. Partially broken sod covers bodies of unsorted networks and polygons.

This site is associated with the left side of the Srednii Kaiemraveem River valley, on the right promontory at the mouth of an unnamed stream—a left tributary of the river. Elevation above the river is about 55 m. Surface finds were concentrated in three areas. In the middle of the convex projection, in the track of a raised road, was a macrotool with traces of technogenic damage. It was made by percussion flaking along the perimeter on a flattened spall from a black hornfels cobble.

Along the survey route, which continued along the axial line of the hill, isolated artifacts were discovered and collected from the surface. They were concentrated primarily on an area sloping gently to the southeast 130–140 m from the southeastern extremity of the hill. Among the artifacts were: one fragmented primary flake of mustard-colored siliceous stone, 18 x 32 x 4 mm; one flake of light-gray sedimentary stone, 21 x 21 x 7 mm; one flake of yellowishgray semitransparent chalcedony, 15 x 15 x 3 mm; one flake of almost colorless transparent chalcedony, 17 x 19 x 2 mm; one distal segment of a secondary spall of dark-gray translucent obsidian with a glassy luster, 12 x 14 x 3 mm. It had been removed from a cobble. Small dents could be seen along the margins, and on the distal end was very fine blunting retouch (use-wear?).

Locus 1 is situated at the northwest extremity of the point, 40 m from the topographic benchmark established here in the gently sloping cryogenic “zone” of partially broken sod. A cluster of artifacts (58 specimens) was located in an area of 1.8 x 2.5 m. The surface material contained four fragments of blanks and preforms of bifaces, three pieces of a nodule, with two of them that fit together, and the rest flakes and microflakes. The raw material is uniformly green siliceous stone with brown stains.

Also found was one naturally exfoliating lamellar fragment of a subtriangular tool of dark-gray siliceous stone, 37 x 20 x 3 mm. The edge retouch is fine, 1–2 row, tiny flake, and steep. The inter-faceted ribs are polished. It is possible the object has a natural origin. Additionally, one broken end scraper was found on a shortened spall with a subprismatic edge, of gray siliceous stone, 28 x 25 x 10 mm. The working edge is a medium-sized “snout” formed by semisteep-steep medium subparallel retouch, with an applied edge of short broad fine broken retouch. One edge was worked by tiny irregular semisteep slightly notched edge retouch. The scraper is broken along a diagonal cleavage crack.

Locus 2 is located 140 m southeast of Locus 1 on a small precipitous point with an area of about 18 x 18 m, which ends in an outcrop pointed toward the river. The surface is sod with small bald spots. One of them contained a cluster of 18 flakes of greenstone without traces of work. The technological context of the artifacts found permits defining this site as a workshop, probably of Neolithic age. A cultural-chronological tie can possibly be made after further excavations.

On the northwest edge of the hill cobble scatters were encountered concentrated in a 3 x 14 m area. The size of the cobbles ranged from 0.2 x 0.15 m to 0.6 x 0.4 m. The nature of the scatters was most probably anthropogenic.

Sites in the Valley of the Yttyl’yveem River (Basin of the Malyi Anyui River) During the investigation in 2004 primary attention was given to previously uninvestigated regions of construction of the airstrip and the approach road to it (on the right side of the Yttyl’yveem River valley). The survey route was from the mouth of an unnamed creek that has its source at an elevation of 1,757 feet asl and runs into the Yttyl’yveem River northwest of the proposed airstrip and then south as far as a terrace spur with an elevation of 2,170 feet asl.

On the northeast extremity, in the part around the top of the hill, were stone ring arrangements and hearths with burned bone fragments, both with and without a stone facing.11 In 2004 we collected additional archaeological material on the surface of the hill and its slopes and excavated two test pits in the places noted by I. E. Vorobei. The stratigraphy of the site is: (1) sod, 3 to 15 cm; and (2) different sized pebbles, gravel with humic dark-brown sandy loam fill, 15 to 20 cm and deeper. Collected from the surface deposit were 2 microcore blanks, 2 lamellar spalls, 2 punches, 2 scrapers, 2 drills, 1 knife-like bladelet of obsidian, 7 flakes with retouch, 124 flakes, and 87 spalls including pieces of raw material. From test pit 1, 14 flakes and 9 pieces of raw material were collected; from test pit 2, 5 flakes.

Along the survey route three new localities were found, as well as the Yttyl’yveem I site, discovered by I. E. Vorobei during a survey in 2003. The last was visually inspected and subjected to test probing. The Yttyl’yveem I Site The site is located 1.1 km north-northwest of crew camp on the right bank of the Yttyl’yveem River (a left tributary of the Malyi Anyui River). A hill with a relative elevation of about 20 m above river level rises here on the swampy tundra surface and stretches northwest. The profile and cross section of the hill are arc-shaped and

All the artifacts, with the exception of a knife-like bladelet of obsidian and a scraper of greenstone, were exclusively of dark-red, yellow, and yellowish-brown jasper-like stone.

11

47

This information is contained in I. E. Vorobei’s notes.

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka Microcore blanks. A preform has a rib made by percussion flaking, a beveled platform, and a base sharpened by retouch (Pl. 80:1). A precore has a straight retouched platform (Pl. 80:2); a rib changes into the keel; the edge was formed by percussion flaking; and local unifacial retouch removed two parallel test (?) spalls of microblades (Pl. 80:2).

rubble and is poorly sodded. On the surface, associated with the western brow of the terrace, were two circular features of large cobbles—traces of yarangas. East of them 15–20 m was another feature (a clastoform) of rounded shape (its interior diameter 1.6 m). Within the ring was a crossshaped stone feature. Artifacts were absent. Close to the western brow of the terrace was a cluster of artifacts (152 specimens) of red-brown and yellowish-brown jasper-like stone and light-brown slate. Among them were two cores (one broken), one biface, one blank, and one retouched flake.

Lamellar spalls. A three-sided ribbed blade has traces of percussion flaking and utilitarian (?) retouch on the ribs (Pl. 80:3). A second lamellar spall is similar to it in form and traces of utilization. Scrapers. An angle scraper was made on a lamellar flake (Pl. 80:4). The finest retouch was done on the working edge, the body remaining unworked. An end scraper (Pl. 80:5) was made on a large blade of greenstone; the arc-shaped beveled working edge was formed by the finest retouch. The working edge is serrated, this formed during use of the scraper.

Cores. A wedge-shaped core (Pl. 81:1) has one front for parallel flaking of microblades and a pressure retouched platform beveled toward the counterfront. The counterfront is the percussion flaking surface without additional modification (?) except for traces of edge retouch that formed a longitudinal rib. The end shows a microblade scar. A fragment of a prismatic core has a straight (perpendicular to the vertical axis) retouched platform. After being damaged, one of the lateral ribs was reformed into the working edge of a scraper (Pl. 81:2).

Punches. Both are of chalcedony (Pl. 80:6, 7). The projecting points were formed on sharpened spalls with insignificant modification of the point by means of the removal of a burin microspall or local retouch.

A biface on a flaked flat cobble (Pl. 81:5) has traces of coarse percussion flaking along the perimeter and a pronounced notched-serrated area of the edge.

Drills were also made on chalcedony flakes but, in distinction from the punches, they have smoothing retouch near the handle (Pl. 80:8, 9). The working edge of the drills was rounded.

A blank with a parallelogram-like form (Pl. 81:3) has traces of coarse unifacial percussion flaking along the perimeter and an exfoliating fragment. Some areas of the edge have traces of the finest retouch. The outline of the artifact is dentate-notched. The reverse side retains the surface of the spall.

Retouched flakes (Pl. 80:10–16) in all probability carried out the function of disposable instruments (punches, gravers, scrapers, spokeshaves). The hill is the location of periodic visits by small native groups over a long period of time—from the Mesolithic (8,000–8,500 years ago) to the ethnographic present. The finds are in general associated with different stages of the Stone Age. The lithic scatters are tentatively supposed as Medieval. The stone rings and hearths are assigned to the historic period.

A flake with retouch is probably a disposable instrument (Pl. 81:4). Based on the morphology of the flattened core, it can be assigned to the early Holocene, probably falling within the sixth to fifth millennia B.C. Some stone objects with primary flaking were found within a radius of 7 m from this cluster.

The Yttyl’yveem I site can be defined as multicomponent and has good prospects for detailed archaeological work in practically all areas of the hill. This would permit revealing its planigraphic structure and possibly obtaining materials characterizing at least the whole Holocene period. “The possibility of the presence of cultural remains from the final Sartan period of cooling and of the transition from the Pleistocene to the Holocene period cannot be excluded here” (from I. E. Vorobei’s field report).

The site, based on preliminary evaluation, is an early workshop without a precise cultural tie. Its area was visited up to the ethnographic present, which is attested by the cobble ring features on the surface of the site. The Yttyl’yveem II site may be of further interest for scientific research through excavation.

The site is of scientific interest for detailed investigation during one or two field seasons.

The Yttyl’yveem III Site The site is located on a 6–7 m erosional terrace 250 m east of an unnamed L-shaped lake, which is located in a bend of Belyi Creek where it empties into the Yttyl’yveem River. The terrace has a smooth arc-shaped cross section, the slopes are in substantial degree covered with broken sod, and an area of dense sod cover is preserved on the upper part of the terrace. Seven artifacts were collected

The Yttyl’yveem II Site This site is located on an eluvial terrace (20 m above the Yttyl’yveem River) or an eroding slope. It is 4 km south of the Yttyl’yveem I site and 1.5 km north-northeast of Lake Bolotnoe. The surface of the terrace is covered with

48

Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka from the surface deposit in denuded areas: an axe- or adzelike scraper, an end scraper, a microscraper on a flake, a tool on a “tablet,” two knife-like bladelets, and four flakes.

above the flood plain and the surrounding landscape is an isolated expanse. The proposed construction of the airstrip does not indicate an impact on this site.

Scrapers. An inset instrument of lamellar slate (Pl. 80:17). An artifact of trapezoidal form has both sides worked by complete retouch. On one face are traces of exfoliation (low-quality material); the second face has traces of secondary modification by fine flat retouch along the perimeter. Artifacts of such kind in Yakutian terminology bear the name “axe-like scrapers.” This is probably because of the position of the working edge, which is symmetrically located in relation to both faces. In our view, it is more preferable to call them “adze-like” tools (based on the associated perception and their small size). The function of these artifacts has not been determined. In the North Chukotka culture they are encountered rather often. There are several such artifacts in the material complexes of the Tytyl’ V and Rauchuvagytgyn I sites. Examination of the use-wear is necessary for precise determination of their assignment.

Early Artifacts of Lake El’gygytgyn (Anadyr’ District)

An end scraper (Pl. 81:6) was made on a lamellar flake of light-gray siliceous slate. The working edge and the adjoining rib were carefully retouched. There are traces of crushing, probably in places for attachment of the instrument to a handle.

On the west, northwest, and north the lake is surrounded by a plain, which is up to 3.5 km wide, formed by crumbly drift deposits gently rising to the edges of the basin (Belyi 1993:11). No large water courses enter the lake. From it runs the beginning of the Enmuveem River (in Chukchi, Enmyvaam—“river with rocky banks”).

Lake El’gygytgyn (variations of the name are El’gytkhyn, less frequently El’giki) is located on the northern part of the Anadyr’ Plateau. This name translates from Chukchi as “lake of nonthawing ice.” The territorial closeness of the Bilibino District permits us to tentatively assign it to Western Chukotka. Physical-Geographical and Geomorphological Characteristics (A Brief Outline) Lake El’gygytgyn (Fig. 26) is located in a regular circular basin cut into plateau-like deposited strata of Cretaceous volcanic accumulation. The formation of the basin occurred during the interval 3 to 5 million years ago (Belyi 1993:10).

An artifact of yellowish-brown jasper-like stone (?) with projecting dentate edges worked by flat sharpening retouch (Pl. 81:7) was made on a “tablet.”

There are two hypotheses concerning the origin of the El’gygytgyn Depression. According to the first, it was the result of the manifestation of gassy volcanism; according to the second, the depression was formed by the fall of a meteorite (Glushkova 1993:26–27).

Knife-like bladelets have a regular prismatic form. Siliceous slate and obsidian were used as raw material. Judging by the surface collections, this site represents a temporary camp. Axe-like scrapers (insets), analogous to those found at this site, are characteristic for the Ymyyakhtakh and North Chukotka cultures. The time of their existence was the second to first millennia B.C.

On the whole, the relief of the adjacent region belongs to a type of erosional-denudational plateau with an elevation of 1,970 to 3,280 feet asl. The highest are the Akademik Obruchev and Ostantsovye mountains with an erosional cut to 300–500 m. In the remaining area the elevation fluctuates between 1,970 and 2,625 feet asl and has a shallow erosional cut (Glushkova 1993:27). South of the El’gygytgyn Depression are gently rolling expanses between rivers, covered with thin-layered finely broken and rubbly scree material. On shoreline cliffs, specifically of the Enmuveem River, large areas of crust from chemical weathering 1 to 6 m thick were found at an elevation of 1,215–1,345 feet asl (Glushkova 1993:28).

It can be supposed that the primary part of the artifacts of the revealed site lie under the sod. The total area of the proposed site is 20 to 22 m2. The site is of interest for further scientific research. The Yttyl’yveem IV Site The site is located 320 m northwest of the north edge of the airstrip on a terrace 2–3 m above the flood plain, facing an unnamed stream that empties into the Yttyl’yveem River. Six flakes of chalcedony and siliceous slate (debris from the primary flaking of stone) were found on the broken‑sod surface.

The lake is surrounded on three sides by a smoothly rising foothill plain, and only on the eastern shore, north of the mouth of Lagernyi Creek, do steep talus slopes with precipitous parts 10–15 m high project to the shore (Glushkova 1993:31). The mouth area of water courses, as a rule, have expanding, branching streams terminating in alluvial fans. Thus, at the mouth of Lagernyi Creek (its length is 7 km) the alluvial fan extends 250 m into the lake (Glushkova 1993:33).

The site can be identified as a temporary camp. The probability of the presence of a larger site is extremely small inasmuch as the finds were made on the low terrace

49

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Figure 26. Arrangement of sites at Lake El’gygytgyn: 1 – edge of the lake catchment basin; 2 – flood plain; 3 – archaeological sites.

Fragments of lake terraces 2.5–3 m and 9–10 m high can be distinguished in relief. The first terrace was preserved on the western and southwestern parts of the shore; the second terrace, along the whole shore. Most studied by specialists are the deposits of the second (9–10 m) terrace on the south shore and around the mouth of Lagernyi Creek. The stratigraphic sequence of the terrace is (from bottom to top): (1) At its base lie dark-gray coarsely layered gravels in a sandy-loam fill with inclusions of poorly rolled pebbles, rubble, and debris, 1.8 m thick; (2) covering it is a bluish-gray sandy loam with a few pebbles, 0.2 m; (3) above comes a thin layer of brown-gray loam that is replaced by brown-gray compactly-cemented poorly-rolled pebbles with loam fill, 1–4 m; and (4) the profile is crowned by gray pebbles of various sizes with a sand-gravel fill, 1.5–3.0 m (Glushkova 1993:30).

large bushes; (4) 1.6–2.1 m, greenish-gray coarsely-layered poorly-rolled pebbles with thin lenses of peat in loam fill; and (5) a vein of ice 0.5 m thick. Radiocarbon analysis of wood gave a date of 7,000–8,000 BP (Glushkova 1993:41). The stream network of the El’gygytgyn basin acquired a modern look, according to specialists, during the late Pleistocene. At this time the 9 meter terrace of Lake El’gygytgyn and the second flood-plain terrace of the Enmuveem River were formed (Glushkova 1993:46). A Brief Historical Note In spite of the fact that the shores of the Lake were inhabited many thousands of years ago (as archaeological finds attest), the lake remained a blank spot for modern researchers until the middle of the twentieth century since no archaeologists had worked there until now. This can be explained as due to the difficulty of access to the region, which is located in the center of the Chukotka Autonomous Region and is a substantial distance from all regional population centers. The high cost of air transport (helicopter) allows research to be conducted there only by a few geological groups in participation with foreign specialists and financed by foreign firms, which find surveys for our mineral wealth expedient.

At the mouths of small tributaries of the Enmuveem River, fragments of the first flood-plain terrace have been preserved. They are 2.5–3.0 m high, with some reaching a width of 120–200 m. The stratigraphy of the terrace (from top to bottom) can be traced at the mouth of the first left-bank tributary: (1) 0.0–0.03 m, sod-vegetation layer; (2) 0.03–0.2 m, pale yellow-gray loess-like loam; (3) 0.2–1.6 m, yellow-gray sandy loam with layers and lenses of decomposing peat and vegetable detritus of different thicknesses, with the inclusion of branches and roots of

50

Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka the Russians about Ivashkino Lake, have given information about Ilirnei,12

This region was also difficult to access for Russian Cossack explorers during the period of intense Russian colonization of Eastern Siberia and extreme Northeast Asia. It is possible, therefore, that the historical sources do not have information about the unique and legendary Lake El’gygytgyn. Russian Cossack explorers who arrived on the Anadyr’ River in the first half of the seventeenth century heard from the Chukchi about the existence of a large lake at the source of this river. In 1781, P. S. Pallas confirmed that the Anadyr’ River flowed from a lake of medium size with an unknown name (I. A. Nekrasov 1958:360, citing P. I. Polevoi 1915). The maps that were compiled at this time invariably represent a large lake with the name Ivashki or Ioanki in the upper reaches of the Anadyr’ River (Nekrasov 1958).

and not about El’gygytgyn, which is located 70 km from the upper reaches of the Anadyr’. After Obruchev, permafrost specialist V. M. Ponomarev (1948) and geographer P. G. Stetsenko (1952) visited Lake El’gygytgyn. Their stay did not leave a noticeable mark on science: The visit of the first lasted less than 24 hours; results of the work of Stetsenko were never published (Nekrasov 1958:362).

According to the local residents, in this lake, which is 40 km long, rises a rocky island that is always covered with snow. The ice on the lake, according to them, never thaws, a phenomenon that is reflected in its name.

In 1955 an expedition from the V. A. Obruchev Institute of Permafrost Research (AN SSSR) worked on the lake. I. A. Nekrasov was assigned to lead the expedition. It was composed of engineer-hydrologist A. K. Sayapin and five crew members. Included in the tasks of the expedition was geographic examination of the lake and its environs (Nekrasov 1958).

In the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries many travelers and researchers tried to find “Lake Ivashkino”—G. Maidel’ (1868), L. V. Olsuf’ev (1892), V. V. Sokol’nikov and N. F. Kalinnikov (1900), P. I. Polevoi (1912)—but without success. After numerous attempts to find the lake, Maidel’ resolutely insisted that it “should be removed from the map.” On the map that he composed there is no lake at the source of the Anadyr’ River (Nekrasov 1958).

In addition to the basic task, the participants of the expedition also carried out “unplanned” work. A. K. Sayapin, I. A. Nekrasov, and L. D. Bubentsov discovered three early sites and a cache of prepared artifacts on the slope of a nearby hill. The primary part of the El’gygytgyn collection was presented to the Chukotka Regional Museum, and the remaining artifacts were taken to Leningrad and given to the Institute of the History of Material Culture, RAN.

Lake El’gygytgyn was discovered by airplane on 14 August 1933 by S. V. Obruchev, who applied it to the map under the name “El’gytkhyn” (Nekrasov 1958). He visited the lake in February 1935, which he reached by reindeer team with a guide. “A terrible, eerie place!” writes the investigator. “When I write a novel about life on the moon, I will place my heroes in such a crater. The lake is especially gloomy at night, when the black teeth of the mountains darken the lunar sky” (Obruchev 1974).

The study and scientific understanding of the artifacts received from the region of Lake El’gygytgyn in the form of small collections began at this time. The first information about finds from Lake El’gygytgyn was published in 1957 by A. P. Okladnikov (as coauthor with I. A. Nekrasov). He interpreted the artifacts from the cache as a store of blanks of stone blades that could have been used for darts or served as knife blades. Okladnikov classified them and on the basis of the technical-typological indices distinguished three groups of artifacts. A detailed analysis of the cultural remains from the site, discovered on the first flood-plain terrace 1.5 km from the cache, was also given in the article. The totality of data from this part of the collection, which Okladnikov had, permitted the investigator to draw conclusions about a developed Neolithic culture of reindeer hunters who left traces of activity on the shores of Lake El’gygytgyn about 4,000 years ago (Okladnikov and Nekrasov 1957).

But even after the descriptions of the lake published by Obruchev, the Chukchi legend “about the nonthawing lake with a rock in the center” continued to exist (Nekrasov 1958:362). The Chukchi legend possibly has some basis in fact. To the west-northwest of the source of the Anadyr’ River, approximately 100 km from it, is Verkhnii Ilirnei Lake with rather impressive dimensions. It is about 10 km long, which is only 1 to 2 km less than the diameter of Lake El’gygytgyn. In the eastern (widest) part of this lake rises a hill, which is under snow a significant part of the year— from September to May (8–9 months). The ice begins to thaw on large lakes in this region (the right bank of the Malyi Anyui River) in May, with it sometimes remaining solid beyond the narrow banks even in June. The Chukchi, pasturing reindeer along the right bank of the Malyi Anyui to the upper reaches of the Anadyr’ River (the sources of these rivers are 10 km apart), could, when questioned by

In 1958 N. N. Dikov (as coauthor with A. K. Sayapin) The name Ilirnei (Elernei) translates from Chukchi as “islandmountain.” Lakes with such name are not rare in Chukotka. There is an Elernei Lake (with a small island in the middle) on the upper reaches of the Andylivan River (a left tributary of the Oloi). It is connected with two other lakes in this system. Gytgynpylgyn Creek (translated from Chukchi—“mouth of the lake”) connects it to a tributary of the Andylivan River. We discovered an early Holocene site near this lake (see above). On the shore of Ilirnei Lake (in its northern part is a high spit), which is on the upper reaches of the Kymyneiveem River, we found five prehistoric sites during the survey (for this, see below). There is also Lake Ilirgytkhyn (“island lake”) in the Olyutorskii District of the Chukotka Autonomous Region (Leont’ev and Novikova 1989:148). 12

51

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka published the results of the investigation of the part of the collection that was turned over to the Chukotka Regional Museum. Studying the artifacts from the cache, Dikov concluded that the “depot” consisted not of blanks, but rather of finished tools that could be divided into six types. With respect to dating the site, based on the typology of the site’s stone assemblage, a similar conclusion was made about its Late Neolithic age (Sayapin and Dikov 1958).

The absence of any clear and stable morphological features makes difficult the traditional typological determination of the artifacts comprising this complex. Knife-like bladelets, being a standard form for the preparation of tools, could also be used without additional modification, giving the tool its final form. In addition, based on necessity, flakes, primary spalls, and other debris were used in the production process. To reveal traces of utilization on the working surfaces, use-wear analysis is necessary to determine the functional assignment of the tools and to establish more precisely the economic orientation of the site.

In the 1970s and 1980s the study of the lake was carried on more intensively by natural scientists (geologists and biologists). Some of them also turned their attention to the cultural remains encountered here.

The El’gygytgyn II Site

In 1984, a small collection (25 artifacts) was received at the Laboratory of Archaeology, History, and Ethnography of the Northeast Interdisciplinary Scientific Research Institute (SVKNII) from M. B. Skopets, a member of the Laboratory of Ichthyology of the Institute of Biological Problems of the North (IBPS). The collection added new types of tools and ceramics to the materials published in 1957–1958 from Lake El’gygytgyn.

The complex of artifacts from the site consists of 2 cores, 9 knife-like bladelets, 2 bifaces, 4 arrow points (3 are broken), 1 inset, and 145 flakes. The raw materials used were siliceous slate, hornfels-like stone, and chalcedony. Primary flaking is represented by two wedge-shaped cores. Secondary working was carried out by means of complete retouch on both surfaces of the artifacts, as well as unifacially or bifacially on the edges. Some specimens have irregular retouch as a consequence of utilization. The removal of burin spalls and trimming of the ribs was a method of reforming tools. The technical-typological characteristics of the artifacts attest to the chronological heterogeneity of the complex, which contains two components—Upper Paleolithic and Late Neolithic (Pl. 82).

In 1991, after termination of geological work at the lake, members of SVKNII DVO RAN, V. F. Belyi and O. Yu. Glushkova, gave the Laboratory of Archaeology, History, and Ethnography a collection of 225 archaeological objects collected on the terraces, which A. K. Sayapin, I. A. Nekrasov, and M. B. Skopets had examined. The objects came from three sites that were predominantly concentrated around the mouth of Lagernyi Creek (Fig. 26).

Cores. A high flat wedge-shaped core (Pl. 82:1) was obtained from a bifacially worked subrectangular blank. The base, counterfront, and platform were refined by means of additional edge retouch on both sides. The platform was made by the removal of a microflake from the broad end, as a result of which a sharp-angled projection was formed at the point where it joins the arc-shaped convex front. On the front are preserved the negatives of microblades, which form a sharp rib at the juncture along the whole vertical axis. The core is made distinctive by a projecting crest on the working platform (in combination with the projection of the front it took on a notched form) and the concave line of the edge of the counterfront, as a result of which the body of the artifact seems distorted.

Materials from the last two findings (1984 and 1991) were published in the edited volume “The Nature of the Depression at Lake El’gygytgyn” (Kiryak 1993b:199–211). Analysis of the artifacts suggested a Late Neolithic age for the complexes, and confirmed their association with the North Chukotka culture (Kiryak 1993b:210). Unfortunately, up to now no professional archaeological work has been conducted at these sites due to the great distance of the sites from regional centers and the excessively high cost of air travel. Finds from Lake El’gygytgyn continue to appear in the form of small complexes consisting of surface collections.

Another wedge-shaped core of shortened form (Pl. 82:4), which in all characteristics is analogous to the preceding. The platform shows the negatives of a rejuvenation spall and probably of final trimming, which removed the crest from the blank.

In 2000, Glushkova, who worked at Lake El’gygytgyn as part of an international expedition, turned over artifacts from sites of the eastern shore of the lake—those that were known and those for the first time revealed. The cultural remains had been collected in six places (Fig. 26).

Judging by the fragments of knife-like bladelets (Pl. 82:5), they were taken from prismatic cores. Some specimens have traces of use as a working instrument (Pl. 82:5, 7). Crushing and linear traces with a transverse orientation can be seen on some (Pl. 82:7).

The El’gygytgyn I Site The collected artifacts amount to 143 flakes and 18 knifelike bladelets including fragments. The material used in the stone assemblage, judging by the production debris, was obsidian, chalcedony, flint, and hornfels-like and siliceous rocks.

Knife-like bladelets were used also as inset tools such as a specimen in the collection made of chalcedony (Pl. 82:8), which has both surfaces carefully retouched and one of the edges modified by the smallest serrating retouch.

52

Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka Points. This category is represented by four specimens, three of which are quite damaged. A leaf-shaped (?) point with convex lenticular cross section was carefully retouched, the ribs of the facets forming a serrated lateral edge (Pl. 82:9). A three-sided shortened file-shaped point was probably used, which caused flaking on one of its ribs (Pl. 82:10). A point (or possibly a lateral inset) shows traces of reforming (?) into an angle burin, judging by the morphology. It has the edges crushed (?) or prepared for fastening in a handle (?) coming together at the base (of a burin?) (Pl. 82:11). One specimen is represented by a stemmed point with a triangular blade and projecting shoulders (Pl. 82:12).

removal of different-sized tiny flakes. Both specimens are flattened. A prismatic core with two platforms (Pl. 83:6) has bladelets removed all around. Knife-like bladelets served as blanks for instruments, some with traces of use in labor operations. A flint bladelet was worked by the careful removal of three or four spalls from the end. Both working edges were crushed by small discontinuous retouch. Facets of crushing are located on both surfaces in one row. The tool was used only a short time, which is indicated by the unworn working edge. This bladelet was probably used for working bone. Only four of seven obsidian blades had two working edges. Traces of utilization on three specimens attest to working a wooden surface, and on four specimens, of cutting organic material (meat, hide, and so on).

Flakes, for the most part, are without traces of utilization, but some specimens were probably used as disposable instruments. A triangular flint flake (Pl. 82:13) contains weak grinding on the upper point and has crushing on the edge, which was caused in all probability during the process of work.

A subrectangular biface (Pl. 83:8) was adapted to an angle burin after the breaking of the narrow end.

The El’gygytgyn III Site

A point (fragment) was also probably subjected to reforming. Small-faceted retouch that formed a cape-like scraper working edge can be traced on its broken end.

The complex consists of 5 cores, 2 blanks, 19 knife-like bladelets and fragments, 1 point (?) fragment, 1 combination instrument, 1 graver, and 188 flakes. Flint, siliceous slate, and obsidian were used as raw material.

A scraper (spokeshave?) was formed on a subtrapezoidal flake (Pl. 83:9), which initially may have functioned as a burin (the negative of the burin spall was preserved), but was reformed after the break of the burin working edge (point?).

Cores. A blank of a shortened core is unifacially convex (Pl. 83:1) with a beveled platform. It forms a crest-like rib at the point of juncture with one of the sides and changes smoothly into the rib of the counterfront and the base. Cobble cortex remains in the place of the future front.

A graver was formed by means of unifacial edge retouch of a thin (scale-like) flake (Pl. 83:10).

A biface blank is probably for a shortened end core (Pl. 83:2). The platform is slightly concave and was made by a lateral fracture (?). The base is marked by three narrow facets. At the place of the front and counterfront can be seen the negatives of two corresponding spalls along the vertical axis of the blank.

Flakes for the most part were not used in work, but traces of use as disposable instruments were preserved on some. This is the case with four obsidian flakes, though flakes of flint also found use. Thus, one of them has traces of bifacial crushing in the form of alternating (on opposite edge plains) flattening facets, forming a wave-like linear edge characteristic of a file. Traces of intentional scraping of wood and bone were preserved on another subrectangular flake of grayish flint. Unclear traces of work do not permit reliably confirming the character of the use of another flint flake, which, judging by the morphology, could have been used as a burin. Among the flakes there are spalls with traces of intentional retouch covering the whole surface of the back.

A core of transitional form, from end removal of blades to a prismatic form (Pl. 83:3), has a unifacially convex slightly beveled (toward one side) platform. The front is convex, and the counterfront is represented by a carefully retouched rib along the vertical axis of the blank. Blades were produced by pressure from the end, then changed to one of the sides (the negative of the bladelet removal was preserved). The basis of a flattened core with end removal of blades (Pl. 83:5) is a three-sided blank. The point of juncture of the same-sized sides formed a rib, fashioned on one side by transverse retouch. The second side preserves the unworked surface of the primary blank. The platform is beveled toward the counterfront.

The El’gygytgyn IV Site From the site were collected 20 knife-like bladelets (including fragments), 1 core blank, 1 core and 1 core fragment, 2 point fragments, 2 scrapers, 1 burin, and 35 flakes. Siliceous stone, flint, jasper-like stone, chalcedony, and argillaceous slate were used as raw material.

Two cores are absolutely identical and differ only in dimensions (Pl. 83:4, 7). Both have two platforms, from which bladelets were produced by pressure. The front is arcshaped convex. The counterfront has traces of the coarse

Cores. One specimen is unifacially convex (Pl. 84:1). A platform was made by lamellar flake removal and is slightly

53

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka beveled to one side. A rib was formed on the side by lateral retouch. The second side preserves the primary surface of the blank. The front is arc-shaped convex with three flake scars. Being functionally exhausted, it was possibly subsequently used as a scraper, judging by the edge of the base.

On the remaining bladelets in the complex, because of badly preserved grinding and linear tracks, reliably establishing the function of the tools is impossible.14 Points are represented by two fragments. Part of the tip of a blade of a carefully retouched arrowhead with thin lenticular cross section was preserved (Pl. 84:8). A second, bifacially worked fragment is probably a dart or spear point (Pl. 84:10), judging by its massive blade.

A fragment of a prismatic core had bladelets removed all around (Pl. 84:2).

Scrapers, probably spokeshaves, are represented by two specimens (fragments of slabs of siliceous slate served as blanks). One of them (Pl. 84:12) shows traces of utilization concentrated on the edge line. Clear lustrous intermittent polish in the form of a narrow band is concentrated on the projecting parts of the working edge, but is not noted on the adjacent surfaces. The linear traces are unclear. The character of utilization points to the relative hardness of the material being worked, possibly bone. A second specimen (Pl. 84:13) is similar to the first, but in distinction from it the characteristic oily luster of the polish is concentrated not on the edge, but is slightly shifted to the ventral part. The traces do not penetrate into the depths of the fractures. The instrument was probably briefly used as a spokeshave on relatively hard material, such as bone.

A triangular piece could have been a core blank (Pl. 84:11), but it also possibly was a piece of a blank of a three-sided point. Knife-like bladelets were used for the most part without previous modification. Use-wear study13 of this category of the stone assemblage allows knife-like bladelets to be considered as an important form among tools and household implements in the archaeological complex being studied. The functional assignment of bladelets is varied. A small fragment of an obsidian bladelet has traces of retouch on the left working edge of the ventral side, the edge line being blunted and worn (Pl. 84:3). There is irregular crushing on the surfaces at opposite edges: on the dorsal surface were found small single-layered edge facets, and on the ventral side, flat tiny notches appearing on the surface back of the edge. Traces of weak grinding are found on the pointed upper break of the bladelet. Linear traces, poorly distributed and longitudinal, are concentrated on the edge. The character of the use-wear traces suggests that the bladelet was used for working wood.

A multifaceted burin (Pl. 84:9) was made on a short three-edged blank. The burin working element is equally proportioned with the body, which is carefully retouched in the area around the tang. The El’gygytgyn V Site

A fragment of a knife-like bladelet has a part broken off of the left working edge (Pl. 84:4). Small crushing of the working edge embraces the surface around the working edge on both sides. Traces from grating in the form of compact striations parallel to the working edge, which merge together as extended parts of dull grinding, suggest the tool was used for cutting up meat or fish.

From the site 87 flakes, 4 knife-like bladelets, 1 point fragment, and 1 lateral inset were collected. Siliceous stone and obsidian served as raw material. Judging by the knife-like bladelets, the primary flaking was carried out on prismatic cores. Knife-like bladelets found their use in work operations: On one of them (Pl. 79:6) sharp diagonal linear traces can be seen, which penetrate into the facets of crushing, attesting to the softness of the material being worked.

A bladelet, broken on the end (Pl. 84:5), preserves lustrous grinding on and along the edge. Grinding, penetrating into the shallow cracks and facets, follow the contours of the facets of crushing. On the upper end of the projecting point of the right working edge on the dorsal side are striations overlapping one another, diagonally disarticulating the point. The tool may have been used for cutting some kind of slot in wood or bone.

A semilunar inset (Pl. 79:4) reveals analogous traces of use. A point is represented by a fragment (Pl. 79:5), probably of triangular form. The blade is carefully worked by diagonal retouch.

A bladelet with a strongly crushed working edge (Pl. 84:6), but without traces of grinding, judging by the character of the abrasion, could have been used for working wood or bone.

The complex of the stone assemblage is small in number and there are no diagnostic elements for dating or identifying the culture.

A bladelet with small intermittent crushing and linear traces, oriented parallel to the edge (Pl. 84:7), was used for working soft material, probably meat.

The El’gygytgyn VI Site The material complex of the site is represented by 2 cores, This is the only complex (of all those described in this monograph) in which stone artifacts as widespread throughout Chukotka as knife-like bladelets has undergone use-wear study. 14

Analysis was conducted by I. V. Makarov, member of the Laboratory of Archaeology and History of SVKNII DVO RAN.

13

54

Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka 38 knife-like bladelets, 1 adze-like instrument, and 107 flakes.

working edge, one end worked by retouch, and the other has traces of damage (Pl. 85:10); the third, on a triangular-oval flake, has a convex working edge sharpened by rectangular retouch (Pl. 85:11).

Siliceous stone, jasper-like stone, obsidian, and chalcedony were used as raw material.

Ceramics are represented by one fragment of a thin-walled vessel. On the outside are traces of burned plant fibers mixed in the paste at the modeling (Pl. 85:12).

Cores. One specimen is an end core (Pl. 79:1) on a large lamellar flake. The body is transversely elongated. One side is worked, while the remaining elements are left unmodified. The platform is slightly beveled and is the primary surface of the raw material. Short irregular bladelets were produced on the end by pressure, leaving three scars.

Analysis of the whole stone complex from the shore terraces of Lake El’gygytgyn attests to considerable distribution of sites of the Late Neolithic North Chukotka culture on them, for which the following artifacts, encountered in practically all the sites, are characteristic: prismatic cores and knifelike bladelets with corresponding modification as burins (Pl. 84:3, 4); cutting inset instruments (Pl. 84:5–7); multifacted burins (three-sided blanks are clearly diagnostic for this culture) (Pl. 84:9); rectangular (Pl. 82:8) and semioval (Pl. 79:4) lateral insets; stemmed points with triangular blade and projecting shoulders (Pls. 82:12; 85:2); and instruments of adze-like form (Pl. 79:3). Previous publications present similar evidence (Kiryak 1993b; Okladnikov and Nekrasov 1957; Sayapin and Dikov 1958). The bearers of the North Chukotka culture were reindeer hunters and gatherers. Their numerous sites are spread throughout the territory of interior Chukotka. The sites are dated to the second and first half of the first millennia B.C.

A second core (Pl. 79:2) is prismatic, with two working platforms (microblades were removed by pressure from one of them), and is flattened owing to the natural surface of the back of the artifact, that is, the platy cleavage on what served as a blank. Among the tools was an adze-like artifact (Pl. 79:3), unifacially convex, and triangular. Both sides were worked by complete retouch. The lateral edges have a broken outline with projecting file-like areas. No traces of use were found. This complex also is small and not diagnostic. Among the finds in sites at Lake El’gygytgyn there is a group of shaped artifacts that can be divined as some sort of zoomorphic being. Some of them were made by retouching flakes (Pls. 83:11, 12; 84:14), others are represented by small shaped pebbles (natural forms). Regarding small stone sculpture, see Kiryak (2002).

In addition, wedge-shaped and end cores were found for the first time in the shore zone of Lake El’gygytgyn, offering evidence of settlement in this region probably as early as the end of the Pleistocene—beginning of the Holocene.

We will display the complex of artifacts obtained from M. B. Skopets (Pl. 85).

A wedge-shaped core from the El’gygytgyn II site is similar to one found by Dikov at the Ul’khum I site (Dikov 1997:Pl. 6:1). Crude forms with end removal of microblades (Pl. 79:1) are also encountered in the complexes of the Eastern Chukotka Upper Paleolithic sites of Ul’khum I and Chaatam’e I (Dikov 1997:Pl. 20:1).

A core, prismatic with two platforms, has all round counter removal of bladelets (Pl. 85:1). Knife-like bladelets with traces of concentrated retouch (Pl. 85:3) were used as tools. It is a specimen of a combination tool (a notched tool and angle burin).

Wedge-shaped cores identical to both El’gygytgyn samples were found during excavations of the Western Chukotka site of Tytyl’vaam IV, Locus 1, in 2000. Among these samples are specimens with such special features as the presence of a crest on the platform (the materials have not yet been published). Similar wedge-shaped cores are encountered in the Upper Paleolithic collections of the Ushki I site (Kamchatka) from Stratum VI (stored in the depository of the Laboratory of Archaeology and History SVKNII DVO RAN), dated to 10,300–10,800 BP. The two El’gygytgyn finds probably fall in the same chronological framework. At present we do not have at our disposal any additional data on such early finds in central Chukotka.

Points. In the collection are two spear points: The blade of one is subrectangular with rounded tip (Pl. 85:13); the second is leaf-shaped with rounded haft and a tip set off by secondary modification (Pl. 85:14). The body of both tools was carefully worked with trailing diagonal retouch. The stemless arrowheads varied in form (three specimens are partially damaged); a point of elongated proportions unifacially convex with a straight butt (Pl. 85:3); a willowleaf point with a convex lenticular cross section (Pl. 85:4); a point of rhomboid form (Pl. 85:5); and a three-edged file-like point (Pl. 85:6). The stemmed type is represented by one specimen, with a triangular blade and elevated shoulders smoothly transforming into a rectangular stem with a slightly convex base (Pl. 85:2).

New Archaeological Discoveries in the Chaun District Physical-Geographical Characteristics of the Region of Research

Knives. This category is represented by three specimens: The first is of asymmetically leaf-shaped form, two working edges, stemmed, and worked by steep rectangular retouch along the perimeter (Pl. 85:9); the second is rectangular, one

The Chaun District occupies a predominantly flat area that embraces on the west, south, and east Chaun Bay, which is

55

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka connected by a strait to the East Siberian Sea. The area of the region is 58,200 km2. The base of the native population is Chukchi (808 people, or 10.6% of the total number of the population of the district).

He assigned the Neolithic sites to the North Chukotka culture (Dikov 2004). Investigations were continued in the Chaun District in 1981 through survey work on the upper reaches of the Rauchua River in the vicinity of a lake by the same name. The surveys were crowned by the discovery of the Late Neolithic Rauchuvagytgyn I site with unique graphic artifacts—engravings on slate slabs. Excavations revealed a settlement with four surface dwellings, and a date of 2500 ± 100 BP (MAG-902) was determined on charcoal samples collected. Subsequent investigations along the shore line (in 1992 and 1995) revealed seven more Neolithic sites.

The Chaun District lies in a zone of typical Arctic tundra, the chief feature of which is scant supply of organic matter and extremely low increase of the phytomass. In this zone, even on the plains, the plant cover is not closed and patches of rubbly sandy loam occur over a substantial part of the area. The plant cover is dominated by moss and lichens, small shrubs, sedge, and cotton grass. The characteristic feature of the Arctic tundra is a multitude of lakes, on the shores of which in summer nest large numbers of migratory birds (geese, ducks, swans, and cranes).

In 1981 our archaeological group went along the Rauchua River by boat to the village of Baranikha, and in 1987 we continued by boat from Baranikha to the shore of the Arctic Ocean. As a result, four sites were discovered in the Rauchua River valley. In 1990 we examined the valley of the Mlelin River, along the right bank of which three burials with reindeer antlers were discovered.

The climate is sharply subpolar continental: winter is long, with characteristic northern winds reaching 20–40 m/s, and summer is short (2–3 months) with low positive temperatures and frequent frosts even in the warmest periods. The average annual temperature of the air is –10° C. In summer it sometimes reaches +30° C, while in winter it can drop to –50° C.

A New Complex of Artifacts from the Rauchuvagytgyn I Site15 The site is located on the southwestern side of a lake of the same name (Fig. 27). The primary survey routes and excavations were conducted until 1991. The results of investigations of the Rauchuvagytgyn I site have been set forth in a monograph (Kiryak 1993a). The plans of the excavations at loci 1 and 2 and the finds are described there.

The animal world is typical for the Arctic tundra. The ungulates that live here are reindeer and snow sheep. Brown bear, wolverine, wolf, fox, sable, ermine, and Arctic hare can also be found. A large part of the territory is occupied by mountain massifs: On the southwest is the Rauchua Ridge and spurs of the Ilirnei Mountains; to the southeast projects the Anadyr’ Range of the Chukotka Plateau, which forms the watersheds of the Keveem, Pegtymel’, and Palyavaam rivers. Chaun Bay is framed by lowlands of the same name, which extend to the west along the coast of the East Siberian Sea. The largest rivers in its basin are the Rauchua and Chaun.

In 1992 and 1995 we subjected the area with the house in Locus 2 to further examination. The previous excavation was expanded to 72 m2. As a result of this work, cultural remains were revealed with new types of stone assemblage and graphic artifacts. The material complex contains stone artifacts: 12 arrowheads (including fragments), 4 knives, 1 burin, 18 knife-like bladelets, 1 sinker, 6 ceramic fragments, and 116 flakes. During excavation, fragments of slate slabs with engravings and a round pebble with a carved image of a bird were discovered.

A Brief History of Archaeological Research in the Chaun District The first archaeological finds were made on Aion Island in 1958 by the ichthyologist V. D. Lebedev. In 1959, N. N. Dikov visited the island. He examined the site found by Lebedev and discovered three new ones. He then conducted a survey along the road from the town of Pevek to the village of Krasnoarmeisk, finding burials of reindeer antlers.

Points. Two leading types of points (leaf-shaped and triangular), also well known in previous excavations, can be distinguished in the group (Kiryak 1993a). A bifacially worked leaf-shaped dart (?) point has traces of percussion flaking on one of its lateral edges and a rounded butt (Pl. 86:1). A fragment of a dart point (Pl. 86:9) has both sides of the blade worked by oblong trailing retouch. A second fragment is identically formed (Pl. 87:2). A leaf-shaped arrowhead with slightly rounded butt has part of the tip and base damaged (Pl. 86:2). A leaf-shaped point on a slab of siliceous slate was faceted by edge retouch along the perimeter on both sides (Pl. 86:3). A leaf-shaped point has a beveled base and serrated edge (Pl. 87:1).

In 1972, Dikov visited Aion Island for a second time. He undertook a survey in the valley of the Ryveem River and along the south shore of the island, as a result of which he discovered and investigated three sites in the river valley and three Neolithic sites on the south shore of the island. On the western shore of the island he examined pit houses of sea mammal hunters, discovered in 1920 by the explorer H. U. Sverdrup. Materials obtained by Dikov on Aion Island were published in his site-description monograph in 1977.

15

56

For more details on investigations of the site, see Kiryak (1993a).

Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka A multifaceted burin on a flat flake has a long working edge with traces of modification (Pl. 87:5). Knife-like bladelets are represented by whole specimens and fragments, mostly unretouched or with traces of concentrated retouch (Pl. 84:6, 7). A sinker on a small suboval pebble has a conical hole drilled on the upper part (Pl. 86:11). The ceramics are smooth-walled and with traces of waffle stamp, typical for Ymyyakhtakh and North Chukotka cultures. Pieces of ceramics with rendered lines were encountered (Pl. 88:7). Graffiti of scratched nets with thick lines. Some fragments have ladder-like figures, and the image of a sloping cross can be traced in some compositions (Pl. 89:5, 7). There are graffiti with hatched triangles, a disk, and ladder-like figures (Pls. 87:10; 89:4, 5, 7). In the collection of graphic artifacts there are a bas-relief zoomorphic image (of a bird?) with a scratched H-shaped sign (tamga or owner’s mark) (Pl. 86:12) and a face-like figure (Pl. 89:2). A pebble somewhat larger than an egg yolk (Pl. 89:1), absolutely round, has a pecked (carved?) image of a waterfowl(?). (For more detail about engravings found at the Rauchuvagytgyn I site, see Kiryak 2002). The whole assemblage of stone and ceramics, based on technical-typological features, is confined within the framework of the northern variant of the Ymyyakhtakh culture. For a more complete idea of the bearers of this complex we turn to the collection of artifacts collected at Locus 2 in the surface deposit (published in Kiryak 1993a).

Figure 27. Arrangement of the sites on Lake Rauchuvagytgyn.

The artifacts of stone and bone are illustrated in Plate 88.

Triangular points were made of local raw material of poor quality and are represented by fragments. All have the upper part of the blade missing; the bases are indented (Pls. 86:4–6; 87:3, 4).

Points. There are two dart points in the collection. A specimen of hornfels is of truncated leaf-shaped form with sharp tip, slightly expanding butt, and gently notched base (Pl. 88:1). Both sides of the body are faceted by tiny flat retouch.

A stemmed point has a short rounded blade that expands toward and smoothly (at an obtuse angle) changes into an elongated stem. The artifact was sharpened by retouch along the whole perimeter (Pl. 87:7). This type is encountered for the first time in Western Chukotkan sites.

The second point of hornfels is stemmed. It has a triangular blade that terminates in a sharp point, raised shoulders changing into a broad stem, and a broken base. One side of the blade was completely retouched. On the second side the surface of the primary blank was preserved along the whole vertical axis of the artifact (Pl. 88:3).

Knives are leaf-shaped and rectangular. A knife with two working edges and an asymmetrically leaf-shaped form was worked bifacially. The border of the working edge and the haft were secondarily modified by retouch (Pl. 86:7). A asymmetrically leaf-shaped knife on a slate slab has a beveled haft. The artifact was modified along the perimeter by fine round retouch (Pl. 86:8). An oval biface, the edge of which has fractures and traces of secondary retouch, is also probably a knife (Pl. 86:10).

A compound point (Pl. 88:2) of antler (half of it broken) has slots—the upper for a stone inset, the lower for seating the shaft. The stone inset was an elongated triangular point with a notched base, completely retouched, with the blade terminating in a sharp point. Knives. An oval bifacially retouched stemmed knife has

57

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka two working edges with trimming of those edges by tiny steep retouch. The stem is set off by a large facet (Pl. 88:5). A second specimen is a combination (or shaped) doublebladed knife, consisting of rectangular and leaf-shaped types, and set off by a waist at the transition point (Pl. 88:6). The knife was carefully retouched along the perimeter, the whole edge sharpened, the facets of sharpening retouch concentrated on the convex working edge and the sharpened end of the knife, and the central part of the surface being left unworked. Judging by the morphology of the tool, it was possibly used as a fish knife.

The open low mountains with an interfluvial elevation of 1,640–1,970 feet asl are located on an expanse adjoining the water divide between the Keveem and Palyavaam rivers, as well as to the east, on the right bank of the Keveem River, bordering the watershed of the Kukeveem and Keveem rivers. The surface highlands between the rivers are broad and smooth, where fragments of regional surface alignment were preserved in some places. Gentle convex slopes are characteristic for these massifs. They are sometimes steep, sometimes precipitous, in areas of permafrost upland terraces and structural protrusions. In such areas drift-talus processes are developed. Drift-solifluctional trains are spread on more gentle slopes with a steepness of 15–20°, ending along the perimeter of the mountain massifs. Such a train can be seen most distinctly along the perimeter of the massif that separates the upper reaches of the basins of Venera Creek and Pravyi [Right] Keveem River.

There is a chopping (?) instrument of antler in the collection (Pl. 88:4). A fragment of ceramics (the exfoliating part) with waffle stamp has an image of a cell of a net drawn over it (Pl. 88:7).

The slightly open highlands with an elevation of 1,150– 1,475 feet asl are spread throughout the basins of the upper and middle courses of Zyum, Nizkii, Viktoriya, and Govorlivyi creeks and Vstrechnaya River. Characteristic for its watershed expanses are areas of leveling, and platform weathering crust can be found. On such watersheds, along with frost weathering, processes of planar erosion predominate.

We note an interesting find from previously unpublished materials—a plate of baleen (fragment) with unsystematically engraved lines and an image of a hanging (?) double triangle. On the bases of both (external and inscribed) are traces of triangular microserration, possibly left by a metal stamp (Pl. 87:9). On an engraving with an image of an arrow a similar serrated stamp is printed on the inside of one side of the blade (Pl. 89:6).

The overwhelming part of the region is occupied by low ridged hills with an elevation of 820–985 feet asl. They are spread out in the downstream basins of most water courses of the region. Here, from the foot of the slopes to the tops of the hills (watersheds), reign drift-solifluction processes that form the Quaternary deposits. In the middle and lower parts of the slopes of the hills the relief is complicated by forms of linear solifluction. On the lower course of the Pravyi Keveem River, as well as in the basin of the lower course of Pakovlad and Venera creeks, the slopes are covered with talus. On the left bank slopes of the middle course of Zyum Creek and the right bank of Govorlivyi Creek solifluction terraces dominate. Their composition is made up of weathered bedrock, that is, rubble and scree, which are submerged in the loam or sandy loam substrate. The thickness of the deposit fluctuates from 1 to 10 m or more.

Besides engraved miniatures, there is a polyiconic image among the cultural remains (Pl. 89:3) made on an obsidian bladelet (for more detail, see Kiryak 2002). Graphic material obtained at the site (Pls. 86:12; 87:10; 89), with consideration of the whole substantial mass of artifacts (Kiryak 1993a), attests to the complex world view of the Rauchua people and the transmission of their ideas and probably myths through artistic means. More detail on the cosmological motifs in the portable graphic art of the residents of Rauchuvagytgyn I site and the mythological model of the universe can be found in Early Art of the Northern Far East as a Historic Source (The Stone Age) (Kiryak 2002). Burials of Reindeer Antlers on the Right Bank of the Mlelin River

In the region of investigation three vertical landscape belts can be distinguished: (a) mountain-Arctic desert and tundra on the tops of mountain watersheds and their slopes, without vegetation or with fragmentary vegetation, over 1,310 feet asl; (b) typical hypoarctic and hummocky intermontane hilly-plain tundras, 985–1,310 feet asl; and (c) tundra, swamp, and flood plains of river valleys, 655–985 feet asl.

Geomorphological Structure and Landscape Characteristics of the Research Region16 The region of the archaeological investigations embraces the eastern part of the Chaun District, between the eastern shore of Chaun Bay and its boundary with the Shmidt District.

The belt of typical hypoarctic tundra is overwhelmingly represented by the diversity of the hummocky cryptopolygonal, sedge-cotton grass well-delineated boundary (75% of the area of the zone). The remaining percentage of the belt is occupied by a variety of marshy shrub-sedge mossy well-delineated areas (8%) and spotty hummocky-disturbed shrub-moss well-delineated areas (10%). The least share (4%) is occupied by a variety of

The modern relief of this area was formed as a result of Cenozoic tectonic movement and the subsequent activity of denudational and erosional processes. Based on the features of morphology in the region being examined, three areas can be distinguished: Open and slightly open highlands and low-lying hills. 16

This outline is based on the notes of B. A. Pavlov.

58

Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka well-delineated disturbed-earth areas. They are represented by geological survey trenches, road fill, winter auto roads, and passages of crawler tractor transport over the fragile surface of the tundra.

some distinctive burials in this region from the Chukchi, who asserted, in his words, that these were not their (not Chukchi—M. K.) burials (Leont’ev, personal communication). He also writes about them in A Toponymic Dictionary of the Northeastern USSR (Leont’ev and Novikova 1989:300):

A characteristic feature of the stream valleys is their shallow cut and development. They belong to water courses of the first and second orders. The sources spring from snow basins and blind stream areas. For the rest, they are reduced to low, aligned (around the channels) gravel-sand flood plains, not exceeding a width of 100–200 m, and are reduced to areas of sand-gravel, shrub-low shrub, and varied-grasses of the middle flood plain alternating with places of high ridge-low hollow, flowing-swampy, shrub-sedge flood plain, which change into swampy gentle slopes of hills. The general width of the flood plain does not exceed 250–300 m.

In the valley of the Palyavaam River (which enters Chaun Bay on the east, south of the Mlelin—M. K.) Chukchi reindeer herders have found burials uncharacteristic of the Chukchi. They supposed that they were burials of the Even—koraramkyt. The burials consisted of antlers formed in a line, which usually lay together with a decorated spear point and a war knife—vynvalyainyn. The spears and knives were so old that they had a greenish color (reported the brothers Yu. and L. Inaime, recorded by I. V. Keuneut).

Burials of Reindeer Antlers The first mention of stone features, under which reindeer antlers were found, was by Dikov in his personal diary (family archive of N. N. Dikov). On October 12, 1959, he tried to restore in a simple school notebook a lost field journal where he was writing during his trip (on September 26 he flew from Anadyr’ through Magadan to Pevek).

Inasmuch as my research theme was connected with the “Yukagir problem” and the archaeological investigations occurred in the region of Western Chukotka, Leont’ev proposed becoming acquainted with these burials. Our boat trip began on the middle course of the Mlelin River 15 km southwest of the Krasnoarmeisk placer mine, probably in the very region through which Dikov’s car passed in 1959 (Fig. 28).

During the visit to Pevek at the end of September, when negotiations were conducted concerning transportation possibilities for archaeological survey on Aion Island, he succeeded in renting an automobile (ZIS-101) for three days and going on the survey from Pevek to the Komsomol’skii placer mine (Chaun District). He wrote in his diary:

On a rubble surface of a hill (655 feet asl) we discovered two elongated oval features of large stone slabs arranged at a distance of 7 m from each other and oriented strictly eastwest (based on the long axis). Stone slabs literally “grew” in the sod. It was necessary to get rid of the sod first in order to take them apart.

In archaeological regard the survey route has few prospects. About 1–1.5 km before reaching the Krasnoarmeisk placer mine is a hill on the left of the road (1 km away) and on it, in the rubble, a spot of sod, and under it, reindeer antlers (a pit house?), and two stone features with antlers under rocks (a grave?). But it was dark and tracing their details was difficult (in addition, the ground was already now frozen).

On top of a slab in the western part of the larger feature (1.2 x 2.4 m) was a white quartzite cobble. Four small quartzite stones were also found there when the slab covering of the burial was removed (Pl. 90a). The burial was not completely preserved. A large part of it was damaged and probably

In his 1977 monograph Dikov describes two stone features (1.5 and 3 m long) located in the Iul’tin District in the vicinity of the Ekiatap cemetery. Under the features were reindeer antlers (five and six pairs), “piled in herringbone pattern” and oriented by the ends toward the southwest (the antler base to the northeast—M. K.). He gives an illustration of one of them (Dikov 2003:142, Fig. 111). Dikov mentions another feature with antlers “on the flat top of this hill (with the cemetery—M. K.)” (Dikov 2003:142, Fig. 111). We discovered a similar burial of reindeer antlers in 1990 on the right bank of the Mlelin River 20–25 km from its mouth at Chaun Bay (Chaun District) (Pl. 90). We planned the survey route along the Mlelin River on the recommendation of ethnographer and writer V. V. Leont’ev (a member of our laboratory), but it took place after his demise.

Figure 28. Survey route and site with burial of reindeer antlers (right bank of the Mlelin River).

Vladilen Vyacheslavovich [Leont’ev] had heard about

59

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka washed away by melt and rain water. In the eastern part of the burial pit were fragments of three skulls with a quartzite stone over them. Below were fragments of three pairs of antlers (forming a herringbone pattern, judging by the position), of a limb bone with an epiphysis, and of a skull. In the western part of the burial pit were insubstantial traces of yellowish bone dust.

These specific archaeological sites undoubtedly attest to a reindeer cult. The presence of white stones in one of the graves emphasizes the sacred relation to the buried animal. The compactly arrayed antlers could have symbolized a multitude of reindeer. Thus, an image of a large number of reindeer antlers—inscribed in a line on a wall of a cave as early as the Paleolithic—could represent an abundance of these animals. Sacrificial reindeer were possibly buried for the purpose of obtaining from the heavenly powers an increase in the number of livestock for favorable sustenance of a clan or for an individual family.

The second burial (1.1 x 2.2 m) was more comprehensive (Pl. 90b). The order of the antlers (six pairs?) in the feature was preserved “in herringbone,” the antler base to the east. The antlers in the southern part of the burial pit were badly damaged. A cluster of splintered limb bones and traces of decayed bone could be traced here. In the western part were a well preserved skull fragment, a large limb bone with an epiphysis, and decomposed bone resembling in form a scapula.

Of course, there is too little information to be able to construct a hypothesis. One can only turn attention to some facts (very limited) that are available to archaeologists today.

Near the mouth of the Mlelin River, on a hill with a geodesic bench mark (28.6 m), another feature with antlers was found. It was similar to the previous one but of “fresher” appearance. It was located directly under the sod and without a stone cover. After opening the sod, excellently preserved antlers (five pairs) were discovered, which were compactly formed “in herringbone,” with the antler bases oriented to the east. We found no accompanying funeral assemblage in any of the burials. The exception was a very large and, judging by the decrepitude of the bone remains, possibly earlier, and probably more revered (sacred) burial that was marked by white stones.

Features of antlers “in herringbone” were discovered by Dikov on a hill in the vicinity of the Ekiatap cemetery. All the burials in the cemetery were rectangularly oval in plan and were oriented east-west by the long axis and were covered or framed by large slabs (Dikov 2003:140–142). In one of the graves was “something like a cache.” It contained 18 stone points, found upon opening the burial pit. Near the cemetery were two large rings of slabs laid out with an internal diameter of 3 m. Adjoining one of them was a small ring of slabs (about 1 m in diameter), inside of which were the remains of clothing and of an arrow shaft. Near an isolated feature of antlers were two circular stone features “of yarangas” (Dikov 2003:140–142).

Thus, the following facts can be stated:

The investigator notes the presence, on the opposite bank of the Ekiatap River, of traces of “several isolated, very late Chukchi burials in the form of narrow ovals with stones deposited along the edges, oriented north-south by the long axis (about 2.5 m long)” with everyday objects—tobacco pipes, spoons, and so on. Five meters “from these oval features were large (reaching 1 m high) piles of reindeer antlers” (Dikov 2003:140–142). With such a detailed description the researcher draws a parallel and reveals the difference between the Ekiatap (ethnically not Chukchi?) and traditional Chukchi burials.

First, in all the cases cited we are dealing with the ritual burial of antlers of (wild? domestic?) reindeer. Second, the burials of the antlers can be traced in the polar zone of the Chukchi tundra for an extent of over 400 km from east to west (their discovery in the Chaun and Iul’tin districts presupposes the presence of similar burials in the intermediate Shmidt District as well, the interior of which remains a “blank spot” on the map for archaeologists). Third, the burial ritual is identical on both the eastern and western flanks of the supposed area of distribution (based on archaeological knowledge today): The burial ritual includes a shallow oval or subrectangularly oval burial chamber dug out with the long axis running east-west, the feature being compactly formed (in a line or herringbone pattern) of five to six pairs of antlers oriented with their bases to the east (Chaun District) and northeast (Iul’tin District). Fourth, besides reindeer antlers, there are large and splintered reindeer (?) limb bones in the burials. In the burials, described by Leont’ev in the words of the Chukchi, in addition to antlers there were “usually” a metal—possibly bronze (“they had a greenish color”)—spear point and battle knife. Neither Dikov nor I found any accompanying assemblage in the antler burials we examined. Perhaps the metal objects, which were of great value in Northeastern Siberia until the nineteenth century A.D., were stolen by newcomers who replaced those who practiced this burial custom.

Based on the orientation and manner of the burial, the Ekiatap graves are reminiscent of the reindeer antler burials “in herringbone,” which are close to them (as, in larger degree, are those clusters of antlers we found in the Chaun District). But this is insufficient evidence to conclude that they are associated culturally, especially since traces of yarangas were discovered nearby—the typical surface dwellings of the Chukchi, to which most probably belong the stone ovals—burials?—and piles of reindeer antlers on the opposite bank of the Ekiatap River. With what ethnic group is it possible to identify the burial of antlers “in herringbone”? There is some basis to suggest that they could belong to the Chuvan people (one of the Yukagir clans). Historical investigation and toponymics attest that until the seventeenth century A.D. Chuvan people lived in this

60

Archaeological Sites of Western Chukotka in the seventeenth century merit special attention. The name of the Reindeer Chukchi “chauchu” and the corresponding Reindeer Koryak name “chauchuven” designate reindeer people, as opposed to coastal people. These names are close to the name “chuvan,” in Chukchi “chavan” (Chuvan people). The written sources of the seventeenth century report the presence among the Chuvan people of reindeer herding. It is entirely probable that the Chukchi and Koryak borrowed reindeer herding from their close neighbors, the Chuvan people and other Yukagir tribes.

territory (the Chukchi having arrived here in the first half of the eighteenth century). I. S. Vdovin (1944:250–251), in an article addressing the settlement of ethnic groups in Northeast Asia, writes that in the seventeenth century the Chuvan people were basically reindeer herders and moved along the Chaun River and its tributaries, as well as along the upper reaches of the Anadyr’ and the rivers that emptied into it on the left side. The toponymics existing at the present time in the region of the Chaun River belong to the Chuvan language.

Levin cites the opinion of I. S. Vdovin that reindeer herding emerged among the Chukchi comparatively recently, and that by the first half of the seventeenth to the second half of the eighteenth century “Chukchi reindeer herding had not yet formed an independent branch of production” (Levin 1958:222).

As Chuvan toponyms he cites the names of the rivers Palyavaam (“palya” in Chuvan is “stone,” while “vaam” is “river” in Chukchi), Chaun (which the Yukagir tribe was called that lived on it, based on the name of this river, and named “Chavandzi” in historical sources), and the names of the mountains in this region (Paalyan, Karpun, Peek) (Vdovin 1944:250–251).

The Chukchi who provided information about the antler burials in the vicinity of Chaun Bay did not recognize them as Chukchi but rather considered them Even (see above). Physical anthropologists note the participation of the Yukagir in the ethnogenesis of Even as well as YukagirLamut (Even) marriages, the resulting children grew up as Yukagir (Gurvich 1966; Levin 1958). The burial ceremony we are describing most probably belongs to the Chuvan people (Yukagir). The orientation of the antlers in the burials is perhaps not by chance. There is evidence that during a funeral ceremony the modern Yukagir cut the antlers with a skull bone of a sacrificed reindeer and hang them around the grave on poles, imitating the framework of a tent (Yukagir 1975:77). During hunting ceremonies the bones of wild reindeer and moose were burned, while the antlers were placed on the ground, having been oriented toward the east (Yukagir 1975:79). In a hunting ceremony the Even “placed the skulls of wild reindeer and moose and the limb bones of these animals on a platform, and in the open forestless tundra they put them in high places and covered them with sod” (Yukagir 1975:78). The Chukchi who informed Leont’ev were possibly acquainted with this ceremony of the Tundra Even, and therefore they supposed that the Palyavaam antler burials belonged to the Even. The orientation (to the east), the use of a high place on which the antlers were laid, and covering them with sod were preserved from a tradition that probably came from the Yukagir.

Making the boundary of settlement of the Chuvan people in the east more precise, B. O. Dolgikh validly demonstrates that it proceeded from the Chukchi Sea in the vicinity of Cape Ryrkaipiya through the upper reaches of the Palyavaam River, and then “from the sources of the Belaya River to the east along the watershed of the Anadyr’-Amguema” (Dolgikh 1960:436). Characterizing the economy of the Chuvan people on the basis of “formal reports” of the seventeenth century, Dolgikh writes that their chief occupation was reindeer hunting and fishing; at the same time, based on the evidence of S. I. Dezhnev, the Chuvan people were reindeer herders. But, based on the supposition of the researcher, reindeer herding among the Yukagir had a secondary, transportational character (Dolgikh 1960:436). Concerning the question of reindeer herding among the northeastern Paleo-Asiatics, the well-known physical anthropologist M. G. Levin rejected the hypothesis of A. M. Zolotarev about an independent center of Chukchi-Koryak reindeer herding. Drawing on materials concerning the similarity of the technical methods and terms belonging to reindeer herding, Levin concludes, corroborating the hypothesis earlier advanced by L. Schrenk, that “reindeer herding among the Chukchi and Koryak was connected in its origin with Tungus reindeer herding.” He writes (Levin 1958:221):

Thus, the following conclusions are suggested: The ceremony of burying antlers in northern Chukotka (in the Chaun and Iul’tin districts) was performed by the Chuvan people; and, it is possible that the antlers buried in the investigated graves belonged to wild (not domesticated) reindeer, and in this case the described ceremony of burying antlers “in herringbone” relates to hunting traditions.17

We have already cited data on the former wide distribution of Yukagir tribes in the territory occupied at present by Reindeer Chukchi and in part by Koryak tribes, who later assimilated [the Yukagir tribes] in substantial degree. The Chuvan, a Yukagir tribe that occupied the extreme eastern (closest to the Chukchi) Yukagir ethnic territory

If the antlers of domestic reindeer were buried, the ceremony can be assigned to relict traditions, such, for example, as shooting an arrow from a bow toward an approaching reindeer herd during the fall festival of the fine-wool reindeer among the Chukchi. 17

61

Chapter II Periodization of the Stone Age Complexes of Western Chukotka

The Orlovka II Site with Regard to the Chronology of Early Traditions in Western Chukotka

archaeological sites, the slopes of the mountain massif are formed of diabases, spilite, keratophyre, argillaceous slates of the lower Permian, as well as peridotite, piroxenite, serpentinite, gabbro-diabase, NS amphibolite of an early Triassic intrusive complex.

A Brief Physical-Geographical Outline1 The area being examined is located in the basin of the Orlovka River (Fig. 29), a large (90 km long) right-bank tributary of the Bol’shoi Anyui River. It originates on the slopes of the South Anyui Ridge. The valley of the river is bounded on the west by the Vulkannyi Range and on the east by the Orlovka Ridge. The Orlovka Ridge, 75 km in extent, is a spur of the South Anyui Range. It does not have a clearly defined axial line, but rather consists of several detached massifs that generally stretch in a southwest direction. On the northeast flank of the range the elevation of the peaks is from 5,085 to 5,825 feet asl (at Sovetskaya Gvardiya summit).

The relief of the territory being examined is erosionaltectonic. The leading role in its formation is associated with Cenozoic tectonic movements in combination with erosional activity. In the framework of the part being studied are three basic geomorphic elements: a low-mountain massif with elevations to 1,835 feet asl with gentle slopes; the valley of the Orlovka River with its complex of terraces; and the alluvial-lake plain on the right bank of the river. Glacial activity did not exert any notable influence on the formation of the relief in the Orlovka River basin. In the late Pleistocene, glaciers were formed only on the southwestern slope of the South Anyui Range, as well as in the region of the Medvezh’ia Mountain and Kamennyi and Sovetskaya Gvardiya peaks, in regions where the elevation of the mountains exceeded 3,610–5,575 feet asl. Glacial deposits in the valleys were formed over an extent of 50 km from the Orlovka I and Orlovka II sites.

The relief in this area is the sharp-peaked alpine type. The Orlovka Ridge gradually subsides to the southwest. In this segment it consists of detached massifs 600 to 800 m high. The mountainous relief, massive and deeply dissected, has smoothly convex, sometimes flat, geotectonically caused peaks and straight slopes. The modern climate in the Orlovka River basin is subarctic, sharply continental. Winter is severe, lasting about eight months. The minimal temperature, based on data from the Ostrovnoi Meteorological Station, is –55° C and occurs between December and February. Snow begins to fall at the end of September and melts at the beginning of June. The thickness of the snow cover is 0.5 to 0.8 m. Summer is short and relatively hot. In July the temperature reaches 30° C. The average annual amount of precipitation is not great—a total of 178 mm (7 inches).

The variety of the lithological composition of the bedrock, frequent replacement along the strike, as well as its strong crushing with numerous faults is noticeably reflected in the morphology of the relief and landscape (Fig. 29). Individual irregular blocks with varied lithology are stretched predominantly in the northern direction. They are separated by two weakly carved water courses stretching north to west. In spite of the insignificant excesses, the sculpted relief of the area is rather contrasting. Because of the irregularity of Cenozoic tectonic movements of some blocks along the fault lines, the sharp asymmetry of the Orlovka River valley emerged. In this area the river is pressed to the left side and has a precipitous bank with steep points. Its right bank, by contrast, is a gently sloping plain with a large number of small lakes.

The plant cover for the latitude is relatively rich. The woody species that predominate are Dahurian larch and dwarf pine. On the flood plain of the river grow poplar, chozenia, willow, and alder. The open slopes of the mountains are covered with reindeer moss and a variety of grasses.

The valley of the Orlovka River is quite well developed. Here, low (0.2–0.6 m) and high (0.6–1.2 m) flood plains are widespread; the presence of a large number of oxbow lakes is characteristic, the design of which duplicates the contours of the abrupt meanders. The flood plain areas are overgrown by poplar-chosenia forests with thick underbrush consisting of currants, alder groves, and shrub willows, as well as a thick surface cover of grasses.

The geological structure of the Orlovsk Ridge differs by its great complexity. Stratigraphically there are sedimentary, volcanogenic, and intrusive rocks of Devonian, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous systems. In the region between Belyi and Chistyi Creeks, in the area of the 1

The deciphering of aerial photos was performed by O. Yu. Glushkova.

62

Periodization of the Stone Age Complexes of Western Chukotka

Figure 29. Geomorphic situation in the area around the Orlovka I and Orlovka II sites. Structurally denuded relief: 1 – geotectonically caused flat watersheds bounded by bluffs; 2 – dome-shaped watersheds with elements of permafrost origin; 3 – gentle slopes of talus drift with a pectinate structure caused by features of the lithology of the underlying rock; 4 – gentle stepped-pitted slopes with widely developed in them upland terraces; 5 – gentle slopes with a predominance of processes of drift (colluvial) solufluction ablation; 6 – gentle even slopes with a predominance of processes of solufluction ablation; 7 – foothill slopes with a predominance of processes of solufluction accumulation. Fluvial relief: 8 – stream; 9 – low flood plain, 0.6 m high; 10 – high flood plain, 1.2 m high; 11 – 1st terrace above the flood plain, 4–5 m high; 12 – 2nd terrace above the flood plain, 8–10 m high; 13 – alluvial lake plain; 14 – alluvial-colluvial detritus cones; 15 – point and their elevations (a – erosional; b – accumulative); 16 – location of archaeological sites.

Accumulative and bedrock terraces 4–5 m and 6–8 m above the flood plain are clearly reflected in the valley. In several large valleys of the region, including the Orlovka River valley, fragments of erosional terraces 8–10 m and 15–20 m high can be seen. The thickness of the alluvium in the cover of the erosional terraces is 2–3 m. The thin layer of alluvium that is preserved is of small-cobble fraction. In some lenses mammoth teeth and tusks are encountered.

On the slopes are widespread gravitation processes, as well as elements of relief of snow and permafrost origin. The influence of frost weathering and solifluction show on the exposed bedrock, which leads to the formation of numerous altiplanation terraces and solifluction trains. Stone rings and polygons can be seen on the flattened tops.

The width of the terraces fluctuates from a few tens of meters to 1.5 km. The surface of the terraces is flat with a sparse vegetation cover and, as a rule, well drained. In some areas such forms as terrace ridges are encountered, the rear edges of which gradually change into mountain slopes. At the present time, the Orlovka River and most of its tributaries go through a stage of deep erosion.

During a survey in 1980 the Western Chukotkan archaeological crew SVKNII discovered two sites of different ages—Orlovka I and Orlovka II—located 23.5 km from the mouth of the Orlovka River between Belyi and Chistyi Creeks. The maximum elevation of Ameba Mountain is 2,125 feet asl. The elevation of the stream at this segment of the river fluctuates between 240 and 820

The Orlovka I and II Sites

63

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka feet asl (Fig. 29). Characteristic for this area are abrupt meanders 0.4–0.6 km long and numerous branching tributaries. The width of the main channel of the Orlovka River is 17–21 m; the average depth fluctuates between 0.6 and 0.7 m, and the speed of the current is 1.4 m/s.

opposite side has fine serration (Pl. 91:14). An angle burin on a bladelet was made of light-gray siliceous slate (Pl. 91:10). The working edge was formed by a burin spall scar and a rib of the blade. A lateral burin of light-gray siliceous slate has the working edge formed by the removal of two burin spalls (Pl. 91:11).

The Orlovka I site is located on the surface of a bedrock terrace fragment about 10 m above the river level, at a distance of several tens of meters from the precipitous point, which is directed toward the river. The terrace is separated from the slope by a clear cut 1–2 m gentle point. Its surface is covered by a thin horizon of alluvium represented by scarce cobbles and large debris, pebbles, sand, and sandy loam. A terrace of similar elevation in the valley of the Monni River, a tributary of Angarka River— based on conclusions of palynologists—was formed in the late Pleistocene (the Zyryanka interval). Characteristic for spore-pollen complexes is a sharp predominance of spores of Siberian lycopod and green moss. Spores of equisetum, ferns, and sphagnum moss are present, and pollen of goosefoot, carnations, sage, cereals, Labiate, and sedge is noted. The pollen of woody-shrubby plants, which include alder, willow, and dwarf birch, is considered no more than 10%. On the whole, the complexes attest to a dry and cold climate of later Quaternary glaciation.

A combination tool was made on an obsidian bladelet. The point of a lateral burin was formed by removal of a burin spall and trimming it above and below with the finest retouch. A feature of the burin spall is the fact that it transects the rib in the diagonal plane. The opposite edge of the bladelet was formed by fine retouch that changes into flat sharpening retouch, by which the working edge of the graver on the proximal segment of the blade was trimmed. In this same area a burin spall was removed from the basal edge, forming an angle burin (Pl. 91:12). A lateral burin-graver (?), on an obsidian bladelet, has a point formed by a diagonal rib, which was made by breaking the bladelet and retouching the convex-concave working edge of the graver (Pl. 91:13). Two end scrapers were found. One of them (5.2 x 3.5 x 1.0 cm), made on a lamellar flake, has an oval working edge formed by steep retouch; the working part was trimmed by small round facets by pressure retouch (Pl. 95:2). On the second, double-edged, made on a convex-concave cortical flake (5.5 x 4.1 x 1.0 cm), the first working edge, formed by steep blunting retouch, is oval; the second working edge, on the opposite end, is straight. On the long edge of the artifact, on the ventral side, there are traces of retouch (Pl. 95:3). Some artifacts are completely patinized. The debitage produced consists of nine tiny flakes of siliceous slates, hornfels, and obsidian.

Artifacts were collected in small number on the nonsodcovered terrace: four knife-like bladelets and a worked, prismatic two-platformed core, all of green siliceous slate. The finds are probably of Neolithic age. The Orlovka II site is situated on a terrace-like slope on the left bank of the Orlovka River (between Belyi and Chistyi Creeks), 1.1 km from its channel. The slope drops smoothly to the axis of the valley, but is steeply precipitous at the river. It is bounded on two sides by geotectonic ledges with relative elevations of 2–4 m. The surface of the slope, being a local watershed of two small left tributaries of the river, is covered by a thin horizon of colluvial-solifluctional deposits consisting of clay, loam, sandy loam, grus, rubble, and sharp-angled pieces of an early Triassic intrusive complex. Vegetation is rare in the vicinity of the site. Only a few thickets of dwarf pine and isolated larches can be seen. The remains of stone cliffs in the form of large blocks or massive slabs are encountered throughout the whole territory.

Excavation. In the area where the surface materials were collected a 2 x 4 m trench was laid out, and later expanded to an excavation area of 23 m2. The stratigraphy is as follows: (1) sod layer (where there was sod), 1.5–2 cm; (2) humic brown layer with rubble and gravel, 7–10 cm; (3) yellowish sandy loam with an admixture of gravel and lenses of yellow and ocherous sand, 5–15 cm; and (4) bedrock (cliff) base (Fig. 30). The cultural remains (in aggregate of two horizons) were discovered in two areas (in Grids A–1 and 2, B–1 and 2, C–1 and 2, D–1 and 2, E–1, and Grids H–1, I–1, J–1 and 2, K–1 and 2, L–1 and 2). The areas were separated by a collapsed rocky point and each was in a relatively small area in the humic layer and in the sandy loam underlying it. The two cultural horizons could be traced. The covering material could be seen in the wall of Grid K–1 leaking to the bedrock base.

Surface collections. On the highest part of the slope, with a relative elevation of 160 m above river level and insignificantly sloping toward the southwest, surface material was collected in an area of 6 m2 (Fig. 30). This included 25 knife-like bladelets and their fragments (21 of light- and dark-gray siliceous slate and 4 of obsidian), as well as microblades (Pl. 91:1–8). One of the bladelets, with a segmented cross section, has six narrow regular facets on the back (Pl. 91:4).

The two cultural horizons could be distinguished based on the depth of the bedding of the artifacts and their composition.

A knife-like bladelet of obsidian has tiny rounded retouch along one edge of the dorsal side and cobble cortex on the opposite edge (Pl. 91:9). A grooved obsidian bladelet has the groove formed by retouch on the ventral side, while the

The upper horizon. At a depth of 2–5 cm 32 blades and microblades (25 of gray siliceous slate, 7 of obsidian) were collected. Two microblades have small unifacial retouch

64

Periodization of the Stone Age Complexes of Western Chukotka

Figure 30. Plan of the excavation and stratigraphy of the Orlovka II site. 1 – blade with grooves; 2 – blade; 3 – burin; 4 – core spall; 5 – tool on a blade; 6 – uniface chopper; 7 – flakes; 8 – split cobble; 9 – retouched flake; 10 – skreblo (spokeshave); 11 – end scraper; 12 – core; 13 – blank; 14 – primary spall; 15 – cobble fragment; 16 – microblade; 17 – pieces of raw material; 18 – stone (small cobble); 19 – traces of charcoal; 20 – sod; 21 – humus with rubble; 22 – greenish-gray sandy loam with a mixture of gravel; 23 – greenish-yellow sandy loam; 24 – lenses of small-grained sand; 25 – lens of ocherous coarse sand; 26 – bedrock; 27 – boulder.

along one edge (Pl. 91:7, 8). Four bladelets have four facets each on their backs, formed as a result of splitting off the microblades of a regular form. They have a segmented cross section and are narrowed toward the distal end (Pl. 91:3, 5, 6). The point on a dihedral burin on an obsidian bladelet was formed by an end rib and the removal of a spall (in the diagonal plane), and sharpened by flat retouch on the back (Pl. 91:15). An angle burin was made on a fragment of a blade triangular in cross section (Pl. 91:7). The burin point was formed by the removal of a burin spall and by the edge of the blade. A combination tool (knife-burin) on a piece of a blade of dark-gray hornfels has large flat retouch on the left side that sharpens the working edge (Pl. 91:9). A microperforator/burin was made on a beakshaped flake with a high back and retouched by long narrow

facets (Pl. 91:16). A graver on a lamellar cortical flake has a suboval working edge formed by pressure retouch on the ventral side. The retouch was applied from the end on the longitudinal facet of the artifact (Pl. 91:19). Six small lamellar spalls (five of siliceous slate, one of obsidian), two edge spalls (Pl. 91:18), and two cortical flakes of obsidian were also in the upper horizon. All the artifacts were completely patinized, with the exception of the working edge of dark-gray (initial) color, which attests to the secondary use of the flake, which was made earlier with the primary splitting of the cobble and which had become covered with a patina. The patina on the flake had the same antiquity as that on the end scrapers mentioned. Most of the artifacts found were multifunctional.

65

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka The small number and nondiagnostic nature of the assemblage from the upper horizon did not permit dating it or determining its association with any culture.

flattened the blank. The cobble cortex was preserved on the opposite side. The surface of the artifact was covered with patina.

The lower horizon. The lower horizon, which contained an assemblage of siliceous pelite and siltstone, could be traced at a depth of 7–10 cm below the ground surface. The artifacts were concentrated in two areas divided by a once-projecting rocky outcrop. In the first area the cultural remains were confined to three cobbles found at a depth of 22 cm. They had served as anvils, and possibly even hearth stones. Between the two cobbles was a small charcoal stain. The artifacts were concentrated in an area 2.5 x 5 m.

A uniface chopper (9.5 x 10 x 5.5 cm) was made from a dark-gray cobble (Pl. 94:6). The working edge was formed by unifacial percussion flaking and secondarily trimmed by coarse (planing) retouch. The length of the working edge is 6.5 cm; the angle of flaking is 45°. During the process of work (as a skreblo?) the working edge was polished, and the negative ribs of the spalls were rolled. The artifact has a proper cobble heel. A large part of the cobble cortex and the working edge were patinized.

Six meters south, in an area 2 m2, was a second, concentrated cluster of artifacts.

A hammerstone (?). The artifact is an almond-shaped cobble (19 x 11 x 6.2 cm) with a narrow back end, which was formed by coarse steep unifacial retouch (Pl. 94:4), creating an oval working edge similar to one on a scraper. On the opposite end are traces of impacts, suggesting that this artifact was used as a striking tool. The whole surface was patinized.

Two hundred and seventeen objects were collected, among which were two cobble cores and one blank, two uniface choppers and a blank, two skreblos, two end scrapers, four fragments of blades, two lamellar flakes (possibly blanks of scrapers), two burins, three cobbles split along the long axis, eight formless fragments, and the rest flakes.

Skreblos. A skreblo (13.7 x 6.5 x 2.1 cm) was made on the narrow end of half of a split cobble (Pl. 93:4). The arc-like working edge was formed by percussion flaking. One side of the artifact completely preserves the cobble cortex; the opposite side retains the surface of the primary splitting. A trace of the blow for splitting the cobble was preserved on one edge.

Cores. Core 1 (11.0 x 8.5 x 5.5 cm) is a primary core of subprismatic form intended for the removal of blades (Pl. 94:2). To make the cobble into a core it was split in half along the long axis, as noted by the negative scar of the initial splitting. For the removal of flakes, a trapezoidal striking platform, beveled at an angle of 75°, was made on it with the aid of transverse spall removal. The flaking was performed over the whole height of the working platform, while on the opposite side of the artifact the cobble cortex was completely preserved. Three parallel contiguous blades were split from the core, and one oblong trimming was made along the left edge of the working platform. The surface of the spall scars preserved the waviness of the break. The ribs left by spall removal were rolled in substantial degree. A layer of patina 0.5 cm thick had formed on the striking platform and on the upper part of the working surface of the core adjoining it.

A skreblo (spokeshave?) was made on a cortical flake (Pl. 95:1). One longitudinal edge of the flake is concave, the opposite one straight. The slightly grooved working edge was formed by percussion flaking of the straight edge of the blank. A skreblo blank (?) was made on a flat cobble (Pl. 93:2). The oval working edge is marked by the coarse unifacial spall scars, without retouch. Split cobbles. Three cobbles in the Orlovka collection are split along the long axis. One of them (15 x 6 x 4.6 cm), with a wedge-shaped form, has a rounded cortical flake removed from the thick part, opposite the plane of the split (Pl. 94:5). The second cobble (19.8 x 7.6 x 6 cm), of subtrapezoidal form, has the negatives of two thick stepped spalls preserved, possibly traces of the removal of two broad blades (Pl. 93:1). The third cobble (13.7 x 6.5 x 5.2 cm) was split into two oblong fragments (Pl. 93:3). The splitting was conducted by a transverse blow. Rounded depressions at the point of contact with the hammerstone were preserved on the edges of both halves. A slightly arc-shaped scraper working edge was formed on one fragment (see above). The second fragment was subjected to transverse secondary splitting in the lower part. The heel retained the cortical surface without additional modification.

Core 2 (Pl. 92:3), from a cobble (9 x 8 x 4 cm), was intended for flaking large lamellar flakes from one side. The oval striking platform was beveled at an angle of 75°. On the flat part of the core were traces of the removal of one large lamellar flake, two spalls along the left and right edges of the working surface, and one oval counterflake. The back side had been trimmed, along with stepped counterspall removal, which took away a large part of the cobble cortex and gave the artifact a subtortoise shell form. The lower edge of the core was given coarse secondary retouch, as a result of which a skreblo-like subtriangular working edge formed. The back surface of the artifact and a large part of the striking platform were covered by a thick layer of patina.

End scrapers. Four end scrapers were found in the Orlovka II site. Two of them were taken from the surface (see above) and two were found in the cultural layer.

A chopper-like artifact (Pl. 94:1) is probably a core blank (17 x 9.5 x 8 cm). The striking platform is beveled at an angle of 70°. Several large lamellar spalls were removed from one side along the whole height of the artifact, which

66

Periodization of the Stone Age Complexes of Western Chukotka One end scraper is on a dark-gray lamellar flake (4.8 x 3 x 0.8 cm), its concave working edge formed by amorphous retouch (Pl. 92:1). The artifact was patinized, though the layer of patina on the working part of the scraper is insignificant.

an easy stepped descent to the river, and in all regards is favorable for fishing and hunting. The proximity of the Anuyi Volcano, located on the slopes of Vulkannyi Mountain at the source of the Orlovka River, could turn out very attractive. Nonfreezing winter hot springs could have existed near the volcano, the curative power of which, even the smoking ground, were objects of worship and attraction for the ancients.

An end scraper on a distal segment of a blade of dark-gray color (4.5 x 4 x 1 cm) with a concave asymmetrical working edge was formed by amorphous retouch. Two facets of former spall removal were preserved on the back of the artifact. A large part of the back was covered by patina. The working edge, the ventral side, and part of the broken end were not patinized (Pl. 92:2).

It appears that Orlovka II functioned as a short-term site in winter, given that its location is a rather great distance from a permanent water source. The complex of the upper horizon of the Orlovka II site and the surface material, which probably belongs to the upper horizon (by identity of raw material, typological unity of artifacts, and technique), includes knife-like blades, including microblades that could have been flaked from prismatic, conical, and possibly wedge-shaped cores. Part of the artifacts were worked by small pressure retouch.

Blades and lamellar spalls. Five blade fragments (Pl. 92:3–6) and two large lamellar flakes could have served as scraper blanks. Three artifacts preserve traces of former spall removal (Pl. 92:3, 5, 6). A lamellar flake has trim marks in the proximal zone. Burins are represented by two specimens. A dihedral burin on a fragment of a three-edged blade (3.5 x 1.6 x 0.7 cm) has a point formed by the removal of three burin spalls. A burin on a triangular flake has a point formed by ribs coming off the lateral edges (on one can be seen traces of large flat retouch) and a burin spall on the ventral side (Pl. 92:10). Both artifacts were patinized.

The industry of the Orlovka II site (lower horizon) reflects a cobble tradition and is represented basically by uniface cobble tools, broad flakes (most often broken), and artifacts from them (scrapers, burins). A feature of stone working is splitting cobbles along the long axis, removing large spalls along the whole ridge of the artifacts and working platform, retaining the cortex on the back side of the artifacts, and the presence of a cobble heel. Secondary working of artifacts was carried out by percussion flaking and coarse retouch; pressure retouch (with the exception of two end scrapers from surface collections) is absent.

A large piece of a cobble has a massive spall scar that forms a point and could have fulfilled the function of a burin (Pl. 92:8). Debitage is subdivided by dimensions into the following groups: 8.5–5 cm (10 specimens), 7–4 cm (36 specimens), 3.5–2.8 cm (23 specimens), 2–0.9 cm (72 specimens), and the remaining are microflakes. There are no traces of usewear on the flakes and pieces of cobble. And no traces of faunal remains or bone artifacts were found in the horizon.

Silicified pelite and siltstone were used as raw material, which also distinguish the artifacts of the lower horizon from the upper. All the tools collected are characterized by unifacial working; no bifaces were found either in the first or second horizon.

Petrographic analysis showed that the raw material for making the artifacts at the Orlovka II site is siliceous pelite and siliceous siltstone of a dark-gray color.

Typological analysis of the artifacts was conducted on the basis of similarity for individual objects and general technical-typological indices characteristic for the different cultures.

The small assemblage consisting largely of blanks, raw material, and debitage (primary flakes and broken pieces) most probably attest to a short-term site.

In the collection from the Orlovka II site, most diagnostic are cobble cores and a uniface chopper, analogous to collections from Inner Mongolia, the Amur River, the Yenisei-Angara region, the Aldan River, and Alaska. We note that these artifacts are significant for dating.

Selection of the site location by the early people was brought about by several favorable factors. The Orlovka River valley, which extends in a northeasterly direction and is bounded on three sides by ranges (the Vulkannyi, Orlovka, and Yuzhno-Anyui), was a favorable migration corridor (even in winter) between the valleys of the Malyi (Sukhoi) Anyui and the Bol’shoi Anyui, large rivers that flow in an east-west direction and empty into the Kolyma River. The relatively low pass of the Anyui Range, which separates them, was not a serious barrier.

Unifacially prismatic cobble cores in the collection from Inner Mongolia, in distinction from those from Orlovka, have two beveled striking platforms. Rather regular blades or lamellar flakes were taken from such cores. Artifacts from the Kumara II site on the Amur River, which Okladnikov calls “Levallois cores,” are almost an identical copy of the Orlovka Core 1 (Okladnikov and Vasil’evskii 1980). V. E. Larichev believes that the term “Levallois core” should be used carefully in relation to subprismatic cobble cores inasmuch as they do not represent the true Levallois form

The dry, relatively level unforested region, which opens to a splendid view of the locality for several kilometers, has

67

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka (Larichev 1976). A. P. Derevianko (1983) as well writes about the essential differences of such cores from classic cores of the Levallois type, stressing that they were intended for the removal of series of blades and lamellar flakes. F. Bordes calls them “Levallois cores for blades” (Gladilin 1977). In Derevianko’s (1983:60) opinion, it is possible in this case to speak “only of the Levallois tradition in the preparation of the striking platform and the plane for the removal of blades.” V. P. Gladilin (1977) introduces the term “protoprismatic cores,” which seems to us the most precise for such kind of artifacts inasmuch as they are prototypes of the later prismatic (in its classic form) core.

absence of pressure retouch are characteristic (West 1976). We observe some succession of traditions of the Orlovka complex in the final Paleolithic sites of the Siberdik culture (particularly, in the lower level of the Kongo site) (Dikov 2004:Figs. 27, 31). Of course, in distinction from the Orlovka II site, they combine large cobble tools and small blade tools. The numerically small complex at the Orlovka II site does not permit clearly tracing the genesis of this culture. However, the technological traditions noted in the site assemblage, the technique of working stone, and individual forms bring it close to sites of the Amur River Basin and Maritime Province, in particular the sites of Kumara II and Osinovka. Analyzing and comparing the Osinovka stone assemblage with that of Kumara, Derevianko concludes that these two archaeological sites belong to a single culture— the Osinovka—and supposes that they are close in time (Derevianko 1983:71; see also Archaeology. . ., 2006).

We find analogies to the Orlovka Core 1 and to the tradition of flaking off long and wide blades of “rather regular form” in the Kumara II complex. A similar type belongs to the third group of cores at Kumara II (Derevianko 1983:60). Analogous also is the technique of preparing cores for the removal of lamellar flakes and blades with trimming not just of the striking platform, but also of the supporting area, as on the Orlovka Core 2 (Derevianko 1983:61). This core is similar to cobble cores from sites in the Altai Mountains (Lapshin 1982:Figs. 1, 3, 5), as well as with subprismatic cores from the Aldan River site of Verkhne-Troitskaya (Mochanov 1977).

No less complex is the task of determining the chronological framework for the Orlovka II site. The situation of the site on the 160 m terrace is an argument—though relative—attesting to an early age for it. A series of 27 “high” Paleolithic sites is known for the Angara (on terraces higher than 100 m) and Baikal (on a 100 m point) regions, where cobble tools were found similar to those at Orlovka II: Levallois single-front cores, skreblos, uniface choppers, and blades (Okladnikov 1975:19). In Tuva (Republic of Southern Siberia), on the surface of river terraces and on mountain slopes, archaeological surface materials were collected that date to the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic (Mochanov 1976:544).

A core blank from the collection of the Orlovka II site (Pl. 93:3) has analogies in the cobble assemblage of the Ezhantsy site (Aldan River) (Mochanov 1977:Pls. 19:12; 21a:10). We will examine one more object from the Orlovka II assemblage—the uniface chopper. Such cobbles with “clearly expressed skreblo-like form” are encountered at the Kulgana site in Baikal (Konopatskii 1982:Pl. II:3). Similar artifacts are present in the assemblages from the second and fourth cultural layers of the Kokorevo I site on the Yenisei River (Abramova 1979:35, Fig. 17:5; 78, Fig. 40:9). Here skreblos are characterized by having unifacial work on the surface and a retouched longitudinal edge (Kholyushkin 1981:102–118). Based on the technique of the working, the Orlovka II skreblo is comparable to the one from the “Quartzite Paleolithic” collection, acquired at the heads of the Malaya Orso and Bol’shaya Orso valleys (Angara region) (Lapshin 1978:154, 155). In addition, it has a striking similarity with such a find from the Ezhantsy site in regard to the technique of working, the form of the artifact, and its working part (Mochanov 1977:58, Pl. 16:26).

Miscellaneous raw material (hornfels, diabase, argillite) and the outer appearance of the artifacts (patina that reaches 0.5 cm at times, rolled edges, polished working edges) from the Orlovka II site indirectly attest to an archaic assemblage. Considering the analogies cited in the Maritime Province and Amur River basin and the opinion of specialists regarding the formation of the complex from the lower layer of the Osinovka site under conditions of a moist and relatively warm climate (interglacial), which preceded the last cold period and is set to no earlier than 30,000 years ago (Paleolit, 1984:329), then artifacts from the lower horizon of the Orlovka II site can also belong to the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic and date to that time.

The remaining artifacts from the Orlovka II site do not have such clear analogies in other collections, though some similarities can be found in various Paleolithic and later cultures, in particular in the southern Russian Far East and Alaska.

Orlovka II is the first Paleolithic site found in Chukotka north of the Arctic Circle. Publishing materials from this site in 1985 I wrote: “Further research will undoubtedly reveal new Paleolithic sites in the polar latitudes of the extreme Northeastern Siberia” (Kiryak 1985). In fact, in 1989 data were published on finds in Eastern Chukotka (Kymyneikei Mountain) that came from a drill core from a borehole 32–33 m deep, among which the most informative turned out to be a cobble core exhibiting the “prismatic principle of flaking.” The remaining artifacts (lamellar spalls and skreblo-like tools), in the opinion of the authors

The industry of the Orlovka II site (lower horizon) bears some common technical-typological features with the archaeological complex from Tangle Lakes (central Alaska), with members of Group 1 sites, for which the Levallois technique of preparation of tools, the presence of chopper-like artifacts, large blades and crude burins, and the

68

Periodization of the Stone Age Complexes of Western Chukotka of the article, were less diagnostic inasmuch as they were redeposited and acquired “additional modification” during their movement by glacier (Laukhin and Drozdov 1989). The presumed age of the site is more than 30,000 years (Laukhin and Drozdov 1989).

53) microcores. A highly developed biface technique is represented in these complexes (Pls. 54–57).

Thus, the Orlovka II site, in the context of the archaeological sites of Western Chukotka (and possibly all of Chukotka), is today the earliest. The small number of cultural remains that represent a fragment of a culture presently unknown in extreme Northeast Asia is not a weighty reason for doubts about their Pleistocene age, considering the morphologically diagnostic forms, the Far Eastern and East Siberian analogies comparable to them, and the conditions of deposition of the artifacts and the geomorphological situation of the site.

No less representative is a group of skreblo-like artifacts, into which fall end scrapers on massive blades (Pl. 66), scrapers on flakes, and skreblos.

A representative group (10 specimens) in the tool kit consists of angle and dihedral burins on flakes.

Cutting instruments (gravers?) are represented by massive artifacts with beveled retouched working edges (Pl. 49). In the complex are series (10 specimens) of angle and dihedral burins on flakes (Pl. 66:18–20). Bifaces were evidently used as knives. Bifacially worked projectile tools: a fragment of an end blade, a spear point, and two fragments of arrowheads (Pl. 54:10, 11).

In the chronological scale of early Western Chukotkan cultures the materials of the Orlovka II complex must occupy the lowest position—from which the early cultures will be counted upward.

There are two uniface choppers in the assemblage from the Tytyl’vaam IV site (Pl. 69).

I consider it expedient to remove from the present scale materials from the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan I and II sites, with which the former periodization scheme of archaeological cultures in Western Chukotka was begun (Kiryak 1993a), even if the El’gakhchan complexes fill the chronological niche that is located at the boundary of the PleistoceneHolocene and therefore logically enter into the new scheme. The whole matter rests on the fact that the sites are located in territories adjoining Chukotka at a distance of somewhat more than 100 km from its borders.

To complete the characteristics of the stone assemblage of the Tytyl’vaam complexes, one more feature inherent in the microblade technology of the Tytyl’vaam IV site, Loci 1 and 2, must be addressed. The platform of the wedgeshaped cores was formed by means of retouch in the form of a rib. Removal of the microblades was produced by short trimming from the flaking front at a right or acute angle to its long axis. As a result of the last method, the platform acquired a concave form toward the base at a certain stage in the use of the cores (Pl. 54:1, 7, 9). In some cases the preform was intentionally prepared with a concave crestlike platform, and articulated with the rib of the counterfront at a sharp angle (Pl. 54:9). A similar technological feature is clearly illustrated by a wedge-shaped core-scraper from excavation of the Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 2 (Pl. 65:4), a wedge-shaped core in the initial stage of microblade removal (Pl. 82:1) found at Lake El’gygytgyn (central Chukotka), and a core and rejuvenation spall from a crestlike platform from the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan II site (Pl. 113:15) (Kiryak 1996d:Fig. 4–11 t). At the same time, the Tytyl’vaam people formed wedge-shaped (?) (end?) cores not only on bifaces, but also used blanks of a different character (Pls. 52:1; 54:4), not related to microforms.

Periodization of the Early Holocene Cultures of Western Chukotka The Upper Paleolithic. Analysis of materials from Chukotkan sites (Tytyl’vaam II–V and Podgornaya) indicates that they belong to one culture, the bearers of which settled at the very beginning of the Holocene in valleys freed from glaciers in the polar zone of Chukotka. The material complexes (from excavations, profiling, and surface collections) are uniform in technology, technicaltypological characteristics, the use of the same local raw material, and do not contain a mixture of artifacts of later times. The cultural remains obtained during the investigation of archaeological sites in the Tytyl’vaam River valley (at present just beginning) permit reestablishing the appearance of the Tytyl’vaam cultural tradition, though not in full measure (with regard to the mobility of the early populations and the time factor).

For determining the place of the Tytyl’vaam complexes within the context of Upper Paleolithic cultures of adjacent territories a comparison must be made based on multicomponent and reliably stratified sites. The closest parallels from several standpoints can be traced in the Dyuktai culture of Yakutia. Analogies are found in the technique of primary flaking. In the Dyuktai materials subprismatic and prismatic cores are rather widely represented (especially in the early complexes of the Ezhantsy site), along with wedge-shaped, prismatic, and subprismatic cores, for the preparation of which large river cobbles were used, also characteristic for the Tytyl’vaam complexes. On several wedge-shaped cores, made from

The complexes being examined reveal the coexistence of three technological components—blade, microblade, and biface. The blade component is based on the removal of parallel blades from large prismatic, subprismatic, and orthogonal cores (Pl. 45). At the base of the microblade technique lie wedge-shaped (Pls. 66–68) and end (Pl.

69

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka atypical biface blanks, such technical features as an accommodating projection can be seen on the counterfront (Mochanov 1977:Pls. 1:10; 4:2, 8; 8:7; 21a:1).

bifaces, and arrowheads are analogous (Dikov 2004:Figs. 18–20). A component that includes crude tools (of striking and skreblo-like character) made from cobbles and isolated slabs is rather representative (Dikov 2004:Figs. 17, 18). At the same time, the Ushki complexes include stone artifacts (labret-like objects, a large number of sculpted and graphic images, and pendants) that are not found in the Dyuktai complexes.

For the wedge-shaped cores of the Tytyl’vaam complexes, such methods are noted as preparation of the platform by retouch (in several cases, beveling toward one of the sides) and the presence of a crest-like rib on the platform, which was cleared away by short longitudinal spalls during the process of pressing off microblades. Depending on the angle at which the spall was taken off the platform, the latter sometimes acquired a grooved form (Pl. 54:1, 7, 9). Analogous features can be seen in the Dyuktai complex (Mochanov 1977:Pls. 15:12, 16; 23:2–7; 24:37), though they were not noted by the investigators. Along with the similarity of some types of wedge-shaped cores, differences can also be observed. All the Tytyl’vaam wedge-shaped cores have a high (vertical) form. In the Dyuktai culture, besides such forms, horizontal cores of the “Gobi” type make up a substantial share (Mochanov 1977:Pls. 8, 21a, 23).

The house-building technique among the Ushki people is very clearly and graphically represented—semisubterranean houses with corridor-like entryways and stone hearths, which have no analogies either in Dyuktai or in any other Upper Paleolithic culture of Siberia. Comparison of Tytyl’vaam artifacts with the Ushki complex from Layer VI reveals their closeness not only from the positions traced above, but also in the features of primary flaking, represented by microcores. Such detail unite them as the presence (on some specimens) of a crest-shaped, retouched rib on the flaking platform. This is graphically demonstrated in Plate 113 (1–5, 8, 14), in which not only materials from the Ushki I site obtained by Dikov (the researcher did not succeed in publishing the primary bulk of Uskhi finds) are reflected, but also new materials that we acquired during excavations of the Ushki V site in 2000.

Similarities can be traced in the primary categories of tools. Characteristic for the Dyuktai sites is the use of burins of different types (angle, lateral, dihedral, transverse) on flakes and pieces of slabs. The burin working edges were formed by the removal of one or two burin spalls, the body of the burin being partially worked by retouch or preserving the surface of the primary blank. In the Tytyl’vaam complex, angle and dihedral burins (10 specimens) are identical in technical characteristics to Dyuktai specimens.

In the series of biface blanks for wedge-shaped cores at the Ushki I site there are specimens with a flaking platform prepared in the form of a crest (Pl. 112:3, 4).2 The distinctiveness of this type (subtype?) of wedge-shaped core is emphasized by Dikov with the description of the few materials from the final Paleolithic Layer V of the Ushki sites, in which finds usual for Layer VI were also noted (Dikov 2004:58).

In both complexes bifaces are also analogous (Mochanov 1977:Pls. 3:2; 13:20; 22:11). In the Dyuktai culture, willow-leaf projectile points are noted (Mochanov 1977:Pls. 3:1; 7:7). Fragments of two willow-leaf arrowheads were found at the Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 2 (Pl. 54:10, 11).

A similar type of wedge-shaped core with a crest-like flaking platform, prepared by the removal of major spalls for the production of microblades, can be traced on several core specimens from the Chinese site of Hutouliang, located southwest of Beijing (Chen and Wang 1989:Fig. 18:3, 6, 7). In the Hutouliang complex are artifacts that are analogous to ones from Layer VI of the Ushki I and V sites in Kamchatka. In addition to the named cores there are leaf-shaped bifaces, spear points, and end scrapers (Chen and Wang 1989:Fig. 18:8–11). The age of the site is 11,000 BP (Chen and Wang 1989).

In the opinion of the researchers, the Dyuktai culture disappears from the territory of Northeast Asia about 11,000–10,500 BP (Mochanov 1977:239). But, as the above-cited analogies show, the Dyuktai tradition continues its existence in the adjoining territory of Western Chukotka during the earliest stages of the Holocene. Yu. A. Mochanov permitted probable membership in the Dyuktai culture of some artifacts from the Layer VI (late Pleistocene) of the Ushki I site in Kamchatka (Mochanov 1977:224). Dikov expressed the idea of a connection (partly of a genetic character) of the late Paleolithic Ushki culture with Dyuktai (Dikov 2004:54).

The feature noted in the formation of wedge-shaped cores can also be traced in Alaska. In the Teklanika West complex, typologically close to the Tytyl’vaam, are not only wedgeshaped cores with retouched ribbed (and in some cases indented) flaking platforms (West 1996:Fig. 7–3:n–r), but also large subprismatic cores (West 1996:Fig. 7–3:f–g), a few specimens of end scrapers on segments of large blades (West 1996:Fig. 7–4:g), and transverse scrapers on large flakes (West 1996:Fig. 7–4:f).

In fact, the primary base of the cultural layer VI in the Ushki I, V, and VI sites seems close to Dyuktai. At Ushki there also coexisted two technological traditions—blade and microblade—and along with crude subprismatic cores the Ushki people used microcores, which predominate in all Ushki complexes. The types of microcores are absolutely identical to the Dyuktai (Dikov 2004:Fig. 16), and burins,

In Component II of the Dry Creek site, the date of which 2

70

Published here for the first time.

Periodization of the Stone Age Complexes of Western Chukotka falls within the chronological framework of Layer VI of the Ushki sites (Kamchatka), analogous technological methods can be clearly traced—the forming of the crest-like flaking platform of slightly indented profile and its rejuvenation by the removal of longitudinal spalls (Hoffecker et al. 1996:Figs. 7–9:b, c, g).

developed at the end of the Pleistocene (Dyuktai, which existed during the interval 35,000–10,500 BP, and the late Ushki culture of Layer VI with the time interval of 10,860 ± 400 BP and 10,360 ± 345 BP). These cultures continued into the beginning of the Holocene of Western Chukotka, occupying in geographic regard an intermediate position.

A similar method is characteristic also for the Campus site, the age of which is unclear (Slobodin 2001). Showing the connections of the late Ushki Upper Paleolithic culture of Layer VI with cultures of arctic and subarctic North America, Dikov defined a circle of North American sites (Donnelly Ridge, Teklanika, Healy Lake), in which he included the Campus site. Evaluating the typological parallels of the named North American sites, he dated them approximately from the thirteenth to eighth millennia B.C. (Dikov 2004:53).

Based on the Tytyl’vaam complex (Tytyl’vaam IV, Locus 1), dates of 9725 ± 45 BP (CAMS 80788), 9820 ± 40 BP (CAMS 80789), and 9790 ± 60 BP (AA-60203) were obtained from various laboratories in the United States. Analysis of a few charcoal pieces from the excavation at this site in Locus 2 (Grid A–6) gave a date of 8645 ± 40 BP (CAMS 96452), which makes the complex younger by more than 1,000 years (from all positions), and identical to that obtained in Locus 1. Some of the charcoal samples (in an unsystematic deposit) for obtaining the CAMS 96452 date were collected from the walls of a depression (natural depression? cache pit? house pit?). It was marked by leaks of black-brown humus from the layer above (easily seen in the profiles; Fig. 22). Excavation touched only the edge of the depression and further excavation will probably clarify its origin. Here, along with flakes, was a core that falls completely outside the 27 specimens obtained during excavation at Locus 2. This core is analogous to those forms (transitional from Paleolithic to Mesolithic) found at the Tytyl’ IV site, Locus 3 (Pl. 10). The stratigraphy of the Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 2, reflects solifluction processes and different kinds of deformation that occurred in this region after the retreat and thawing of the glaciers in the early Holocene. The walls of the excavation and redeposition of the artifacts give an idea of how dynamic these processes were.

Upon analysis of all of the material obtained at the Tytyl’vaam sites, the substantial bulk of the artifacts connected with blade technology attracts attention. The large subprismatic cores are based on this technology, which in most cases were made from river cobbles. The tendency to use blades and flakes for making tools can be traced. Among the tools are artifacts with a groovedserrated working edge (an archaic element characteristic of Mousterian). All the basic categories in this component of Tytyl’vaam artifacts have parallels in complexes from Mongolia. Analogous are cores of subrectangular outline (Derevianko et al. 1984b:7, Fig. 3) and blanks (or massive core-like spalls) for end flaking (Derevianko et al. 1984b:19, Fig. 96; 31, Fig. 28). Triangular cores with counter-transverse flaking of blades on opposite surfaces are noteworthy (Derevianko et al. 1984a:33, Fig. 6).

The complex of artifacts obtained in Locus 2 of the Tytyl’vaam IV site illustrates an Upper Paleolithic culture that was probably formed at the Pleistocene-Holocene boundary. A fragment of this culture, represented by Tytyl’vaam artifacts, has absolute dates, which belong to the very beginning of the Holocene (see Periodization Scheme).

Among Mongolian finds are an impressive series of tools (skreblos) with serrated (Derevianko et al. 1984a:36, Fig. 4:26) or serrated-grooved (Derevianko et al. 1984a:39, Fig. 15; 58) edge, and among them are grooved skreblos (Derevianko et al. 1984b:42, Fig. 55, 151). There are also such tools in the Tytyl’vaam complexes.

Early Mesolithic. The transitional period from the Paleolithic to the Neolithic in Western Chukotka is represented by complexes at a large number of sites. This is especially true of the complex from the Mesolithic Tytyl’ I site, which includes traces of four houses (with internal hearth structures of large cobbles) and four external hearths also surrounded by stones. A stone-working workshop is also part of the site (for more detail on the cultural remains within this Mesolithic site, see Kiryak 1993a).

The use of blades and discoid flakes as blanks for working instruments is similar. The cited technical-typological parallels may not be by chance. The source of this tradition, which was embodied in the early Holocene complexes of the Tytyl’vaam River valley in Western Chukotka, can probably be traced through them. Of course, investigation of the Tytyl’vaam Paleolithic antiquities has only just begun (the total area of excavation amounts to only 54 m2), and further study of these antiquities remains imperative.

Subsequently, the Tytyl’ IV site, Locus 3, with a representative complex of artifacts, was revealed. These artifacts supplement in significant degree the complex of cultural remains of the Tytyl’ I site (Pls. 10–15) (Dikov and Kiryak 1982; Kiryak 1993a). A small amount of material from this time was collected at the sites of Tytyl’ I (Pl. 1); Tytyl’ I, Locus 6 (Pl. 2); Tytyl’ III; Verkhnetytyl’ IV, Locus 4; and Krivoe Ozero (6 km from Lake Tytyl’).

Analysis and comparison of the Upper Paleolithic materials being studied with support from the archaeological sites of two adjacent territories—Yakutia and Kamchatka— supports the idea of a unified cultural-historical community, on the basis of which local cultures were formed and

71

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka Comparison of the cultural remains from this time with artifacts from Upper Paleolithic sites attests to the fact that the technique of the primary flaking of stone undergoes changes. In the Mesolithic complexes of Western Chukotka there are no classic wedge-shaped cores, but the tradition and the technique of end flaking of bladelets from wedgeshaped preforms are not yet forgotten. The cores and blanks found at the Tytyl’ IV site, Locus 3 (Pl. 10), and Krivoe Ozero (Pl. 36:16) graphically demonstrate this, though attributes characteristic for prismatic forms are given to cores in the process of utilization.

from core platforms (Pl. 14) served as blanks for them. They still did not lose the appearance of their Paleolithic analogs (compare Pl. 66:1–3); the area outside the complexes could be recognized as Paleolithic. This category of assemblage demonstrates most conservatively the traditions coming from the Upper Paleolithic. Characteristic for the tool kit of the Tytyl’ IV site, Locus 3, are artifacts on flakes (pointed items, grooved instruments, gravers, spokeshaves) formed by unifacial edge retouch (of insignificant percentage), the complete absence of overall retouching and bifacial work, and the absence of stone points.

Microcore blanks in this series are unifacially convex, have a flat or slightly concave dorsal face with no working, and a convex ventral face. The edge (rib), narrowing toward the base, was worked by edge retouch and the future working surface of the body of the core and the flaking platform were partially retouched. A core retaining cobble cortex on the working front demonstrates the initial stage of flaking microblades (Pl. 10:4). Initially, one edge at the juncture of the ventral surface with the dorsal was flaked, then parallel microblade removal occurred with the whole convex surface being covered with spall scars. Further flaking of the second edge at the juncture of the ventral side with the dorsal and the removal of blades occurred on the dorsal surface. The core preserved only the wedge-shaped form, losing the attributes characteristic for wedge-shaped cores. Sometimes such cores acquired a conical form in the stage of exhaustion (the rib of the counterfront was flaked). A core of such type found in the cultural layer at the Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 2 (Pl. 65:1), possibly indicates that the use of a unifacially convex blank for end flaking of bladelets with transition to rounded flake removal originated in the Upper Paleolithic. However, considering the stratigraphic context of this site, artifacts of Mesolithic time likely will be found intruding into the Paleolithic layer.

These complexes can be assigned to the early Mesolithic based on (1) the presence of wedge-shaped cores (though in unworked crude form) and cores of transitional (from wedge-shaped to prismatic) form, (2) the large mass of end scrapers (characteristic for Upper Paleolithic cultures of North Asia) on large blades and “tablets” in the Western Chukotkan complexes with the absence of end scrapers on knife-like bladelets, (3) the insignificant quantity of knifelike bladelets themselves and burins on them in complexes of the sites of Tytyl’ I and Tytyl’ IV, Locus 3, and (4) the absence of straight and slopingly retouched microblades. From several standpoints the Tytyl’ complex has analogies in the Sumnagin culture of Yakutia. Parallels can be traced in the two-component nature of the Sumnagin assemblage (with the prevalence of microliths), types of end scrapers on large blades (present in small quantity in the Sumnagin complexes; in the Tytyl’ complex they dominate), angle burins on knife-like bladelets and bladelet sections (Pl. 115) (Mochanov 1977:191), and cores with the end removal of microblades. But in complexes of the Sumnagin culture, based predominantly on small blade technique, there are parallelograms, end microscrapers, and pointed items that are not present in the Tytyl’ assemblage. In the Tytyl’ complexes there are (in small numbers and only in surface collections) transverse burins (Pl. 2) (Kiryak 1993a:Pl. 28:5, 6), which are unknown in the Sumnagin culture of Yakutia. At the same time in the named Western Chukotkan complexes there are no multifaceted burins, which are noted among the Sumnagin finds. Sharply different in the complexes being compared is the presence among the Sumnagin of axes and adzes with “ears,” which means also bifacial work. In the Tytyl’ sites examined there are no arrowheads on bladelets, which are characteristic for the Sumnagin people. (In Western Chukotka they appear in later stages of the Mesolithic). In Sumnagin sites, traces of a different house-building technique are recorded, without a facing of large cobbles coating the houses and hearths most often represented by open fires, though some have a stone facing like the Tytyl’ ones. The Sumnagin culture is dated to 10,500 to 6,000 BP (Mochanov 1977:191). Based on the assertion of the researcher of this culture, its appearance and level of development “remained almost unchanged” (Mochanov 1977:250). Considering the immense area of the Sumnagin culture (from the Lena River to the Kolyma River and farther east—to Chukotka, as the researchers note), it is difficult to accept its stagnant character during

The representative series of cores from the Srednee Ozero V site clearly demonstrates a new technique of flaking, which formally preserves the Paleolithic tradition of end flaking similar to that of the cited Tytyl’ specimens (Pl. 77). All the microcores of this type are large and have no counterfront rib; the flaking platform is semioval or suboval, and not triangular; and on the lateral sides traces of the primary surface of the raw material are preserved. Among the finds, only one core preserves all the attributes of the classic wedge shape but appears transitional to the prismatic technique of obtaining bladelets (the removal of microblades was moved to one of the lateral sides). This is the specimen from Krivoe Ozero (Pl. 36:16). Along with cores of transitional form, there are prismatic, conical, and pencil-shaped cores in the early Mesolithic complexes of Chukotka. The Mesolithic in the area of investigation is also characterized by such technological features as unifacially worked artifacts most clearly demonstrated by end scrapers. Large blades, blade sections (Pl. 13), and rejuvenation spalls

72

Periodization of the Stone Age Complexes of Western Chukotka the course of such a long time and the stable life, isolated from external influences, of the residents of this culture.

substantiation, see above). This can probably be considered the type site for the known early Mesolithic complexes of Western Chukotka. This is supported by a core of transitional form (Pl. 65:1) and the stratigraphic context in which it was found.

In adjoining territories several sites were discovered that are synchronic with the Sumnagin (in Eastern Chukotka: Tkachen, Itkhat IA, Itkhat IB, Itkhat IC, and Puturak; on the Kolyma River basin: Kongo and Siberdik; and in the continental part of the Sea of Okhotsk watershed: Uptar), but which differ by the technical-typological characteristics of some categories of the stone assemblage (Dikov 1997).

Thus, it seems possible to date the early Mesolithic of Western Chukotka to the chronological interval of 8,000 to 9,000 BP (see Periodization Scheme). The late Mesolithic. This period in the region of investigation is represented by a complex of artifacts from the Verkhnetytyl’ VI site (most completely) and cultural remains from a surface scatter and the clearing of the surface at the sites of Tytyl’ IV, Locus 2; Verkhnetytyl’ IV, Loci 2 and 3; and isolated artifacts from the mixed Nizhnetytyl’ IV site.

Comparison of the artifacts from the Puturak culture with the Tytyl’ finds reveals similarities between some types of cores, the technique of flaking based on the removal of large platform rejuvenation spalls and their use, and the use of crude flakes as primary blanks for tools. End scrapers on large blades are identical; there are items with points; and there are no bifaces in either complex. The differences are notable as well. In the Puturak complex no wedge-shaped or end cores are recorded. Microblades do not comprise a large number. There are no microburins. However, lamellar points, “flatiron-shaped,” are present (Dikov 1997), of which none are found in the Tytyl’ complex.

Primary flaking in this stage is characterized by prismatic, conical, and pencil-shaped cores (Pls. 25, 26, 38:1–5). Cores with end flaking are possibly still preserved, but their forms are not worked, and large flakes or spalls serve as blanks. Wedge-shaped cores are absent.

Determining the chronological framework of the early Mesolithic, as represented by the sites of Tytyl’ I–III and Tytyl’ IV, Locus 3, is complex. Based on the flaking technique (the presence of wedge-shaped and end cores) and the leading categories in the assemblage (large end scrapers), it is close to the late Paleolithic of Eurasia (Paleolit, 1984:Figs. 123, 131, 132). In the region of investigation the Upper Paleolithic complexes have a series of radiocarbon dates close to 10,000 BP. Mesolithic complexes must be comparably younger.

Arrowheads appear—not isolated examples, but whole series, as at the Verkhnetytyl’ VI site (Pl. 37:1–10). These are specific projectile weapons all made on thin blades and knife-like blades. Stemless points of laurel-leaf or willowleaf form, as well as stemmed, can be distinguished among them. They have a peculiar technical feature—the bladelets (large blades) were partially worked by edge retouch, sometimes only on one side, though in some cases it was the stem. Complete retouch was not done—all points retain the rib of the blade and the surface of primary flaking.

With the absence of type sites (multicomponent, reliable stratigraphy) in the immediate vicinity of the region of our investigations, we turn to sites in neighboring Yakutia, where there are such sites and where the chronological scale of the early cultures has been worked out, supported by absolute dates from concrete sites and cultural layers.

End scrapers on knife-like blades are a no less representative series (Pl. 37:11–13). The working edge was formed by steep retouch, was straight, concave, or convex, and was sometimes pointed. Such scrapers were also made on microblades or lamellar flakes and fragments of them. Direct analogies (9 specimens) were found in the Ust’Timpton complex in Layer IVa. The age of these specimens was determined by a radiocarbon date obtained on charcoal taken from a depth of 10–12 cm from the top of this horizon to be 7000 ± 90 BP (LE-895) (Mochanov 1977:159).

Within the context of the theme that interests us, we cite materials from the multicomponent Ust’-Timpton site (Aldan River basin). The earliest is Layer (Horizon) IVb. Its stone assemblage offers analogies to the leading types of artifacts from the sites of Tytyl’ I; Tytyl’ I, Locus 6; and Tytyl’ IV, Locus 3. In the Ust’-Timpton complex dominant forms are large end scrapers on blades and lamellar flakes, skreblos (Pl. 54:10–14), and transitional cores (Pl. 54:17, 24) (Mochanov 1977:163–164). These types may be significant in dating the Western Chukotkan complexes being studied.

Multifaceted burins also appear in this stage. In the Western Chukotkan complexes they have a boat-shaped form (Pls. 28:7, 12, 13; 29:1–4, 13). An absolute analogy to them is a unique specimen from the Sumnagin culture, obtained from Layer IV (with no record of the horizon) at the Ust’Timpton site (Mochanov 1977:Pl. 59:7). No multifaceted burins with a core-like handle area were encountered at Mesolithic sites in Western Chukotka, but similar specimens have been found in Neolithic complexes.

A radiocarbon date of 9000 ± 100 BP (LE-832) was obtained for cultural Horizon IVb of the Ust’-Timpton site (Mochanov 1977:165). This date can be considered the lower boundary for the early Mesolithic complexes of Western Chukotka. The upper date will evidently be located close to 8,000 BP. The date obtained from Locus 2 of the Tytyl’vaam IV site is bracketed between them (for

These are the leading types of assemblage in the late Mesolithic sites of Western Chukotka. The time of existence of these Chukotkan complexes may

73

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka be determined with the help of key sites in the Kolyma River basin and Yakutia.

Dikov mentioned the Mesolithic stage, which replaced the “quite primitive manufacture of unifacially worked lamellar tools” with finer, as in the example of the Chel’kun IV site (Eastern Chukotka), in the complex containing elements characteristic of late Mesolithic complexes of Yakutia and Western Chukotka. The investigator notably places the Chel’kun complex chronologically after the Puturak. A date of 8150 ± 450 BP was obtained on charcoal from the hearth at Chel’kun IV (Dikov 1997:93), which also corresponds to the lower boundary of the late Mesolithic on our scale of early Holocene cultures of Western Chukotka.

The most diagnostic component of the late Mesolithic sites of Western Chukotka are arrowheads on knife-like bladelets. All the forms existing in the complexes have analogies among artifacts from the Ui site (left bank of the Kolyma River), where a whole series of such points was found. Also identical are individual specimens of cores and end scrapers. In the complex from Ui are large blades and knife-like and ribbed bladelets, as at the Verkhnetytyl’ VI site.

It is possible to assign the complex of the Srednee Ozero V workshop site with its diagnostic components—series of microcores (degrading forms) and their blanks and the representative ensemble of multifaceted burins—to the beginning stage of the late Mesolithic (Pls. 75–78).

Important for distinguishing the late Mesolithic complex is a series of radiocarbon dates obtained for the Ui site. Four of them fall within the interval 8,310 to 8,810 BP (Slobodin 1999:135). Considering the time needed for the bearers of the named complexes to move farther to the north and adapt to the new conditions of the polar region, the lower boundary of the late Mesolithic of Western Chukotka can be tentatively considered to be about 8,000 years ago. The lower boundary is hinted at by the complex of Layer (Horizon) IVa of the Ust’-Timpton site, preceding Layer IVb (see above).

The Ekityki IV complex probably belongs to the terminal stage of the late Mesolithic (Pl. 105). It contains elements predominantly of Early Neolithic cultures of Northeast Asia, though archaic forms are still present, coming from the early Mesolithic. This complex can be considered pre-Neolithic. In light of the evidence, the Early Neolithic cultures of Northeast Asia were formed 6,000 years ago. The fundamental stages of the cultures following the Mesolithic of Western Chukotka can be traced using the periodization scheme we propose (Kiryak 1989:inset; 1993a). Nothing can be added to it over the following years except two radiocarbon dates obtained for the new Late Neolithic sites of Western Chukotka (see the description above).

Characteristic of the complexes being compared (Sumnagin and Western Chukotkan) are cylindrical or subpencilshaped forms of cores and series of scrapers on knife-like bladelets (with the same morphological characteristics) and other categories of microassemblage. A date of 7000 ± 90 BP (LE-805) was obtained for the Sumnagin Horizon IVa. A time of 7,000 years ago can be tentatively considered the upper boundary of the late Mesolithic complexes of Western Chukotka.

74

Chapter III Archaeological Complexes of Adjacent Territories

Sites in the Kymyneiveem River Basin Based on the Results of Reconnaissance (Iul’tin District) A site of late Paleolithic age in the Kymyneiveem River basin was first discovered by S. A. Laukhin during core drilling for the study of deposits forming Kymyneikei Mountain. In the drill core taken from a depth of 32–33 m were several objects (“a core with prismatic principle of flaking, made from a cobble,” lamellar spalls, and so on). Their age, based on determination by N. I. Drozdov, “can be earlier than 30,000 years” (Laukhin and Drozdov 1989). In 1989, an archaeological crew of the SVAKAE (led by M. A. Kiryak) was conducting a survey on the middle course of the Kymyneiveem River (Fig. 31), making it possible to find archaeological sites on moraine terraces. The moraines had been formed by glaciers, “which appeared during the Pleistocene from centers in the Chukotka Range along the valleys of the Kymyneiveem and Milyutkheiveem rivers to the Vankarem Lowland” (Laukhin and Drozdov 1989:37). Laukhin proposes that this was during the Sartan glacial stage, and notes three stages of this glaciation. The cultural remains obtained during the boring had been deposited on an older moraine formed by a glacier that advanced along the valley of the Milyutkheiveem River (a right tributary of the Kymyneiveem River). Two Sartan stadial moraines formed by glaciers that emerged along the Kymyneiveem River valley covered the old moraine (Laukhin and Drozdov 1989:32).

Figure 31. Survey route along the Kymyneiveem River and the location of the archaeological sites.

1.1 x 0.6 cm) have a trapezoidal cross section; part of them with traces of edge retouch. No diagnostic objects were in the complex that could clarify its age.

On the surface of the late moraines, over 6–7 m high, we found four sites with cultural remains from different periods along the right and left banks of the Kymyneiveem River while rafting on a segment of the channel side extending 30–35 km. Artifacts were collected from the broken-sod surface; the complexes were small in volume. On two of the sites were objects that can be assigned to the Upper Paleolithic based on technical-typological characteristics. Inasmuch as researchers refer to these finds, it makes sense to publish all Kymyneiveem materials we obtained during the survey.

The second site is located approximately 2 km downstream from Sukhoi Creek on the Kymyneiveem River, at the mouth area of Bezymyannyi Creek. Collections were made at three loci on the broken-sod surface of a 6–7-meter terrace. At Locus 1 were one core, four knife-like bladelets, and seven flakes. The raw material was siliceous slate of white, gray, and red color. The core, of prismatic form, has a single platform, is worked in significant degree, with pressure flaking along the whole perimeter (Pl. 96:1).

The first site is situated on an 8–9-meter terrace at the mouth of Sukhoi Creek (left bank). Five knife-like bladelets, one ribbed bladelet, and eight flakes were collected. The raw material was siliceous slate, obsidian, and red jasper. Judging by the external appearance of the artifacts, primary flaking was carried out from prismatic cores—the knife-like bladelets removed from them (dimensions: from 2.5 x 1.1 to

The knife-like bladelets measure from 2.4 x 1.0 to 0.8 x 0.6 cm, are trapezoidal in cross section, and on some specimens are traces of retouch along the edge (Pl. 96:2–5).

75

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka A punch, part of the tip of which was lost, was formed on a flake (Pl. 96:6).

gray hornfels on a lamellar flake. The working edge was formed by the removal of a longitudinal spall. On the corner of the artifact, perpendicular to the working edge, a burin spall had been removed. The edge opposite the working edge had been modified in two areas by fine-faceted retouch.

The age of the complex could not be determined. In Locus 2, which was 150–200 m from Locus 1, were 23 knife-like bladelets, 53 flakes, and 8 tiny flakes. Siliceous slate of yellow, white, gray, and reddish-brown color, paleyellow flint, and chalcedony served as raw material.

Debitage. The debitage in the collection includes two rejuvenation spalls from core platforms (Pl. 96:13, 14). Traces of fine-faceted retouch can be seen on flakes (Pl. 96:16, 17, 19). A pointed projection has a saw-like outline on one flake (Pl. 96:17). Considering the small size of the collection, in which certain types of artifacts are absent and some categories of the assemblage are represented by isolated finds, and the fact that the artifacts were on the surface, dating the assemblage would be premature. The analogies cited above (Kurupka I in Chukotka, Verkholenskaya Gora I in Angara River basin) affect only individual elements of the complex and permit hypothetically placing it between 12,000 and 9,000 BP.

The knife-like bladelets measure from 2.5 x 1.2 to 0.8 x 0.5 cm, are trapezoidal in cross section, and on some specimens are traces of tiny faceting, possibly acquired as the result of use (Pl. 96:10–11). The flakes in all probability were also utilized. On the edges of four specimens saw-like retouch can be seen (Pl. 96:7, 8). The cultural remains collected at Loci 1 and 2 are identical in technical-typological characteristics. Artifacts were collected in Locus 3, approximately 250 m east of Locus 2. The complex is small, with a total of 15 objects: one core, two core-scrapers (?), three microblades, two rejuvenation spalls from core platforms, one burin, and six flakes. The raw material used was tuffite, siliceous slate, and hornfels.

The third site was revealed on the left bank of the Kymynei River, on a point with the hypsometric mark +41. From the level sod-bare surface of the point the following artifacts were collected: 1 core, 15 knife-like bladelets and blade fragments, 1 ribbed bladelet, 1 punch, 9 fragments of stone slabs, 66 flakes, and 16 tiny spalls. Siliceous slate of white, gray, and reddish colors, chalcedony, and red-brown jasper were used as raw material.

Cores. A completely exhausted wedge-shaped microcore with end removal of microblades has a rounded flaking platform, slightly sloping with regard to the vertical axis of the core, and steeply beveled toward the rib of juncture of the lateral sides. The sides were worked by large-faceted flat retouch on the lower part of the artifacts (Pl. 96:9).

Knife-like bladelets. Judging by the collection of microblades (Pl. 97:1–8, 10–13), with dimensions from 1.2 x 0.5 to 0.8 to 0.3 cm and microblade fragments with dimensions from 0.9 x 0.9 to 0.7 x 0.5 cm, as well as by the faceting, primary flaking was carried out on prismatic cores. Two specimens (Pl. 97:8, 10) have a saw-like edge. The remaining microblades have no traces of modification. Small faceted areas can be seen on some. The complex contained one ribbed bladelet (Pl. 97:9). Some bladelets could have been taken off wedge-shaped cores, especially since there is one such specimen in the collection.

On the back of a core-scraper on a large flake was the negative of the transverse removal of a broad blade and the partially preserved surface of the blank without modification. Along the straight edge of the flake, the high working edge of the scraper was formed by steep retouch. Part of the scraper’s working edge had been removed by the removal of two burin spalls directed perpendicular to the back edge of the artifact. A deep groove had been made on the corner of the artifact. On the vertical axis along the whole end can be seen the negative of microblade removal. The lower part of the core has traces of fine retouch along the edge on both sides (Pl. 97:1). In Eastern Chukotka a whole series of such type of core is found in the Paleolithic Kurupka I site (cf. Dikov 1997:Pls. 14:1; 15:10; 16:7).

The wedge-shaped core (Pl. 96:9) was made from a platy slab. Both faces have traces of secondary modification by large flat retouch, but by virtue of several factors (redeposition, long existence on the surface, and so on) the artifact was significantly rounded, the negatives of faceting are worn, and the surface is covered with desert varnish and shines as if polished. The flaking platform is straight, arranged perpendicular to the vertical axis of the artifact, and was prepared by crude lamellar flaking. The flaking of blades occurred on two ends. This type of core on slab blanks is characteristic for the Verkholenskaya Gora 1 site (Prilozhenie. . ., 1980:Fig. 24:12, 13, 16). The knife-like blades are without retouch; only two have a saw-like border on one edge.

The second core-scraper was formed on a large flake. End removal of microblades occurred on the side of the platform prepared as a grooved working edge of a scraperspokeshave (Pl. 96:12). A blade scar and step fractures from the side of the striking platform were preserved on the back. All three cores were made from the same raw material— light-gray tuffite. Microblades in the collection measure from 2.0 x 0.8 to 1.0 x 0.3 cm, some specimens with traces of edge retouch (Pl. 96:2, 3).

Platy chunks in all probability served as raw material, blanks for cores, and various tools.

Burins. The stone assemblage includes a transverse burin of the Verkholenskaya Gora type (Pl. 96:18) made of dark-

The perforator (Pl. 96:15) was made on a piece of a

76

Archaeological Complexes of Adjacent Territories slab. The working edge was set out by the removal of two concoidal spalls directed at an angle. The surface of the artifact was not worked on either side.

Knives. A fragment of an oval knife has the edges modified (Pl. 98:14). A large part of the surface of the artifact retained the primary cortex of the blank.

The debitage is represented by amorphous flakes, large and small, without traces of utilization (Pl. 96:16).

A subtriangular knife has more careful modification on the two adjoining working edges and the pointed part of the tool. One side preserves the cortical surface of the blank. An area on the second side of the tool was also left without modification (Pl. 98:17).

The question of dating the complex remains open inasmuch as diachronic components possibly are mixed.

Scrapers. A small scraper was made on a lamellar flake and has a high oval working edge (Pl. 98:15).

The end point of the river float was at a branch of the Kymynei River—the Levyi [Left] Kymynei. The most favorable location for settlement in antiquity was a small terrace 3–4 meters high on the left bank of the Levyi Kymynei composed of medium to small gravel with a fill of river sand. Cultural remains were collected from the broken-sod surface: 7 knife-like bladelets and fragments of them, including microspecimens; 3 fragments of points; 2 pieces of bifaces; 2 scrapers (1 of them a spokeshave); 1 inset blade; 75 flakes; and 86 tiny spalls. Siliceous slate of white, gray, and reddish color, obsidian, and chalcedony served as raw material. A 1 x 1 m test pit was laid out where the artifacts were collected, which showed the following stratigraphy: (1) sod, 1.5–3 cm; (2) humic brown layer of small- and medium-sized gravel with fill, 13–18 cm; and (3) a dense layer of gravel of unknown thickness. The artifacts lay under the sod in the upper part of the humus. A total of 343 items was obtained from the test pit: 43 knife-like bladelets, including microspecimens; 2 fragments of points; 1 knife and two knife fragments; 3 inset blades; 223 flakes; and 74 tiny spalls. Siliceous slate, flint of various colors, red jasper, obsidian, and chalcedony served as raw material. We will examine the complex collected at the Levyi Kymynei site.

Inset. An inset instrument was made on a flake. Its working edge was formed by means of unifacial edge retouch (Pl. 98:16). Typologically the stone assemblage from the Levyi Kymynei site can be assigned possibly to various stages of the Neolithic. Late Neolithic material is dominant in the complex. The last site—Malyi Kymynei—is located on a southern spur of Kymyneikei Mountain, which descends as a 3–4-meter terrace toward the channel of the Malyi Kymynei River. The complex of artifacts collected here can be assigned probably to the concluding stage of the Neolithic, based on the presence of ceramics and the technicaltypological features of the stone assemblage. Isolates were found during survey on Kymyneikei Mountain: a microblade, a retouched flake, and a fragment of an indeterminate artifact. Survey along the 30-kilometer segment of Kymynei River revealed four new sites. Analysis of the material obtained suggests that this region with a harsh environment was repeatedly settled in antiquity beginning in the Upper Paleolithic and probably in all stages of the Neolithic. Archaeological sites discovered in the Kymyneiveem River valley require further study inasmuch they could potentially provide materials on the Upper Paleolithic in the extreme North, which is supported by Laukhin’s encouraging finds in the drill core.

Knife-like bladelets. At the base of the stone-working technique was an industry of regularly faceted blades, from wide and large specimens to microblades (Pl. 98:1–7). A pointed working blade (a scraper?) was set off on the proximal end of some specimens by small round retouch (Pl. 98:1–3). The edges of the knife-like bladelets most often were not worked; regular unifacial retouch is seen on only some specimens. Irregular “retouch” and tiny notches may be evidence of utilization. Bladelets were used as spokeshaves, which is confirmed by indented working edges (Pl. 98:3, 9), and angle burins (Pl. 98:9). Sometimes such an instrument has a multifunctional purpose (burinspokeshave). Other broken or disused tools were also adapted to burins. For example, a point was reformed into a three-sided burin by removal of counter burin spalls: two working edges of a dihedral burin and one of a lateral (Pl. 98:10).

Archaeological Survey near the Mouth of the Tadlevaam River (Iul’tin District) In the 1994 field season, according to the program of archaeological investigations in the continental regions of Chukotka, a survey in the Amguema River basin was planned.

Arrowheads. The collection contains fragments of arrowheads. A leaf-shaped point with a broken base (Pl. 98:11) has the body worked by narrow faceting that is diagonal to the vertical axis of the artifact. A stemmed point has a triangular body (Pl. 98:12) that also was carefully worked by diagonal retouch (the stem broken). A triangular (?) point has an indented base (Pl. 98:13).

The plan called for making a reconnaissance survey up the Amguema (40–50 km) from the 67th kilometer of the Amguema car road, and then floating down to the 121st kilometer (to the mouth of the Maravaam River), then ascending the Maravaam 30 km on foot to a site discovered several years ago by S. G. Prostakov. Having left the boats and equipment in the bushes on the

77

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka bank and taken what was necessary, we advanced in the rain up the Maravaam River, which we tried to cross several times in the search for a more favorable route. After going 12–14 km we had to spend the night. The rain did not cease. In the morning Prostakov, who knew the way, set off to the place where artifacts had once been collected. He reached a high bank from which he could see the early site on the opposite shore but could not cross the river, which was swollen from the heavy rain. He could only take photographs. Just as unsuccessful was the rest of our quest for the mysteries of the Maravaam, which will have to remain for future surveys.

made by bifacial percussion flaking. Between the working edges the cobble cortex has been preserved along the whole surface of the artifact. Macroflakes with a heel favorable for grasping were also used as skreblos. The sharp edge of the flake served as a working edge. Such instruments existed over a broad time span—over the second millennium A.D. up to the present. A curious observation was made in a nomad camp of the modern tundra Chukchi. Near three yarangas we noted small (to 40 or 50 cm diameter) features of multicolored pebbles, including fragments of the raw material that was used by the early inhabitants on the hill. Upon questioning, the people explained that the structures were made by children. They tried to explain the significance of the stones in one of the features. The stones were of different sizes: large ones formed a ring around the feature, then within the circle were smaller ones, and in the very center were very small pebbles. The children explained to us that the feature was a herd: when it was gathered together, it was like a circle. The large stones located on the outside were the castrated reindeer, then the regular male reindeer, after them—closer to the center—the smaller pebbles personified the does, and in the center—the smallest pebbles—the young animals born this year.

Returning to our initial point, we rented a motorboat and went from the road builders’ camp at the 67th kilometer to the mouth of the Tadlevaam River (a tributary of the Amguema). Upon first glance, a 4–5-meter high morainal hill offered the greatest potential. On it was a summer camp of reindeer-herders. Examination of the hill revealed the following artifacts on the broken-sod surface formed of detrital material with a gravel-sand fill: 1 small adze, 2 fragments of points, 2 multifaceted burins, 1 fragment of a knife (or point), 4 knife-like bladelets, 3 lamellar flakes, 1 scraper of tuffite, 10 blanks (skreblos?) of fine-grained sandstone, 2 cores (?) for flaking microflakes, 103 flakes of variegated hornfels, and 8 flakes of tuffite.

Two features were laid out in the form of a circle, which was completely filled by such a distinctive mosaic. A third feature is represented by stones placed in the form of concentric circles. The interpretation that the children gave to these features makes sense. It describes the economic way of life of the reindeer-herding environment, the composition and function of the reindeer in the herd, and the definite attitudes of the reindeer herders to that which made up the basis of their lives.

Two components can be distinguished in the stone assemblage collected on the Tadlevaam morainal hill. The first is Neolithic in appearance, the second is much later, possibly even close to our time (end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth centuries A.D.). The basic raw material for making tools, which were in the earlier complex, is variegated hornfels, jasper, and obsidian. Knife-like bladelets and their fragments with traces of crushing or retouch (Pl. 99:1–4) could have been used as elements of compound tools. Point fragments are represented by a mid-section of a flat specimen with a lenticular cross section worked by diagonal trailing retouch (Pl. 99:5) and the upper part of a second specimen with the blade covered by narrow facets of trailing retouch and also narrow lenticular cross section (Pl. 99:6). Multifaceted burins were made on small pebbles of yellowish-orange jasper-like stone, the body of the instruments completely preserving the pebble cortex. Both specimens are possibly only burin blanks (Pl. 99:7, 9). A fragment of an artifact on an obsidian blade was worked along the perimeter with bifacial edge retouch. On the back can be seen the negatives of earlier lamellar spall removal (Pl. 99:8). The most finished and complete, from the technical point of view, is a small adze with a ground working edge, bifacially worked by large scaley retouch, and touched up along the lateral edges and narrow end (Pl. 99:10). Such adzes existed in the Late Neolithic cultures of Northeastern Siberia, which determines the date of, if not all, at least some part of this complex.

On the same survey we often encountered stone features of various configurations and different dimensions laid out in rocks of various sizes: from large cobbles to small cobbles and rolled pebbles. In all probability their modern interpretation often does not correspond to the ideas of the ancients, but in some measure it can help decipher the sense of the stone features encountered. During our survey on the upper reaches of the Omolon River, features in the form of straight lines, serpents, concentric circles, triangles, and arrows were encountered. Most of them consisted of large cobbles and some cobbles of average size, evidently picked up from the river bank. There are small features of only white quartzite. Sometimes in such features one or several white stones are present. Upon our asking what they were for, the reindeer-herding Even said that these were children’s games. When we pointed out that some stones were of such size that a child could scarcely lift them, they answered, “Stones grow.” Survey on the Upper Reaches of the Kymyneiveem River (Lake Ilirnei) In 1993, through a contract with the Department of Culture of Chukotka Autonomous Region, a survey was undertaken on the upper reaches of the Kymyneiveem River. The

In the late complex a round skreblo on a light-gray flat cobble is the most diagnostic, having two (?) working edges

78

Archaeological Complexes of Adjacent Territories survey route passed through the region of Lake Ilirnei, which is about 3 km long and located in a valley west of the source of the Kymyneiveem River. The river probably got its name because in the northern part a spit extended from east to west separating its basin into two different-size parts (regarding the name Ilirnei, see above). At the narrowest neck a hut was built. These places were visited rather often by residents of the district center—Egvekinot village. In 1988, we obtained information about archaeological finds on Lake Ilirnei from the head of the local museum, A. A. Mosolov. He had visited the lake repeatedly and brought an astonishing collection of artifacts from there, unfortunately, not differentiated by locality. Figure 32. Location of the sites on Lake Ilirnei (upper reaches of the Kymyneiveem River): Here and later the sites are designated by Roman numerals, a hut by a square with a cross, the location of the collection of artifacts by a cross, and an intermittent stream by a dashed line.

We examined the terraces in the northern part of the lake zone and found five sites (Fig. 32). They were all located as if shielded by a single flat-topped hill that extended from east to west, which slopes down steeply on the north side toward the stream. Probably here, along the north shore of the lake, the migration paths of the reindeer led as they left the shore of the Chukchi Sea in autumn, passing through the Vankarem Lowland into the more southern mountainous regions, and returning in spring. Supporting this are the numerous traces of early humans along the lakeshore at the narrow neck, which was probably the reindeer crossing. Arrowheads form a substantial part of the stone assemblage found at the sites associated with this place. The Ilirnei I Site The Ilirnei I site is situated on the south slope of the terrace, gently descending from the foothills to the lakeside (Fig. 33). Beside the terrace is the channel of a periodically dry stream. The cultural remains are concentrated in a small area of 30–35 m2. The surface deposits contained 29 objects: 1 fragment of a prismatic core, 1 blank of a core (?), 6 knife-like bladelets, 1 fragment of a bifacially worked tool, 1 indeterminate artifact (a knife?), 3 blanks, and 16 flakes. Two of them have traces of use-wear. All the artifacts are of homogeneous gray siliceous slate, with the exception of two knife-like bladelets of obsidian. The Ilirnei II Site This site is located on the flat surface of a 3–4-meter terrace, in the center of which were the cobble features of two modern Chukchi yarangas (Fig. 34). The complex of artifacts collected from the surface deposit consisted of 3 cores and 1 fragment, 10 knife-like blades, 1 ribbed blade, 1 scraper, 1 burin, 1 arrowhead, 1 knife, 1 indeterminate artifact, 2 blanks (scrapers?), 2 retouched flakes, and 67 pieces of debitage (pieces of raw material and flakes).

Figure 33. Location of the Ilirnei I site.

flaking of blades occurred on one platform around the whole perimeter of the artifact (Pl. 99:11). A single-platform core has a flattened counterfront (Pl. 99:12). Another core, basically exhausted, had a flattened body and a platform beveled after trimming (?). The flaking of bladelets occurred all the way around (Pl. 99:13).

Predominantly siliceous slate of light-gray color, as well as green hornfels, red jasper, and obsidian, served as raw material.

The knife-like bladelets measure 4.4 x 1.2 to 1.7 x 0.7 cm. Some specimens were retouched (Pl. 99:15). The collection contains 1 ribbed bladelet (Pl. 99:4).

Cores. A prismatic core has two platforms, though the

79

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Figure 35. Location of the Ilirnei III site.

Figure 34. Location of the Ilirnei II site. Yarangas’ are denoted by dots.

An arrowhead is leaf-shaped with a convex lenticular cross section. The body was worked on both sides by trailing diagonal retouch (Pl. 99:16). A scraper of tear-drop form has a high working edge (Pl. 99:17). A multifaceted burin is triangular in cross section and has an unretouched body (Pl. 99:18). A subrectangular-oval knife was bifacially worked, with beveled end (Pl. 99:19). In general, the site can be assigned to the Neolithic period. The Ilirnei III Site The Ilirnei III site is located on a 2-meter high mound east of the Ilirnei II site (Fig. 35). Two flakes were found on the surface.

Figure 36. Location of the sites of Ilirnei IV and V. The clusters of dots are small stone kurgans.

The Ilirnei IV Site

Most of the artifacts are of siliceous slate, though some are of obsidian and chalcedony.

This site is located on a rocky area of a steep hill slope (Fig. 36). The surface of the area is formed of compact stone debris and is not sod covered. Artifacts collected from the surface are: 2 core blanks, 2 fragments of knife-like bladelets, 2 fragments of points, 4 inset blades, 1 knife, 4 fragments of blanks (knives?), 2 pieces of slate slabs, 8 flakes, and 1 piece of raw material.

In addition to stone artifacts, eight pieces of ceramics were collected. Cores (blanks). One artifact of subsquare form has a prepared flaking platform and a percussion flaked side (Pl. 100:1). The second core blank is subtriangular in cross 80

Archaeological Complexes of Adjacent Territories section. It was probably damaged during the process of preparation (Pl. 100:2).

probably served as dart points, medium and small ones as arrowheads.

Points (fragments). A fragment of a willow-leaf (?) point has a convex lenticular cross section carefully worked by trailing retouch on both sides (Pl. 100:4). A second, triangular fragment is represented by the upper part, near the tip (Pl. 100:5).

Based on typology, several groups can be distinguished. The type of points represented are those of elongated and normal proportions with a triangular body, a straight or slightly indented base, and sometimes convex sides (Pls. 100:17; 101:11–13, 15; 102:10; 104:5–10).

Scrapers. A pear-shaped scraper has a high carefully retouched working face. A subquadrilateral scraper on a platy material has a convex-concave working edge (Pl. 100:7).

One group of points has a truncated leaf-shaped form (Pls. 100:14, 18; 102:1–5). Most fragments belong to a leafshaped form (Pls. 100:15, 16, 20–22; 101:14); however, not all can be distinguished typologically (Pls. 101:9, 10; 102:8, 9, 12, 13).

A knife on a slate slab has both sides of working edge retouched, while the opposite edge remains unworked (Pl. 100:6). A fragment of a biface (Pl. 100:3) probably belonged to a knife with a single working edge.

A fragment of a stemmed point is a unique specimen (Pl. 101:8). Knives. In most cases platy material served as blanks for knives. The working edge was formed by retouch on both sides. Among the platy knives are specimens with a single working edge (Pls. 101:19, 21; 102:18; 103:3, 4). There are also knives with two working edges, including some subtriangular and triangular in form with the working edges coming together at an angle (Pls. 101:20; 103:1, 5, 7).

Insets (gravers?) were made on slab flakes by retouching the working edge. Ceramics are represented by small fragments 0.8 to 0.9 cm thick. It was not possible to determine the exterior working of the vessel (vessels?) or form by the available pieces. The Ilirnei V Site

Among the knives in the collection are bifacially worked tools with one working edge and with two working edges (Pls. 102:6, 7, 15; 103:6–9).

The hill shielding the lake on the northwest is steeply precipitous to the north, toward a narrow valley, and has a sloping weakly-sodded dry slope (3–6 m high to the east, toward the lake) (Fig. 36). Here, in an area measuring 10 x 20 m, artifacts (391 specimens) were collected.

One specimen in the collection is a stemmed knife with a leaf-shaped working edge (Pl. 100:12). A slate instrument is distinctive (seeming not to be part of the complex, based on the way it was made), the working edge being ground on both sides (Pl. 103:2). A narrow knife is defined by a convex lenticular cross section and beveled parallel ends, and parallelogram in plan (Pl. 104:12). Its end areas have a level surface. A series of such specimens belongs to a cache found on Lake El’gygytgyn (Sayapin and Dikov 1958). Dikov interprets them as meat knives.

All the archaeological material was found on the surface: 1 spall from a core, 19 knife-like bladelets, 18 bifaces (blanks of knives or points), 28 biface fragments, 14 knives, 11 arrowheads, 46 fragments of heads, 11 scrapers, 3 burins, 2 fragments of unifacially worked artifacts, 1 punch, 5 lamellar flakes, 216 multishaped flakes, 22 fragments of ceramics, and 2 illustrative objects.

Scrapers. The most diagnostic (morphologically) artifacts are subtriangular (Pl. 100:13) and suboval (Pl. 101:8). The first specimen has a working edge formed by the removal of a burin spall and can be viewed as an instrument with dual function. Flakes also served as scrapers (one-time tools?). In all probability, tools with an indented working edge were scrapers as well (or spokeshaves) (Pl. 102:17).

Cores. A rejuvenation spall was removed from the platform of a prismatic core, including part of the working front (Pl. 100:8). Subsequently, it was probably used as a scraper (?). A long spall from a prismatic core also embraced a segment of the flaking platform (Pl. 101:1). Blades and knife-like bladelets of regular prismatic form, with dimensions from 5.7 x 1.0 to 1.4 x 0.5 cm, served as blanks for burins and inset blades (Pls. 101:2–5; 104:1–5)— all specimens having traces of retouch along the long edges.

Among the artifacts from the Ilirnei V site, besides a ground knife, there is a fragment of a polished artifact, probably an adze (Pl. 102:16).

Burins are of the angle type (Pls. 100:10; 101:2; 102:14; 104:2). One specimen (a double burin) was made on a broken point (Pl. 104:11).

A large quantity of functionally indeterminate artifacts is present in the collection (Pls. 100:11; 101:7; 102:11). Ceramics. A large number of ceramic fragments probably belongs to one vessel. They are analogous to finds at the Ilirnei IV site. The impression of a ribbed paddle can be seen on one fragment.

Points are the most representative group. Siliceous slate was predominantly used for their preparation, in less degree poor quality slate slabs (Pl. 102:1). Large specimens

81

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka The remaining part of the surface material is made up of flakes, burin spalls, and fragments of slate slabs. The artifacts collected from the Ilirnei I–V sites have a mixed character. Present in the complex are both early Holocene elements and rather late ones (a slate knife and thick-walled ceramics, characteristic in Chukotka of the Remnant Neolithic). The basic, most numerous group of artifacts is that of the North Chukotkan (Late Neolithic) culture. Graphic materials belong to a special category of artifacts. Two conjoining pieces of a slab with linear graphics and miniature sculpture—an image of a dolphin—were found in the site (Kiryak 2002). To the north the site overlooks a stream channel that is dry in summer. Between the stream and the northwest extremity of the site, five small round or subsquare-rounded kurgans attract attention. Formed of large and medium pebbles, they were different sizes. One, the largest, had a diameter of 2.5 m; the remainder were smaller (up to 1.5 m). They were arranged in a line along the right bank of the stream. It can be supposed that this is a clan (?) or family (?) cemetery analogous to Ust’-Belaya but much smaller in the number of burials.

Figure 37. Cultural stone feature (clastoform) in the vicinity of archaeological sites on Lake Ilirnei (1).

Opposite this (supposed) cemetery, on the other side of the stream, on a dry terrace are three stone features of various configurations: rectangular, rectangular-oval, and oval with a partition and a broad, open exit (Figs. 37, 38, 39). These may be palyakvins (traces of open-air burial ceremonies of the Paleo-Asiatics, probably the Chukchi), whose circular features of yarangas and hearths we encountered on the knolls at the Ilirnei I and II sites. Regretably, from the sites described above we were able to collect only the most insignificant, odd part of the artifacts, those that remained after numerous amateur collectors had repeatedly visited this place. Sites on Lake Ekityki (Iul’tin District) In 1993 the Chukotka Archaeological Detachment of SVKNII DVO RAN conducted an archaeological survey in the Iul’tin District of the Chukotka Autonomous Region under the leadership of the author. One of the survey routes passed along the shore zone of Lake Ekityki,1 which lies in a narrow valley with high sides formed by the mountain massif (with some elevations over 3,280 feet asl). The valley stretches from southwest to northeast, and with a length of 25–28 km has an insubstantial width— no more than 2.5 km (Fig. 40). The cultural remains are from various periods. The hills and alluvial terraces are composed of gravel, grus, and sandy loam. Their surface is

Figure 38. Cultural stone feature (clastoform) in the vicinity of archaeological sites on Lake Ilirnei (2).

This was the first archaeological examination of Lake Ekityki. In 1947 traces of the existence of early people were discovered in this region, on the Ekitykiveem River (Yakitykiveem River—M.K.), which flows from Lake Ekityki. The remains of an early site were found by N. N. Levoshin (1950) and interpreted as Late Neolithic by A. P. Okladnikov (1950a). A second site was discovered in 1974 by V. N. Smirnov while conducting geological investigations (Dikov and Smirnov 1977). 1

82

Archaeological Complexes of Adjacent Territories

Figure 40. Map of sites on Lake Ekityki.

Figure 41. Location of the Ekityki I site.

bladelets, 1 blade, 4 burins, 4 scrapers, 8 knives (together with fragments), 10 points, 8 nodules, and 47 pieces of debitage (flakes, spalls, and pieces of raw material).

Figure 39. Cultural stone feature (clastoform) in the vicinity of archaeological sites on Lake Ilirnei (3).

Blades and knife-like bladelets. Primary flaking was done on prismatic cores, which can be judged by the blades and knife-like bladelets. Large blades and bladelets, with regular facets and trapezoidal cross section, served as blanks for tools: knives, burins, files, and combination instruments. All have traces of retouch, serration, and spall removal on both edges.

almost completely of broken sod. A few areas are covered with scant tundra vegetation and low-growth shrubs are encountered only in the flood plains of small streams that carry their raging waters to the lake. We succeeded in examining only about one third of the shore zone on the north and south sides on that part of the lake where the Ekitykiveem River begins, cutting through a deep canyon, striving toward the Amguema River—the primary water artery of the region. Based on artifacts lying on the surface we discovered four early sites: Ekityki I–IV, two of them (Ekityki I and II) Late Neolithic, the two others (Ekityki III and IV) earlier, pre-Neolithic period.

Points. The collection contains two leaf-shaped points (of willow-leaf form) with convex lenticular cross section (Pl. 104:18, 19) and two stemmed specimens (Pl. 104:16, 17). The stemmed points were made on a blade and a lamellar blank, have a triangular body (elongated or shortened), a rectangular or subtrapezoidal stem, and projecting shoulders. They were retouched on both surfaces. Such points are typical for the Late Neolithic North Chukotka culture.

The Ekityki I Site The site is located at the outlet of the Ekitykiveem River from the lake on 6–12-meter projections of a morainal hill (Fig. 41). The primary part of the stone assemblage was collected in an area 36 m2 near a cabin built relatively recently by hunters-fishermen on the edge of the precipice 6 m above the river. The raw material used for making the tools was siliceous slate of bright colors (green, pink), hornfels, chalcedony, and obsidian.

Scrapers. A triangular-oval end scraper was made on a massive blank (Pl. 104:14). Both of its surfaces were carefully retouched. There are traces of modification by small round retouch along the perimeter. The working edge had been repeatedly renewed. A second scraper on a small flake of chalcedony has a flat-retouched dorsal side and an unworked ventral side. A third specimen, probably a

The complex from the Ekityki I site is small: 12 knife-like

83

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka spokeshave on an amorphous flake (Pl. 115:15), exhibits the negatives of blade removal on the dorsal side and small edge retouch along the perimeter. A tongue-shaped cortical cobble flake was used as a scraper (Pl. 104:13). Knives (and fragments). Seven specimens were made on slabs. The working edge was formed by retouch. Burins. The collection contains three angle burins on knifelike blades and one bifacial one made on a fragment of a leaf-shaped point that was carefully worked on the body by diagonal retouch. It has a convex lenticular cross section (Pl. 104:11). The material complex of this site belongs to the Late Neolithic.

Figure 42. Location of the Ekityki II site.

The Ekityki II Site The site is located on the south shore of the lake on a 6-meter-high hill opposite the Ekityki I site (Fig. 42). During visual examination of the edge of the precipice, cultural remains were collected from the broken sod surface: one point fragment, one knife, one scraper, one lateral inset, one retoucher, and three flakes. The raw material is analogous to that used at the Ekityki I site. It is impossible to determine the cultural association of the complex because of the small quantity and fragmentary nature of the artifacts. The Ekityki III Site The Ekityki III site is located on a southern point on the lakeshore and occupies two level areas 3–4 m and 6–7 m high, respectively (Fig. 43). The complex collected from the broken sod surface contained cultural remains: a prismatic core, a scraper, a large rejuvenation spall of a core platform, 32 knife-like bladelets, 58 segments of knife-like bladelets, and 35 flakes. All the finds are of a homogeneous raw material—light-gray siliceous slate. The knife-like bladelets and their fragments are almost all without retouch. An end scraper with two, opposite working edges was made on the proximal section of a large broad blade. The dimensions of the instrument are 4.2 x 5.0 x 1.5 cm (the length of the artifact is less than the width). The flakes are without traces of utilization.

Figure 43. Location of the Ekityki III site.

The Ekityki IV Site

and flakes). Light-gray felso-rhyolite and a limited quantity of obsidian were used as raw material.

The Ekityki IV site is located on the second promontory on the alluvial terrace 7 to 8 m high (Fig. 44). The surface is level, composed of pebble-gravel alluvium and compact fill of sandy loam, and is covered by lichens, and in some places is lightly sod-covered. In the vicinity of the site was a cache of reindeer antlers, which in all probability denotes the place of an open-air burial of a reindeer herder. Cultural remains were collected in an area of about 1,000 m2. The complex contained 298 items: 1 cobble blank with the negative of a large spall, 4 cores, 7 end scrapers, 60 knife-like bladelets and 107 segments of bladelets, 2 burins, 1 graver, and the remainder debitage (pieces of raw material

An idea of the primary flaking is given by the cores, blades, and knife-like blades. A prismatic core of shortened proportions has a single front, flattened back, and straight subrectangular platform (Pl. 105:1). Another prismatic core of elongated proportions has a single platform. The flaking of bladelets was produced all around (Pl. 105:4). A conical core of pyramidal form, with straight flaking platform, had blade flaking along the whole perimeter of the platform (Pl. 105:2). A conical core

84

Archaeological Complexes of Adjacent Territories microassemblage categories (scrapers, blades with straight or slanting retouch or grooved end) are uncharacteristic for these complexes. A very small share are burins on bladelets—they total 0.5% in the complex from the Ekityki IV site. Incidentally, excavations can introduce certain correctives, though probably only quantitatively in some categories. Judging the date of the Ekityki complexes is practically impossible inasmuch as they have few diagnostic elements, and meanwhile there is no supporting data (by radiocarbon, for example). Nevertheless, we will attempt to reveal the circle of cultures into which these complexes logically fall. The closest analogies in Western Chukotka are undoubtedly the Mesolithic complexes in the sites of Tytyl’ I and Tytyl’ IV, Locus 3. Parallels are seen in several elements: identical are end scrapers on crude blades, cortical lamellar flakes, large rejuvenation spalls from core platforms, and the group of cores (Kiryak 1994:Fig. 1:1–3). Angle burins are analogous in technique of preparation and proportions. Distinct are the variety of categories of microassemblage on knife-like bladelets of the Tytyl’ complex and the presence in the complex at Tytyl’ IV, Locus 3, of wedge-shaped cores and cores of transitional form (from wedge-shaped to prismatic).

Figure 44. Location of the Ekityki IV site.

of pencil-like form revealed the negatives of the removal of narrow bladelets (Pl. 105:3).

Based on technical-typological characteristics, parallels can be seen in the Mesolithic complexes of Eastern Chukotka. Thus, the technique of flaking based on the removal of large rejuvenation spalls from core platforms, the crude blades and lamellar flakes, and their use as blanks for end scrapers (Puturak site) are identical, and some types of assemblage are analogous (Dikov 1997:Pls. 34–40). Along with the presence of a small lamellar industry in several Mesolithic complexes in Eastern Chukotka (Itkhat IC, Chel’kun IV), it is possible to see weak development of the burin technique and the absence of end retouch of knife-like bladelets (Dikov 1997:Pls. 53–56, 59–61).

Knife-like bladelets range from large (4.1 x 1.2 cm) to microspecimens (1.5 x 0.7 cm). Most of them bear traces of unifacial retouch on one or both lateral edges (Pl. 105:5–11). The collection contains two angle burins (Pl. 105:13, 14); one of them is double. A graver on a blade fragment has traces of multifaceted retouch on the lateral edges. The working edge was formed on a corner of the blade by fine-faceting retouch (Pl. 105:12).

As in the characteristics of the west Chukotkan Mesolithic (Kiryak 1979:51; 1994:106, 107), one must see parallels from several standpoints between the Ekityki complexes and the Sumnagin ones (Yakutia) in the assemblages from the Ekityki III and Ekityki IV sites. They can be traced in the two-component nature of the Sumnagin assemblage with the overwhelming predominance of microblades, in types of end scrapers on large blades, and in the presence of angle burins on knife-like bladelets (Mezolit. . ., 1989:191, Pl. 115).

Scrapers. End scrapers with a thin working edge were made on blades (Pl. 105:15), lamellar flakes (Pl. 105:18), amorphous flakes (Pl. 105:22), and rejuvenation spalls of core platforms (Pl. 105:20, 21). The collection contains a scraper with a high working edge on a large cortical lamellar flake (Pl. 105:19). One specimen, an angle scraper (a spokeshave?), has a serrated edge (Pl. 105:16).

Based on the named technological parameters, the complexes from the Ekityki III and Ekityki IV sites are closer to the Sumnagin culture than any others discovered in recent years in western or Eastern Chukotka. But this similarity, apparent in the present situation (the complex is limited to surface finds), can be subject to doubt after excavations and more detailed study of these sites. Again the difficult question arises: Are the Mesolithic sites of Chukotka independent, or did they all come from the base of the Sumnagin superculture (Mochanov 1977; Pitul’ko 1996).

No other categories were encountered in the assemblages from Ekityki III and Ekityki IV. In spite of the fact that excavations were not carried out, the cultural remains found here permit characterizing the stone assemblage of the sites as lamellar and unifacial. The blade collection contains predominately small specimens (including segments) with regular facets: 56% in the complex from the Ekityki III and more than 70% at Ekityki IV. Judging by the rather representative collection of knife-like bladelets, they could have been used as lateral insets. Other

85

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka At present, a chain of Mesolithic sites can be traced in Chukotka: On the western flank are Tytyl’ I and Tytyl’ IV, Locus 3 (Kiryak 1993a, 1994); in the center are Ekityki III and Ekityki IV; and on the eastern flank are Puturak, Itkhat, Chel’kun IV, Lynkvylenveem, and Ananaiveem (Dikov 1997). All the materials obtained from these sites were published completely (Dikov 1993, 1997, 2004; Dikov and Kiryak 1982; Kiryak 1979 1988, 1989, 1993a, 1993b, 1993c, 1993d), just as the Sumnagin sources (Arkheologicheskie. . ., 1983; Mezolit. . ., 1989; Mochanov 1969, 1977). Developing parallels, it is not difficult to note the common features that characterize the post-Paleolithic technology of the vast region that embraces Northeast Asia. First is the transition to a blade industry (the flaking of large and medium blades and microblades with both prismatic and irregular faceting) and the use of the products of flaking as blanks for the working assemblage (without preliminary preparation or after secondary working). The second common feature is unifacialness (the absence of bifacially worked knives and points); third, the absence of ceramics and ground artifacts, which is a prerogative of the Neolithic. For the sake of accuracy, we note the presence of three bifacially retouched artifacts and one ground artifact from the Sumnagin complexes (Mochanov 1977:246) and two bifaces in the complex from the Tkachen site in Chukotka (Dikov 1997:28–29)—a circumstance that researchers meanwhile cannot explain. But with such fundamental technological unity, one must note a difference, the essence of which lies at the base of each specific culture. Thus, the assemblage of the Sumnagin culture is based “on the technique of detaching knife-like blades” (Mezolit . . ., 1989:191) from cores with one or two platforms that have “most often a pencil-shaped form” (Mochanov 1977:242).

complexes of the Sumnagin culture there are parallelograms and points (Mezolit . . ., 1989:191), which are entirely absent in Chukotka. Based on Mochanov’s assumption, in the Sumnagin culture points may also be found “made from knife-like blades with the aid of edge retouch” (Mochanov 1977:245). In the Chukotkan complexes, which concern us here, there is no hint of them, but they are encountered in later sites—Tytyl’ IV, Locus 2; Verkhnetytyl’ IV, Loci 3, 4; and Verkhnetytyl’ VI. The Chukotkan Mesolithic complexes are different from Yakutian also by the absence in them of axes and adzes with “ears,” though these are present in the assemblages from Sumnagin sites (Mochanov 1977:245); only one micro-specimen was found. These differences permit supposing the originality (or variation) of the Chukotkan Mesolithic, the sources of which are presently unclear. The argument about the sources of Mesolithic cultures in Northeast Asia, their distribution, and their influences on cultures of adjoining territories can be helpful under the conditions of rather broad territorial investigations (in particular, in Chukotka, the central regions of which remain poorly studied), as well as a valid articulation (with consideration of regional features) of variants of the Sumnagin culture and its chronological stages. In the Tytyl’ and Ust’-Timpton Mesolithic complexes, for example, there are elements, belonging to Upper Paleolithic cultures (wedge-shaped cores and cores of transitional form), which, in all probability, characterize an earlier time for their formation. In the Sumnagin layers of the Bel’kachi I site these elements are absent, but the diagnostic type of the assemblage brings them closer to the Early Neolithic (Syalakh) culture of Yakutia. Stemmed and willow-leaf arrowheads on knife-like bladelets most probably appear in the final stages of the transitional period to the Neolithic. Returning to the complexes of artifacts from Ekityki III and IV, I would cautiously assign them to the intermediate chronological framework between the Tytyl’ and late Sumnagin complexes.

Yu. A. Mochanov gives a clear and full characterization of tools made on blades, which comprise a surprising 85–95% of the total quantity of stone tools, and of them, “about 30% have microdimensions—the width does not exceed 0.4 cm” (Mochanov 1977:242). At the Puturak workshop site, a crude blade technique and the use of cores of different types lie at the base of the flaking (Dikov 1997:Pls. 33–36, 43, 46). Also inherent in the complex of the Tytyl’ IV site, Locus 3, is a crude blade technique using broad short cores, if one judges by the blades removed from them and the rejuvenated platforms, on which end scrapers were made, and about 10% of the flakes were used as tools. At the same time, there is one pencil-like core in the Puturak complex (Dikov 1997:Pl. 43:10). The Tytyl’ complexes contain cores of wedge shape, pencil shape, and other, from which small knife-like blades were flaked, including microspecimens (Kiryak 1994:Fig. 2:7). However, they were predominantly used in making burins. The technique of end retouch of microblades in the Chukotka complexes was not widely developed: In the Tytyl’ complex there were isolated specimens of them (Verkhnetytyl’ VI site), but none at all at Ekityki, just as there were none in the Mesolithic sites of Eastern Chukotka.

The Complex of Artifacts from the Uimyveem Site (Anadyr’ District) During the 1993 field season the Chukotka Archaeological Detachment SVKNII DVO RAN (led by M. A. Kiryak), on the basis of work under an economic contract with the Department of Culture of the Chukotka Autonomous Region, undertook an archaeological survey on the upper reaches of the Velikaya River. A flight by helicopter was made over the Uimyveem River (Fig. 45). In the mouth region begins a 6 to 7 meter terrace, which extends brokenly farther along the right bank of the Velikaya River. At the mouth of the Uimyveem we examined a hill that is steep toward the river. It is round—30–35 m in diameter—and occupies a favorable position in this area. From here it overlooks the Velikaya River valley and the large area of reindeer moss pastures all the way to the small foothills, beyond which is the Khatyrka River valley, which empties into the Bering Sea.

Besides these differences, which are not striking, there are more substantial ones (Pitul’ko 1996). In microlithic

86

Archaeological Complexes of Adjacent Territories

Figure 46. Location of the Uimyveem site.

106:4), and a fourth on an amorphous flake has an arcshaped working edge (Pl. 106:6). A lamellar flake with both longitudinal edges sharpened by small facet retouch could have served as a knife. Points are represented by fragments of subtrapezoidal and subrectangular bases (Pl. 106:2, 3). Scrapers. Based on the morphological features, three artifacts can be assigned to scraping instruments: two of them on massive cortical flakes with a high arc-shaped working edge (Pl. 106:7, 10), the third on a flake with slightly grooved working edge (spokeshave?). Two large subrectangular flakes might have been used as blanks for scrapers. Figure 45. Survey route along the Velikaya River: pennant – location of crew landing; dashed line – float survey route; star – archaeological site.

A punch on an obsidian flake has a point formed by the finest retouch (Pl. 106:8).

The surface of this 6-meter-high hill is flat and poorly sod covered. In the bare areas small gravel and grus with yellowish-brown fill could be seen. Procumbent shrubs grow on the slopes of the hill.

A shaped artifact is a miniature sculpture of a squatting bear made on a gray slate flake. The contours of the head and back of the animal were formed by small transverse retouch; the microrelief of the flake surface forms the lower part of its body (Kiryak 2002). The debitage consists of 16 flakes of homogeneous gray hornfels, 2 of light siliceous slate, and 1 of chalcedony.

In the northeast sector (Fig. 46) a small complex of stone artifacts was collected—a total of 33 items. The artifacts were made of hornfels, siliceous slate, obsidian, and chalcedony. In the complex were the following artifacts: 4 knives, 3 scrapers, 2 point fragments, 2 blanks, 1 punch, 1 shaped artifact, and 19 flakes.

The Uimyveem complex does not have clearly expressed morphological forms, by which it would be possible to determine its cultural association. Based on the manufacturing technique, it can be tentatively assigned to the Late Neolithic. Part of the artifacts (scrapers, blanks), based on technical-typological characteristics, are close to Anadyr’-Main specimens of the Remnant Neolithic—some analogies are revealed in the Vakarevo complex of the twelfth to fifteenth centuries A.D.

A small pebble of subcubic form served probably as a blank for a core (Pl.106:1); the removal of several spalls had left concoidal scars that were concentrated on one surface. The knives have a peculiarity: only one surface of the artifact was subjected to complete retouch; then the working edge was formed (on one or both sides) by edge retouch. Knives of different types were present. There were two leafshaped instruments. One of them is a butt with truncated end (Pl. 106:9); the second is closer in form to the points (Pl. 106:5). A third instrument is oval-subrectangular (Pl.

Meanwhile, this is the only site we found in the Velikaya River valley. Further search for traces of early occupation in the river valley produced no results during the float. The right-bank and left-bank terraces at heights of 5–6 m and 10–15 m were carefully examined in the middle course of

87

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka the river. In its lower course, the river opens into a broad swampy valley, the mountains recede into the distance, and it is possible to get to the supposed places of early occupation only by using a motorboat and an all-terrain vehicle.

were three carbonaceous spots. Around two of them were medium and large size cobbles, possibly hearth features. The finds were at different levels. From among the sod rootlets were collected: 12 knife-like bladelets (of obsidian) without retouch and with irregular retouch along the edges (Pl. 107:1), including a specimen with slanting retouch (Pl. 107:2); an angle burin on a section of an obsidian bladelet (Pl. 107:4); a point fragment on a knife-like bladelet of black hornfels with unifacially retouched edges of the blade and the stem set off (Pl. 107:3); a knife (graver?) on a round flake; and a fragment of the working edge of a knife (biface).

The old 10-meter-high terrace opening onto the ice crust at the mouth of the Vatapvaam River (a right tributary of the Velikaya) holds prospects for archaeological survey. The terrace begins 5 km west of the ice crust and stretches 5–6 km east of it. One can get there in a motorboat. Sites in the Eropol River Basin (Anadyr’ District) In 1984 we conducted an archaeological survey on the lakes located at the sources of Gytgynpylgyn River (a tributary of the Eropol River). Three flowing lakes—Rechnoe, Gytgykon, and Glubokoe, connected by narrow swift streams—lie in the valley between two mountain chains that stretch in a northern direction. The eastern side of the valley has steep and precipitous mountains; the western side, low small broken hills. The valley itself is flat, swampy, hummocky, sedge-cotton grass tundra with many patches of bilberries and cloudberries. On the dry shoreline terraces grow willows and Karelian (dwarf) birch. The slopes of the hills are covered with dwarf pine. In the valley of Lake Glubokoe and along the right bank of the Gytgynpylgyn River was a grove of poplar, slim and high, that probably represents a relict of a forest that once grew in this region, similar to those that were preserved at Markovo village. Two lakes were investigated: Rechnoe and Glubokoe. (We floated through Gytgykon during the night). As a result, several localities situated on morainal (?) hills of different heights were discovered.

Below, in the yellowish-gray loam was a cluster of flakes (126 specimens) of homogeneous dark-gray tuffite (?). The artifacts found here were of this same raw material: a chopping knife (?) on a massive cortical spall (Pl. 107:8) and a blank with negatives of blade removal (Pl. 107:9), a leaf-shaped biface with convex lenticular cross section (Pl. 107:10), a skreblo (?) on a cortical flake with a pointed working edge formed by unifacial retouch (Pl. 107:11), a knife (?) blank on a large cortical flake, a blank of a chisellike (?) instrument (Pl. 107:13), and a blank of a scraper on a lamellar spall (Pl. 108:3). These artifacts are characterized by the presence of patina, rounding of the edges, and crude flaking. Test Pit 2 (with the same stratigraphy) was placed below, 6 m southwest of Test Pit 1, in the place where cobbles (Locus 2) partially appear in the present ground surface. Three knife-like bladelets of obsidian and 3 microflakes of pink siliceous slate were found in the roots of sod. Clearing the surface revealed two round hearth features, located side by side but at different (10–15 cm) depths. The upper part of the large cobbles, a later (?) feature, could be seen on the modern surface (a cluster of microflakes of pink siliceous slate was found here within the deposit). At the bottom of the hearth were two cobble artifacts: a large blade (Pl. 108:1) and an end scraper on a lamellar flake (Pl. 108:2). Both artifacts are of the same raw material (and probably correspond in time) as the cobble artifacts found in the lower horizon of Test Pit 1. The damaged surface of the blade was exfoliated, and only small areas of cobble cortex were preserved. A tooth and epiphysis of a reindeer were found in the test pit. Ceramics were absent.

Rechnoe Lake. Two loci were examined on its southern shore: a hill of 3–4 m elevation above the lake and one of 6–7 m elevation located 20 m west of it. The Ozero Rechnoe I Site This site is located on the hill 6–7 m high and stretches 70–80 m in a northern direction. The northern part of the hill is 2 m above the southern part: the upper part changes smoothly into the lower. The surface is partially covered with sod, the cultural layer disturbed, and artifacts laid bare. Material was collected from the surface of the upper area (Locus 1): 42 flakes and 68 microflakes of gray, greenish, beige, and white siliceous slate; 6 knife-like bladelets of obsidian, individual specimens with traces of small-facet retouch and with damaged edges; 2 leaf-shaped micropoints (Pl. 107:5, 6); and a fragment of a triangular point (Pl. 107:7).

The Ozero Rechnoe II Site This site is located on a 3–4 m hill (shoreline terrace?). The surface of the site is in substantial degree without sod. Artifacts were found in the eroded cultural layer, in the surface deposit: a cobble artifact on a cortical spall with an accentuated pointed working edge (Pl. 107:12), retouched knife-like blades, bladelets with a groove and with a grooved-serrated edge (Pl. 108:4–6, 8–10), and a ribbed bladelet (Pl. 108:7)—all of obsidian; an end scraper on a blade of yellowish siliceous slate with a high back (Pl. 108:9), a scraper on a chalcedony flake with concave base and projecting point (Pl. 108:13), and a leaf-shaped point

A 2 x 2 m test pit (No. 1) was placed where the collection was made, which exposed the following stratigraphy: (1) sod, 2.5–6 cm; (2) yellowish sandy loam with gravel, 12–16 cm; (3) yellowish-gray loam, 1.5–3 cm; and (4) the stony body of the moraine (?). On the “floor” of the test pit

88

Archaeological Complexes of Adjacent Territories (Pl. 108:11). Also collected from the surface were 18 flakes of gray tuffite and white and greenish siliceous slate.

section (Pl. 109:3, 9), a fragment of a point of elongated subtriangular form with slightly convex lateral edges (Pl. 109:4), a fragment of a flat point with a rectangular base (Pl. 109:8), a scraper-burin on a chalcedony flake (Pl. 109:6), and a piece of a massive biface.

The morphologically diagnostic forms of the stone assemblages from the Ozero Rechnoe I and II sites (end scrapers on massive blades, an arrowhead on a knife-like bladelet, and a blade with a slantingly retouched edge) point to a Mesolithic age. At the same time the leaf-shaped point, the miniature scraper of chalcedony, and knife-like bladelets are clearly of Neolithic age. The complex of cobble artifacts looks older. All this attests to mixing and the diachronic formation of the complexes of the stone assemblage, while its low numbers speak of short-term (in the course of one or two seasons) functioning of both sites.

The morphology of the stone assemblage attests to its diachronic nature—from Neolithic to Remnant Neolithic. The Ozero Glubokoe site was repeatedly visited in antiquity by hunters of wild reindeer (or moose), as indicated by the assortment of stone artifacts (points of arrows and darts; massive bifaces, including spearheads and knife blades; scrapers; and large skreblos). Judging by the insubstantial traces of carbon (from ancient campfires), visits to the sites were only temporary.

Lake Glubokoe is surrounded on three sides by high hills of loose earth, and the exit from the lake of the Gytgynpylgyn River into the valley is blocked by a long and flat morainal ridge 4 to 12 m high and from 3 to 40–50 m wide that extends along the south shore of the lake (from west to east) for 230–250 m. The ridge expands to the west and has a projection toward a dry stream. Judging by the cultural remains scattered in the broken sod surface, this part of the morainal hill was the most favorable for occupation in antiquity.

The Vakarevo Site (Anadyr’ District, Main River Basin) The Vakarevo site is located on an island (formerly a spit) 3–5 m high near the left bank of the Main River. In 1983, during our visit, a fish camp of the Snezhnyi sovkhoz, with headquarters in the settlement of the same name located at the mouth of the Belaya River, was in use. There was a house on the island in which the family lived that was occupied in preparing fish and caviar for supplying the sovkhoz and the city of Anadyr’. We found traces of two unkempt graves overgrown with grass located not far from the house; both were marked by high wooden crosses of solid beams, grayed and cracked with time. The graves are thought to be over 100 years old.

The Ozero Glubokoe Site Artifacts were collected from the surface in Locus 1 (the southern part of a high area): a triangular point of siliceous slate with narrow lenticular cross section (Pl. 109:10), a miniature subtriangular point with convex lateral sides of the blade and a slightly grooved base (Pl. 109:7), and a fragment of a scraper with missing haft (Pl. 109:5). The debitage (on the surface) consisted of 21 flakes and 106 microflakes. Siliceous slates of green, cream, and white color and obsidian were used as raw material.

The island is annually thinly covered by spring flood waters that wash out a multitude of cultural remains from the early site and deposit them on a spit that is bare in normal water. The site once existed on a spit by the deep river rich in fish. With astonishment we also observed several seals traveling above the fish camp, up the Main River.

In Locus 2 (the northern part of the high area), on an eroded yellowish-brown sandy loam surface, a conical core of obsidian (Pl. 109:1) and two obsidian knife-like bladelets were retrieved (Pl. 109:2). Having cleared off a small sodless area (8 m2) east of Locus 2, 28 large flakes of andesite, a fragment of a bifacially worked knife blade (?) of asymmetrical leaf-shaped form (Pl. 109:11), a fragment of a subtriangular single-bladed knife (Pl. 109:12), and scrapers on macroflakes (Pl. 109:13–16) were found in loam-filled gravel.

Included in the archaeological materials collected on the spit were many large fragments of ceramics, a few crude scrapers on gray and black (andesite and hornfels) cobble macroflakes, with which the native residents of Chukotka have worked reindeer hides until recently. Fragments of small cobbles and flakes of obsidian and a compound sinker were found. The fragments of early vessels that we collected were diverse: there are smooth-walled specimens, but those with decoration are more often encountered— technical (ribbed paddle) and artistic (traces of pectinate stamp, varied in style, along the rim or on the whole body). A large quantity of Vakarevo ceramics was collected by “black archaeologists”—residents of Markovo village, including O. I. and Yu. I. Korsovetskii and others. A whole trunkful of such ceramics was shown to me in Markovo by the brother of E. Gunchenko, founder and curator of the Markovo Local Museum. For researchers of early history, this is a rediscovered fount of most valuable information about the culture of the tribes who inhabited Chukotka at the time Russian explorers arrived here (the “most silent” period in the history of far northeastern Russia).

Below, in an area located 6–7 m above lake level, 78 microflakes of multicolored slate were collected. A 2 x 3 m trench was excavated here. Its stratigraphy: (1) sod, 1.5–4 cm; (2) a humic brown layer of sandy loam with gravel, 12–19 cm; and (3) the moraine bedrock. In the trench, under the roots of the sod, 670 scaly flakes of whitish siliceous slate and 5 microflakes of dark-gray hornfels were collected. The primary flake cluster was located near two cobbles. Traces of carbon and several large chunks of charcoal were found here. At a depth of 15–18 cm were two arrow points with steeply convex lenticular cross

At the end of the nineteenth century the amateur

89

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka archaeologist A. E. D’yachkov recorded traces of the early site located at the Vakarevo fish camp (Dikov 2003:111–112). In 1957, I. A. Nekrasov profiled a cultural layer on a spit located 8 km down the river from the fish camp (Dikov 2003:111–112). In 1958, Dikov conducted excavations at this place when he was director of the Anadyr’ Regional Museum. As a result of the excavations he collected fragments of ceramics (with cord and pectinate impressions), spalls and flakes of siliceous slate and obsidian, and bones of reindeer, bear, birds, and fish (Dikov 2003:111–112). In 1963, Dikov profiled a denuded bank here and at a depth of 1 m took a charcoal sample from a hearth layer for age determination of the site (Dikov 2003:111–112). Judging by Dikov’s information, no archaeological work was carried out in the vicinity of the Vakarevo fish camp. Our survey was the first.

the ash pit). Based on the black (trampled charcoal) area of the 4 m2 floor, the dimensions of the surface dwelling can be estimated. With cleaning the floor a layer of packed wood chips was revealed. The cultural remains lay on, in, and under the floor. The material collected during excavation includes artifacts and waste material of stone, wood, bone, and clay. The stone raw material used was obsidian (predominantly), hornfels, and siliceous slate. In the tool kit a series of adzes (including fragments) drew attention. Elongated river cobbles were used as blanks for them. Two adzes are subrectangular in plan and cross section with traces of flaking on both sides. The working edge of one of them is ground; the second is probably a flaked blank. Pieces of analogous adzes were also encountered here. On the floor of the dwelling was a large cluster of amorphous obsidian flakes, as well as retouched ones, whole and flaked small cobbles of obsidian, nodules, large cobble spalls, and scalelike flakes, predominantly of obsidian. Among the finds are round cobbles: one of them whole, two split in half. There are 23 fragments of ceramics. Among them are those with smooth walls and those with ribbed, stamped, and pectinate decoration. Some specimens contain small conical holes. The form of the vessels is round with the rim bent inward. The paste is homogeneous, the firing uniform.

After visual examination of the surface of the site we decided to place a small excavation near the shore, the most eroded part by the river, close to the accumulation of artifacts intensively deposited by the water. The area excavated was 6 m2 with a depth of 1.2 m. Permafrost prevented going deeper; we had to wait for the ground to thaw. The stratigraphic context appears in the following form: (1) sod with light-gray loam at the roots, 14–23 cm;

In the Vakarevo complex there is a component of bone artifacts: pieces of mattocks (?) and adzes (?). On the floor of the dwelling was a cluster of bones of ducks and fish (a pike jaw and vertebrae), as well as split limb bones of reindeer.

(2) a rotted through layer of wood chips, other organics, and charcoal, 2–4 cm; (3) ashy-colored loam, 2–5 cm; (4) yellowish sandy loam, 4–10 cm;

There are items of wood (a small arc-shaped rod with a spiral groove and thickened in the middle, and a planed board). A gradual reduction in the number of finds in the western and northwestern directions was noted, with the complete absence of them in the eastern part of the excavation.

(5) gray sand, 3–5 cm; (6) brown sandy loam with broken lenses (to 1 cm) of gray sand, 2–6 cm; (7) gray sterile sand, 1–3 cm;

In the northern wall of the excavation was a black stain with half-decayed wood chips at the base; above was fill of sand and some charcoal. The excavation probably enclosed a refuse pit up to 55 cm wide and to 40 cm deep. Upon clearing the pit a cluster of reindeer antler fragments, a piece of a scapula, fragments of ceramics, small nodules and flakes, and two scrapers on cobble spalls were discovered (the stone assemblage was of obsidian). In the fill were fish bones, scales, and a bone mass jumbled with sand. The pit was covered by poles that were well preserved in the permafrost. The mouth of the pit is recorded at a depth of 75 cm below the present ground surface, the base at 110 cm.

(8) greenish-gray clay layer with orange lenses (culturebearing layer), 13–20 cm; (9) brown sand with underlying lens of charcoal, 2–12 cm; (10) brown loam with broken lenses (to 1 cm) of sand, 12–24 cm; (11) yellowish-brown sand, 15–27 cm; and (12) gray (underlying) loam, thickness not established.

The complex obtained from the excavations is not distinguished by diversity of choice. Degradation of the stone-working technique and the functional purposefulness expressed in the serial manufacture of adzes and scrapers for working reindeer hides can be traced.

At a depth of 65–70 cm was a cultural layer 12–15 cm thick. Judging by an ashy area with a radius of 70–80 cm, a living space was located here, evidenced by an accumulation (to 50 cm radius) of bone matter made up of the smallest pieces of burned bone and charcoal. With the profiling a fire pit 8–10 cm deep was discovered. The cultural remains were concentrated around the hearth (a large part of them lay in

It is possible to note in the technical methods of working stone the crude technique of flaking. Pressure edge retouch

90

Archaeological Complexes of Adjacent Territories is present on an insignificant number of the artifacts. Adze blades were worked by grinding. (Knives typical for the Vakarevo culture, within the limited area of the excavation, were not found). Analysis of the stone assemblage reveals a phenomenon characteristic of the Remnant Neolithic period, especially in its terminal stage in Northeast Asia: relapse to the cobble technology with the dying out of skill in working stone, giving way to metal, which sporadically penetrates into Chukotka. The wooden objects attract attention: a twisted bent rod made with care and skill, probably produced with a metal graver (knife or burin), a ring (for fastening to a net), and a wicker basket with a stone sinker (see Kiryak 1993a:Pl. 112). Charcoal taken from the refuse pit (from a depth of 95–97 cm) produced a radiocarbon date of 750 ± 50 BP (MAG1093). This value presently is considered the lower limit for the Vakarevo culture. Based on charcoal collected in 1963 by Dikov, the age of another site, located 8 km from Vakarevo and belonging to the same culture, was determined to be younger—500 ± 50 BP (LE-674). This date can be considered the upper boundary of the Vakarevo culture, which thus falls within the twelfth or thirteenth to fifteenth centuries A.D. With such minimal excavation, the ethnic association of the site cannot be established. We can only state that on the spit of the river, which abounds in fish, lived ichthyophages, who added reindeer and waterfowl, in particular ducks, to their food ration. The topography of the site and the specifics of the economic activities do not exclude the possibility that its inhabitants were Yukagirs, possibly the Khodyn people or the Anaul.

Figure 47. Map of the location of the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan I site.

During the 1991 field season the Western Chukotkan Archaeological Detachment carried out work at the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan I site. The collapsed wall of the stratigraphic trench was profiled. The section of the trench, taken down to the bedrock base on the 32–36 m terrace, revealed the following stratigraphy: (1) peat-sod stratum with brown humic fill in rootlets, 4–14 cm; (2) yellowish straw-colored loam, 12–22 cm; (3) greenish loam with black lenses and scalloped traces of cryogenic movement, 25–58 cm; (4) cloddy loam (in the form of a lens), 4–56 cm; (5) brownishgray grus layer with small rubble, 54–68 cm; (6) lens of yellowish-brown multi-grained sand, 35–46 cm; (7) rubble with yellow inclusions of loam in the cracks, 46–60 cm; and (8) bedrock. The cultural layer in the yellowish/strawcolored loam (with artifacts from Paleolithic times), being traced through time in the preceding excavations in this area, pinched out. We limited excavation on the north side to profiling and smoothing the trench walls. The appearance from under the sod of an excellently polished, clearly Neolithic, adze was quite unexpected. Upon clearing farther to the north, 5–17 cm from this find, a three-sided file-like dart point and a spear head appeared under the sod. Thus, a cache of artifacts was discovered, the specific and purposeful composition appearing to be the contents of a “hunter’s bag” (Fig. 48).

Sites of this culture are poorly studied. Its area is probably substantially broader. The Ymyyakhtakh Complex from the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan I Site (Northern Even District of the Magadan Region, Omolon River Basin) Ethnic identification of Western Chukotkan Late Neolithic complexes, presented below in Chapter IV, is developed by the author on the basis of materials from the Rauchuvagytgyn I site, located above the Arctic Circle. The assemblage of artifacts obtained at this site can be assigned to the terminal stage of the Ymyyakhtakh culture in its northern variant. The territorial depth of penetration of the Ymyyakhtakh people and their long (at least, 1,000 years) existence in continental regions of the northern Far East is evidenced by hunting equipment found at the mouth of the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan River (Fig. 47), 100 km from the boundary of Western Chukotka. In spite of the absence of ceramics, which would have been a hindrance to the movement of moose and reindeer hunters, the El’gakhchan tool kit in the stone and bone assemblage is the calling card of the Ymyyakhtakh culture represented in its classic appearance. This magnificent array of tools was found entirely by chance.

The objects lay in the rootlets of the sod and a thin (no more than 1 cm) brown humic lens at a depth of 9–12 cm from the present surface. All the artifacts were compactly 91

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka arranged in a small area not over 80 cm from north to south and 60 cm from east to west, with the exception of a few items that were separated 17–20 cm from the main cluster. At the same time, with consideration of the density of the deposit in the plan of distribution of the artifacts and the composition of the assemblage, five concentrated groups can be distinguished (see Fig. 48). In Grids B-61 and C-61 file-shaped points predominate, five of them being found in contact with and partially covered by a stone dagger. In Grid C-51 large insets dominate. In the same place were small fragments of bone, possibly the remains of a bone socket into which sideblades were set. To the southwest, in Grid B-51, was another cluster of large insets and bone fragments. To the east, in Grid C-51, was the main cluster of microinsets and a yellowish trace of decaying bone 8 cm long, as well as white grains of the bone mass. Somewhat apart, in Grids C-51 and C-61, enclosing the eastern periphery of the distribution of artifacts, was another group containing five tools. The collection obtained at the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan I site included the following cultural remains: 168 microinsets, 39 large insets and insert fragments, 13 arrowheads and fragments of them, 14 dart heads (taking fragments into account), 5 files (?), 3 combination implements, 2 scrapers, 1 spearhead, 1 knife blade, 1 adze, 1 burin, 1 abrader, 1 nodule (a core blank?), 18 flakes, and 2 artifacts of bronze. The raw material for making the stone assemblage consisted of various colors and shades of siliceous stone, hornfels, and chalcedony. One object was made of obsidian. Insets. In the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan complex the most numerous category of artifacts is microinsets of knife-like lamella bladelets. They attest to the fact that prismatic cores served as the base for primary flaking, from which microblades were removed. The technique of secondary working included unifacial or bifacial edge retouch. All the insets are single-edged. The working edge has a smalltoothed outline. The collection contains 148 rectangular specimens and 20 elongated-triangular ones that can be classified correspondingly as lateral and end parts of composite tools. The length of rectangular insets fluctuated from 0.5 to 3 cm, the width from 0.3 to 0.5 cm (Pl. 110:19). The length of triangular insets (Pl. 110:18) ranged from 0.7 to 2.8 cm, the width from 0.3 to 0.5 cm (Pl. 110:10, 11). Second place in number of artifacts in the complex is the large insets made by another method of secondary work, namely by continuous bifacial retouch. The surface of these artifacts is covered by narrow parallel, diagonally directed facets of spreading retouch. The working edges were modified secondarily by the finest retouch, forming a serrated edge; also retouched were the ends of the artifacts. All specimens, except two, are single-edged. The large insets are divided by form into rectangular (Pl. 110:9–13) and elongated-triangular (Pl. 110:7, 17) and belong correspondingly (as microinstruments of this class) to lateral and end elements of composite tools. The length of rectangular specimens is 1.7 to 7 cm, the width 0.6 to 1.7 cm. The length of triangular specimens is 2.4 to 4 cm, the width 0.6 to 0.8 cm. The insets could have been used as working edges in bone points, as well as in the capacity of

Figure 48. Plan of part of the excavation of the “hunter’s kit” at the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan I site.

92

Archaeological Complexes of Adjacent Territories a knife or file. Their functional use can be established only with use-wear study.

triangular scraper was made on a chalcedony flake. It has a slightly convex symmetrical working edge. Both surfaces were partially worked by retouch (Pl. 110:21). The second specimen is suboval. The working edge is straight, formed by steep retouch, and secondarily touched up with small facets along the edge. The area around the opposite edge was worked by sharpening retouch (Pl. 110:22).

Points. The invaluable cache left at the mouth of the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan River is a splendid collection of hunting weapons that included points of darts and arrows, a spear, and a knife blade.

Three probably multi-functional implements were made on rectangular inset blades. Two of them have a beaklike projection on one of the corners (Pl. 110:15, 16); the opposite corner is rounded by bifacial sharpening retouch. All the elements could be used: the beak-like projection as a punch, the opposite arc-shaped working edge as a graver, and the file-like working edge as a file. The third implement has a longitudinal spall removed from the margin opposite the serrated edge, which formed the working edge of an angle burin (Pl. 110:14). A fragment of an inset was reformed into a lateral burin by the removal of two counter spalls (Pl. 110:20).

The three-sided file-shaped dart points are an equilateral triangle in cross section. All the specimens are stemless, but on two there is a short projection that terminates the base (Pl. 110:1, 3). One of the points has lightly marked “shoulders” that conclude the base (Pl. 110:2). For reinforcing the penetrating action of projectile tools the early master subjected each of the three edges to additional modification. Small facets were applied along the edge of one side by retouch making projecting teeth, which gave the edge a file-like profile. The length of the points fluctuates from 10.3 to 11.4 cm, the width of the side from 1 to 1.3 cm. The set of arrowheads contains 11 triangular specimens of normal proportions and two of elongated-triangular form (the fragments defy identification). Points made of chalcedony (12 specimens) have the surface carefully worked on both sides, a straight profile of the tip with a file-like edge, straight or slightly indented bases modified by transverse retouch, and flattened lenticular cross section (Pl. 110:4–7, 9). The obsidian point was worked on one side by compact retouch with the exception of a small area along a lateral edge, and edge retouch on the reverse side, part of which preserves the surface of the primary blank (Pl. 110:8). Points of normal proportions have a length from 2.7 to 5 cm, a width from 1.7 to 1.9 cm. The length of elongated-triangular points is correspondingly 3.9 to 6.1 cm, the width 1 cm.

An abrader of fine-grained sandstone, semioval in plan, has a groove 3.5 cm long and 0.5 cm in diameter (Pl. 111:3). The whole surface of the instrument is ground. It was probably intended for smoothing arrow shafts. A nodule of chalcedony is reminiscent of a core blank, based on the characteristics of the work and the form (Pl. 110:23). Microblades may have been flaked from such blanks and used as insets for compound tools after subsequent finishing. Of 17 flakes found during the clearing of the cultural layer, 14 are microspecimens. These are tiny flakes predominantly of chalcedony that resulted from working nodules and trimming broken tools. Except for two specimens, the raw material in the debitage corresponds to that of the rest of the complex.

The leaf-shaped spear point (14.3 cm long, 3.3 cm wide) was worked with great care on both sides. In addition, the edge of the point was sharpened with small facets of bifacial edge retouch. At the base, the projections for attachment to a shaft were made by deeper grooves (Pl. 111:2).

Such are the characteristics of the stone assemblage of the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan I collection. However, there were also two bronze objects in it.

The asymmetrically leaf-shaped knife blade (16.6 cm long, 3.6 cm wide) has a unifacially-convex lenticular cross section. The base is set off by deeper facets and a small projection on the edge. The length of the base along the vertical axis is 4 cm (Pl. 111:3).

A knife is represented by a working edge 3.7 cm long; the width at the haft is 2.5 cm, at the narrow end 1.2 cm (Pl. 111:4). The haft is broken and was evidently lost during the functioning of this complex.

Besides hunting tools, the “hunter’s kit” also contained objects of daily use.

The second instrument is reminiscent in form of an angle burin on a knife-like blade (Pl. 111:5). A slightly thickened butt can be seen on the tool, possibly for more stable attachment in the handle. The working edge is subtriangular; the end lying opposite is rounded. The artifact, with the exception of the butt, is etched. Along the edge is green patina. The length of the burin is 5 cm, the width 1.5 cm. The working edges were not sharpened. The surface of the knife was ground to a polish and is covered with a bright-green patina.

The adze—unifacially convex, flat, subrectangular in plan, and slightly narrowing toward the butt and working end— has a subtrapezoidal cross section. Its working edge was carefully polished on both sides. On the surfaces and faces were preserved traces of primary flaking. The profile of the working edge is unifacially convex (Pl. 111:1). The length of the adze is 15.5 cm. Its width is 3.7 cm, at the butt 2.7 cm, and at the working end 3.2 cm.

The stone assemblage obtained in the upper layer of the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan I site is analogous to the complexes

There are two scraping instruments in the collection. A

93

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka of the Ymyyakhtakh culture (Fedoseeva 1980). With respect to the technical-typological indices (characteristics of both technique and type), the greatest similarity is revealed in archaeological materials obtained on the Lena River, in particular in the Pokrovskoe, Ichchilyakh, Kullaty, and Bugachan burials and the Chuchur-Muran cemetery (Okladnikov 1950b). The similarity is not in isolated and individual elements of the complexes, but in series of points of arrows and darts and in insets. Also in these burials were artifacts of bronze. However, they were unique and undiagnostic specimens (Fedoseeva 1980). A specific component of the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan complex are the three-sided file-shaped points. The closest analogies are in the assemblage from the Chuchur-Muran cemetery, but the proportions and the technical methods of working the edges and base distinguish the Chuchur-Muran points from those of Bol’shoi El’gakhchan I. The latter are significantly larger, their cross sections are an equilateral triangle in plan, and the edges are absolutely flat.

modification” (Mochanov 1969). An anachronistic element in the Ymyyakhtakh complexes of the Tytyl’ IV and V sites and the ritual complex on the upper reaches of the Omolon River are leaf-shaped points with pointed base and almond-shaped cross section, characteristic of the Middle Neolithic Bel’kachi culture of Yakutia (Mochanov 1969). In such cases, the use of earlier archaeological objects by later arrivals can never be excluded. For example, in excavations of early Eskimo burials, objects characteristic for the Ymyyakhtakh culture were found (Arutiunov 1983). There was probably a special relationship to these arrowheads. According to the Markovo village researcher, A. D’yachkov of the Chuvan tribe, “nomadic savages” dropped flint they found, which they called thunder arrows, into drinking water during a time of illness, as they did with wood chips blasted by lightning (D’yachkov 1893). Among the Ob River Ugrians (the Khanty and Mansi) and the Selkup, archaeological objects were used with special respect, among which were small figurines of animals and people. They were treated like cult objects (Plotnikov 1987).

Some elements of similarity can be noted in complexes from adjacent territories. Triangular and three-sided fileshaped points are encountered in Late Neolithic complexes of Chukotka: on Osinovaya Spit (Dikov 2003:117–118) and at the sites of Tytyl’ IV and V (Kiryak 1979). Triangular points and a whole series of rectangular insets were found in the Ust’-Belaya cemetery (Dikov 2003:117–118). Spatially close sites have analogies with the assemblage of the ritual complex found on the upper reaches of the Omolon River. The complex contains three-sided points (Vorobei 1991) and elongated-triangular ones with straight base and flattened lenticular cross section, and triangular end blades (Vorobei 1991). Combination instruments with beak-like projections provide a distinctiveness to the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan complex (Pl. 110:15, 16). No longer characteristic for the well-known Ymyyakhtakh complexes are adzes of Bol’shoi El’gakhchan type. “Ground adzes of rectangular outline and trapezoidal cross section are encountered in the Early Neolithic culture of Yakutia” (Mochanov 1969). The Ymyyakhtakh sites have adzes of different technicaltypological characteristics: they have small dimensions and are “rectangular in plan with sharp longitudinal edges and an almond-shaped cross section” or trapezoidal in plan. The presence of elements that are characteristic for preceding periods of the Neolithic attest to the endurance of tradition and succession of the most efficient artifact forms in the concluding stages of the Neolithic and in later times. Corroboration of this is the bronze burin from the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan I collection, which was made in the likeness of angle burins on knife-like blades. The knife blade from this same collection is analogous in form, dimensions, and possibly functionality to an iron pal’ma—a weapon of the Middle Ages of Northeast Siberian tribes, which was current among them in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries A.D. Present in the complex being investigated is a large series of microblades used by the El’gakhchan people as insets in compound tools. Similar microblades with careful unifacial and bifacial modification by edge retouch are typical of the Remnant Paleolithic and early periods of the Neolithic of Yakutia. In the Late Neolithic they are of larger dimensions, and used “with rare exception, without

The methods of comparative-typological analysis and analogy permit dating the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan complex to the first half of the second millennium B.C. It is possible to interpret the complex as an individual kit of a hunterwarrior equipped with tools for hunting large animals (bear, moose, reindeer) and small lucrative animals (sable, fox, ermine). In the case of intertribal clashes the hunting weapon was turned against foreign tribesmen. There is a great deal of evidence that it was used in human conflicts or for the ritual killing of people. Thus, in burials of the Glazkovo culture in Bronze Age of Cis-Baikal, skeletons have been found that were thrust through the ribs, scapulae, humeri, and femurs by flint points analogous in type and size to Bol’shoi El’gakhchan I (Okladnikov 1955b). In addition to projectile tools the hunter’s kit contained everyday objects. Scrapers, burins, and punches were required for working hides, the preparation and use of thongs, and sinew threads. It was impossible to prepare means of transport (skis, sledges, boats) and the internal structure of dwellings without adzes. For finer operations on wood and bone, saws and metal cutting instruments were required, possibly being used to make the small details and oddments, as well as the application of decoration. Thus, in the bag of the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan hunter was an almost full assortment of objects necessary in everyday life. At the same time the kit was portable and light, for a mobile way of life. Along with the native pragmatism of the early people, one cannot help but note the esthetics peculiar to them. The collection of stone artifacts from the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan I site, on the whole and in each of its objects separately, gives an example of a fine intricate mastery, close to art. These artifacts reflect symmetry, perfection of form, and refinement in selection of useable raw material. This collection is a valuable historical resource. It

94

Archaeological Complexes of Adjacent Territories represents a pure complex in cultural-chronological aspect, the content and significance of which can be compared with burial complexes from cemeteries, which permits most fully reconstructing the economic and cultural type of the early group. The Ymyyakhtakh complex from the mouth of the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan River records the depth of penetration of the bearers of this culture, the core of which is located in Yakutia, extreme Northeast Asia, with its area expanded as far as the upper reaches of the Omolon River.

penetration of metal into Northeastern Siberia, inasmuch as they suggest an earlier appearance of bronze objects here than was previously thought (Lebedintsev 2000), and specifically in the first half of the second millennium B.C. The question of the route of penetration of bronze into Northeast Asia remains open. Analysis of bronze from the Ust’-Belaya cemetery suggests that it has a south Siberian source (Dikov 2004). The appearance of bronze in Ymyyakhtakh sites of Yakutia has been connected with Cis-Baikal (Fedoseeva 1970). Microprobe analysis of the bronze, conducted by the SVKNII DVO RAN, showed that the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan I artifacts were made from stannous bronze. Based on the percentage of component content (copper 96.8 to 98.8%, tin 0.5 to 2.9%) they are closest to bronze artifacts from the northeastern region of Trans-Baikal (Grishin 1983:103, Table 2).

For the first time, bronze objects were found in a pure Ymyyakhtakh complex east of the Kolyma River. Metal artifacts are extremely rare in Northeastern Siberia. The first objects of bronze were obtained by Dikov during excavations at the Ust’-Belaya cemetery. These were two bronze burins and a small awl that he assigned to a late complex of the Ust’-Belaya culture and dated toward the end of the second and beginning of the first millennia B.C. (Dikov 2004). The find of a bronze knife is known from the Okhotsk Sea coast that is typologically comparable to analogous specimens from the Ust’-Mil’ culture of Yakutia and dating to the period 3300 ± 100 to 2400 ± 100 BP (Lebedintsev 2000). Artifacts found at the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan I site contribute to further study of the

What has been stated above does not exhaust for future researchers of the Ymyyakhtakh culture the significance of the complex we discovered. The collection of artifacts from the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan I site is located in the depository of the Magadan Regional Museum.

95

Chapter IV An Ethnic Identification of the Late Neolithic Complexes in Western Chukotka (A Northern Variant of the Ymyyakhtakh Culture) A Brief History of the “Yukagir Problem”

people. In 1650, Baranov’s detachment took three amanaty (hostages), acquired from among the Yukagir Khodyn people on the upper reaches of the Omolon River (Dolgikh 1960:404–429).

This chapter draws on materials previously published in the monograph The Archaeology of Western Chukotka in Connection with the “Yukagir Problem” (Kiryak 1993a). In this book were gathered the opinions and hypotheses of researchers of most different profiles—archaeologists, ethnographers, physical anthropologists, linguists. These researchers, using the base of scientific data amassed at this time, were concerned with the problem of the origin of the Yukagir, their original homeland, and the ethnic identification of the archaeological cultures in the area of the historically-known Yukagir tribes.

Thus, historical sources of the seventeenth century reproduce a grand territorial canvas from the Lena River in the west to the mouth of the Anadyr’ River in the east comprising a mosaic of Yukagir tribal groups. This information is valuable because it contains the first and, in all probability, most complete information about the composition, settlement, and number of Yukagir, who were soon almost completely assimilated by other peoples of Northeastern Siberia. The reliability of these sources is beyond doubt—service people diligently kept strict account of the taxes that came into the Russian Royal Treasury from the subjugated population.

Inasmuch as these questions continue to be discussed up to the present time, the topical nature of the problem and the need for new materials that touch upon its various aspects remain. Recently, in the territory of Yakutia, sites were discovered in the Indigirka River basin with cultural remains of the late Ymyyakhtakh culture that allowed researchers to interpret them as early Yukagir. With the discovery at the Diring-Yuriakh site of a cemetery of Ymyyakhtakh time, new physical anthropological material was revealed, which permitted comparing the complex with burials from Kullaty and Bugachan, and in a different way to have a look at the genesis of the Ymyyakhtakh culture.

These early documents lay at the base of the primary investigations of Soviet scholars—the ethnographers V. N. Ogorodnikov, B. O. Dolgikh, and I. S. Gurvich. The first historical-ethnographic information on the Yukagir was collected by Ya. I. Lindenau, a member of the Second Kamchatka Expedition (1733–1743). Archival data, personal observations, and interviews of local people form its basis. Distinguishing three Yukagir groups based on the locality of their settlement—Indigirka, Kolyma, and Anadyr’ rivers —Lindenau gives a detailed geographic description of the places of their habitation and the tribes neighboring them. These data provide information about modifications of Yukagir settlement boundaries and the reduction in their numbers throughout the 100 years that passed from the time Northeastern Siberia was incorporated into Russia. Lindenau (1983) allots a large part of the historical information about the Yukagir to a description of their religious ideas.

New works have also emerged on the ethnography of the Yukagir. The earliest information about Yukagirskaya zemlitsa (“Yukagir Land”) and its population comes from the 1630s, in tax records, questionnaires, and petition replies of the Cossacks who served in the forts and outposts in Yakutia, and later in Chukotka. The first information about the Yukagir of the Yana and Indigirka river basins arrived at the Yakutsk fortress (Dolgikh 1960).

At the end of the eighteenth century the Northeastern Geographical and Astronomical expedition was equipped under the leadership of I. I. Billings and his second-incommand, G. A. Sarychev. Along with scientific and political tasks, the expedition carried out a substantial ethnographic program, collecting information on the peoples who occupied the Chukchi Peninsula and adjacent territories. A detailed description is given in Billings’s journal of the Yukagir who lived in the region of the confluence of the Nelemnaya and Yasachnaya rivers (the

Information on the Kolyma Yukagir (those occupying the land east of the Kolyma River) emerges, from an outpost on the lower Kolyma River, with the coming of the Cossack explorers and trading people onto the Indigirka River in 1643. In 1643 or 1644, Semen Dezhnev, together with Mikhail Stadukhin and Zyryan, made a trip to the “Oimok people of the Yukagir.” In 1649, during a trip from a recently established outpost, Dezhnev came into conflict on the upper reaches of the Anadyr’ with the Anaul

96

An Ethnic Identification of the Late Neolithic Complexes in Western Chukotka latter a left tributary of the Kolyma River), their dress, houses, people’s occupations, ceremonies, and the Yukagir names of months. Brief information about the Yukagir clan of the Chuvan people, who moved from the Anadyr’ River to the Bol’shoi Anyui River, and the settled Yukagir on the lower reaches of Bol’shoi Anyui and Sukhoi (Malyi) Anyui, is contained in the diary of Dr. Merck, member of the Billings-Sarychev expedition (Etnograficheskie. . ., 1978).

were the Tungus, Lamut (Even), and Yakut (Jochelson 1900:151). In 1900 he published “Materials on the Study of Yukagir Language and Folklore Collected in the Kolyma Region,” a valuable historic resource. In 1901–1902, Jochelson continued to study the material culture, social structure, and religious ideas of the upper Kolyma Yukagir. He summarized all the materials on the ethnography of the Yukagir in subsequent years and published his summaries between 1910 and 1926 in the three-volume monograph The Yukagir and Yukagirized Tungus. Today this remains the only large-scale study on the ethnography of the Yukagir that embraces all aspects of their material and spiritual culture. Regretably the book, which came out in English and is excellently illustrated, became a bibliographic rarity, and a translation preserved at the Institute of Ethnography of the Russian Academy of Sciences has not been published.

In the first quarter of the nineteenth century vast investigations of Northeastern Siberia were carried out by the Kolyma Expedition (1820–1824) under the leadership of F. P. Wrangell. Its primary goal was the search for the hypothetical Andreev Land in the Arctic Ocean. Members of the expedition—Wrangell, Matyushkin, and Kiber— undertook a series of trips through the tundra “lying east of the Kolyma River,” as a result of which maps of the Bol’shoi and Malyi (Sukhoi) Anyui rivers were composed and all the eastern tundra was described in physical regard. These trips provided new information, which enriched ethnography through materials on the everyday life and culture of Northeastern Siberian tribes of Yukagir, Lamut, Chukchi, and Tungus tribes. The expedition accounts include information on the Shelagi or Omoki (a Yukagir tribe that lived in the Kolyma River basin and was considered at this time a people who had already vanished). New materials provide an idea of the economic position of the riverine Yukagir, whose existence depended wholly on success at hunting wild reindeer at river crossings. The methods of this hunt are clearly described, and the local oral traditions of the Yukagir are cited (Wrangell 1948).

Another important historical resource is Jochelson’s work The Odul’ (Yukagir) Language. It contains, in addition to a description of the principles of phonetics and morphology of the Yukagir language, valuable information on Yukagir pictographs (Jochelson 1934). In 1901–1902, D. L. Jochelson-Brodskaya conducted physical anthropological investigations in the Kolyma region among Yukagir women (Jochelson-Brodskaya 1907). From pre-Revolutionary (1917—R.B & Y.K.) sources that contain information on the ethnography of the Yukagir, the work Anadyr’ Region by the local Chuvan folklorist Afanasii D’yachkov should be noted. In it he reports on the Omolon and Anyui Yukagir, citing information about their material culture (D’yachkov 1893).

According to the materials of the three above-cited expeditions, it is possible to trace the changes that occurred in the history of the Yukagir through two hundred years: displacement, significant reduction or complete disappearance of some tribal groups, and changes in their material and spiritual culture.

In Soviet historical scholarship, the first monograph on the Yukagir is V. N. Ogorodnikov’s research, in which numerous archival sources were used that were earlier collected by G. F. Miller and later published in the Supplement to Historical Acts (Ogorodnikov 1922). The author traces the composition and boundaries of settlement of the Yukagir tribes to the moment of the arrival of the Russians in Northeastern Siberia. Determining the territorial possessions of the Khodyn, Chuvani, and Anaul, he believes that the boundary with their neighbors, the Chukchi, passed along the left bank of the lower reaches of the Anadyr’ River, with which later Dolgikh did not agree. Dolgikh produced convincing arguments that the settlement of the Chukchi during this period was below the mouth of the Anadyr’ in the coastal zone of the sea, and that the Khodyn people roamed the left bank of the lower reaches of the Anadyr’ (Dolgikh 1960:435). Summarizing the information on the Yukagir tribes along the Anadyr’ River, Ogorodnikov expressed the idea that the Anaul “were either relatives of the Koryak, or were a special tribe, one part of which was annihilated in the seventeenth century, while in this same century the other was Koryakized” (Ogorodnikov 1922:270). Apart from this, he notes that at the arrival of the Russians the Yukagir were subdivided by type of economy into “foot” (fishers, hunters, and dog-sledgers)

In 1868–1870, the Kolyma district police officer Maidel’ traveled a substantial part of the eastern tundra (the territory of present-day Western Chukotka). Linguistic material collected among the Russified Yukagir on the Anadyr’ River was given to academician Shifner, who published information on the Yukagir language summarized by him in News of the Imperial Academy of Sciences (Vdovin and Tereshchenko 1959). On the basis of analysis of the rather scant data available at this time on the Yukagir language, Shifner concluded that “by dialect the Yukagir consist of a special people among Siberian non-Russians” (Jochelson 1895:165, 166). In 1895–1897, W. I. Jochelson, assigned to an expedition of the Siberian Division of the Russian Geographical Society, conducted investigations among the Kolyma Yukagir. For two months in 1897 he studied the “migrant clans of the tundra” between the Kolyma and Alazeya Rivers. Analyzing the “interaction of various tribal elements,” Jochelson concluded that the aborigines of Northeastern Siberia were Yukagir and Chukchi, and the new arrivals

97

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka and “deer” (reindeer herders). Settled and nomadic or wandering Yukagir were distinguished by their form of life (Ogorodnikov 1922:178).

provides exhaustive information on the composition and settlement of the Yukagir tribes in the seventeenth century, and introduces clarity and corrections to the terminology and derivations of previous researchers. Examining the part of the monograph that deals with the territory of interest to us—Western Chukotka and the middle and lower Kolyma River areas we find it necessary to turn attention to the following. With regard to Okladnikov’s excavations in the region of Cape Bol’shoi Baranov in Western Chukotka, which revealed early Eskimo culture there that is represented by three stages, the last of which he dated to the seventeenth–eighteenth centuries (the “Shelagi of Russian sources”), Dolgikh believes identifying the ancestors of the Eskimo with the Shelagi-Chuvan is erroneous (Dolgikh 1960:435).

In spite of the scientific value of Ogorodnikov’s monograph, one cannot help but note its weak sides. The monograph was written with the complete absence of archaeological resources from the area being investigated and with a very weak study of adjacent territories. The first archaeological surveys in the Kolyma River basin were conducted 150 years after the excavations of G. A. Sarychev in Western Chukotka. All this time this territory remained an archaeological blank spot. In 1946, Okladnikov made a reconnaissance along the Kolyma River, as a result of which four sites were found: Pomazkino, Labuya, Kresty Kolymskie, and Petushki (Okladnikov 1955a:428).

At the end of the 1950s and beginning of the 1960s the works of M. G. Levin were published. On the basis of analysis of physical anthropological data, and the introduction of archaeological and ethnographic resources and materials on linguistics, the researcher proposed the concept of settlement in the Neolithic and Bronze Age of Cis-Baikal, Yakutia, and the vast contiguous territory from the Yenisei River in the west to Chukotka in the east, “by Paleo-Asiatics,” whom he connects with Yukagir tribes (Levin 1958:187). The physical anthropological type of the Even and Evenk, in his opinion, goes back to an early ethnic stratum of the Yukagir (Levin 1961:49). The scholar ascribes the admixture of the Baikal physical anthropological type among Chukchi to an event earlier than contacts with the Even, by mixing with the Yukagir (Levin 1961:50). He supports Dolgikh’s view of an early Yukagir component in the composition of the Nganasan, and proposes a Yukagir Mongoloid component in the composition of the Ob-Ugrians (Levin 1961:50).

And again a long, almost quarter-century break in the archaeological study of the Kolyma River occurred, with the work in the basin beginning again only in 1970. During this interval several monographs and separate works on the archaeology, ethnography, physical anthropology, and linguistics of the region were published. They were directed at problems of the ethnogenesis of peoples of Siberia and the Russian Far East, touching upon questions concerning the role of the Yukagir component in the ethnogenesis of different groups in Northern Asia. B. O. Dolgikh, in research on the history of the formation of the native population of the Taimyr Peninsula, proposes the entry of the early Yukagir component as part of the Nganasan and other Samoyed-speaking groups of the northern part of Western Siberia (Dolgikh 1952:63). This point of view is reinforced by physical anthropological data. A comparison of the physical anthropological complex of traits of the Nganasan and Yukagir shows their substantial closeness to the earliest racial types of Siberia, that had at the base a common initial form (Yukagiry, 1975:109, 110).

Levin’s conclusions point to the existence in antiquity of a single autochthonous population that occupied the vast territory of Northern Asia, with the western periphery the Ob-Yenisei watershed, and the eastern periphery the continental regions of Chukotka. In 1964, N. N. Dikov, on the basis of archaeological data obtained from investigation in central and Eastern Chukotka, proposed the hypothesis of a “Yukagir wedge,” which penetrated into the Anadyr’ basin in the middle of the second millennium A.D. and pushed the Chukchi and Koryak correspondingly into the northeastern and northwestern regions of Chukotka (Dikov 1964:22; 2004:188). This hypothesis was supported by I. S. Vdovin (1973:257).

In 1958, E. A. Kreinovich published research on the Yukagir language, in which he traces its connections “with the languages of those peoples, with whom the Yukagir at present do not have contact.” The author of the monograph shows connections of the Yukagir language with the Samoyed, Kott, Ket, Turkic, and Mongol languages. Underlining the closest contacts of the Yukagir language with the Samoyed, in particular with the Nenets language, Kreinovich concludes, “that these connections were formed not in tundra regions, but in a different territory, where the ancestors of the Yukagir and the Samoyed nation lived in closest contact and ethnic mixing with each other” (Kreinovich 1958:237).

I. S. Gurvich, in a monograph published in 1966, adhered to a different point of view. Analyzing the ethnic processes in Northeastern Siberia after its inclusion in the Russian state, the author concludes that “the Yukagir made up the earliest ethnic stratum of the population of Yakutia” (Gurvich 1966). He develops this same thought in subsequent works as well. Gurvich criticizes the hypothesis of the “Yukagir wedge,” believing that the Yukagir in the Anadyr’ valley were early aborigines (Gurvich 1975:178; 1983:117).

In 1960, the fundamental work of B. O. Dolgikh, Clan and Tribal Composition of the Peoples of Siberia in the Seventeenth Century, was published, based on a thorough analysis of archival sources and previous works. The author

98

An Ethnic Identification of the Late Neolithic Complexes in Western Chukotka In 1964, the work of V. N. Chernetsov On the Question of an Ethnic Substrate in Circumpolar Culture substantiates the idea of a single Ural substrate that formed in Trans-Urals (east of the Urals) and Western Siberia in the late Mesolithic and played a decisive role in the formation of a series of ethnic groups, including ancestors of the Yukagir, who settled far to the east in the Neolithic (Chernetsov 1964). Chernetsov supposes that the Yukagir found themselves under the influence of the Tungus people no earlier than Glazkovo times. In his opinion, the Yukagir could be the north Asian continental component which, along with the Pacific Ocean one, took part in the formation of the Eskimo (Chernetsov 1964:10, 11).

All the archaeological investigations named above include materials from territories that are a significant distance from Western Chukotka (with poor dissemination of scant information based on the small amount of archaeological data from the Kolyma River). Archaeological study of the Kolyma River basin thus remains a vital interest. In 1970, the northern division of the Prilensk Archaeological Expedition (PAE) under the leadership of Yu. A. Mochanov found, during a survey along the Kolyma River from Debin village (Magadan Region) to the mouth of the Kolyma River, 15 diachronic sites, 14 of which fell within the region of the middle or lower Kolyma River: Konzaboi (Fedoseeva 1980), Pirs, Zelenyi Mys, Panteleikha I–X, Komarok I–III (Mochanov 1977), and Starye Petushki (Fedoseeva 1980).

This concept is supported by Yu. B. Simchenko, who connected the Early Neolithic population of Eastern Siberia, as far as Chukotka, with the eastern Ural people—the ancestors of the Yukagir (Simchenko 1976:19).

In 1979, the sites Pervaya, Vtoraya, Tret’ya, Mysovaya, Predzhdanka, and Bol’shoi El’gakhchan I were found by the Northeastern division of the PAE (led by Mochanov) during survey along the Omolon River (Kistenev 1980:74). In 1980, this same division (led by S. P. Kistenev) once more visited the Omolon (after our work in this area) and discovered the sites of Bol’shoi El’gakhchan II and III, and conducted two small excavations in the upper area of the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan I site. The Tumannaya site was found on the Omolon.

Chernetsov’s views on the Yukagir as the north Asian continental component in the formation of the Eskimo are shared by G. I. Pelikh, who, examining the ethnogenesis of the Sel’kup, singles out the early component B and connects it with the Yukagir (Pelikh 1972:177–183). In 1968, S. A. Fedoseeva reported on five years of archaeological investigations in the upper Vilyui River region. Substantiating the hypothesis that the territory of the upper Vilyui was part of the area of formation and subsequent development of the northern Evenk tribes, she supposes the possibility of contacts that began to take place in the Neolithic and were strengthened during the Bronze Age with eastern Paleo-Asiatic tribes, most probably Yukagir (Fedoseeva 1968:166).

These works provide brief information about the discovery of diachronic sites on the Malyi Anyui and Omolon rivers (Kistenev 1980:74). Four localities on the Malyi Anyui (Tytyl’ I, II, V, and Kantveem I) were included in the Ymyyakhtakh culture area (Fedoseeva 1980:172). Systematic archaeological work began in 1978 in Western Chukotka by a detachment of SVKNII DVO AN SSSR (led by M. A. Kiryak).

One year later, Yu. A. Mochanov, in a monograph on the multicomponent Bel’kachi I site in Yakutia, hypothesized that tribes of the Ymyyakhtakh (Late Neolithic—M.K.) culture of Yakutia definitely influenced the formation of ancestors of the Northeastern Siberian Paleo-Asiatics—the Chukchi and Koryak (Mochanov 1969:196). This hypothesis was supported and further developed by Fedoseeva: Being more inclined toward the Chukchi and Koryak as bearers of the named culture, she puts forth the possibility of participation of some group of the Ymyyakhtakh people in the ethnogenesis of the Yukagir (Fedoseeva 1980:215). On the question of the penetration of the Ymyyakhtakh people onto the Kolyma River, she maintains that migrants bearing this culture could have arrived not just from the Lena River but also from the Aldan River.

After a period of more intensive accumulation of material along the Kolyma River and in Western Chukotka (from 1977 to 1987), new works in archaeology appeared in which questions of the ethnic relationship of the different archaeological cultures in Northeast Asia are examined (Dikov 2004; Fedoseeva 1980; Konstantinov 1978; Mochanov and Fedoseeva 1980). On the basis of new archaeological data, Dikov considered it incorrect to view the inner-continental Late Neolithic and early Bronze Age cultures of Chukotka—the North Chukotkan and Ust’-Belaya—only as Old Yukagir. He felt they should also be connected with the ancestors of the Chukchi and possibly the Eskimo. He assigned to Old Yukagir the Vakarevo culture, which occupied sites along the Anadyr’ and Main rivers during the middle of the second millennium A.D. (Dikov 2003:40–48). He expounded these conclusions, which reinforce the “Yukagir wedge” hypothesis, in his monograph Early Cultures of Northeast Asia (2004:188).

In 1969, L. P. Khlobystin determined in the region between the Olenek and Anabar rivers the Buolkolakh culture of the second and first millennia B.C., which is related to the Ymyyakhtakh,. He saw its source in the Neolithic Nizhnelensk culture as being genetically connected with proto-Yukagir (Khlobystin 1970). He also connected polar region archaeological sites of the Ymyyakhtakh culture on the Taimyr Peninsula (Khlobystin 1975:104) and adjacent territories (Khlobystin 1975:107) with ancestors of the Yukagir.

In 1978, the monograph by I. V. Konstantinov, The Early

99

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka Iron Age of Yakutia, was published. Examining all the hypotheses available at the time concerning the association of the archaeological cultures of the Neolithic and Bronze and Iron Ages of Yakutia with a certain ethnic group, the author concludes that in the Neolithic sites of Yakutia it is impossible to see the modern Evenk, Even, or Yukagir, that the replacement of one culture by another in this territory marked the replacement of ethnic composition in its population (Konstantinov 1978:79). Nevertheless, in the ethnic interpretation of the Ymyyakhtakh (Late Neolithic) culture of Yakutia, he was inclined toward Mochanov’s association of the latter with the ancestors of the Chukchi and Koryak. He assigns the appearance of the Yukagir in the territory of Yakutia to the Bronze Age, while in the Early Iron Age he assumes their existence here along with the Tungus (Konstantinov 1978:78, 85).

indirectly touched upon (Etnicheskaya. . ., 1972; Etnogenez. . ., 1980; Etnografiya. . ., 1980; Priroda i chelovek. . ., 1976; Yukagiry. . ., 1975). E. V. Shavkunov (1990), developing and substantiating his hypothesis of the origin of the Tungus peoples, also turned his attention to problems of the original homeland and ethnogenesis of the Yukagir. Of special note are the laborious multi-year investigations of L. N. Zhukova (1988, 1994, 1996a, 1996b, 1999, 2003), a scholar of Yukagir studies, whose works have focused on the material and spiritual culture of the Yukagir. In recent years, interest in the Yukagir problem has not abated but, on the contrary, has increased. Some aspects have been discussed at theoretical and applied science conferences of local and international scale (Everstov 2000; Kiryak 2002, 2004; Kurilov 2000; Shishlo 2004; Stepanov 2004).

In 1980, Mochanov and Fedoseeva proposed as a working hypothesis the following ethnic interpretation of the archaeological cultures of Yakutia that interest us: They are inclined to see in the bearers of the Late Neolithic culture— the Ymyyakhtakh—the ancestors of the Koryak and Chukchi. However, in a preceding publication Fedoseeva (1980:215) did not exclude the possibility of participation of the Ymyyakhtakh in the ethnogenesis of the Yukagir. In the opinion of Mochanov and Fedoseeva, the Yukagir are genetically connected with the Ust’-Mil’ culture of the Bronze Age, and the ancestors of the Evenk and Even with various complexes of the Early Iron Age (Mochanov and Fedoseeva 1980:11).

And Still The Yukagir? The archaeological data accumulated in the last 20 years trace the chronological depth of Yukagir ethnogenesis and clear up some questions of connections between the ancestors of the Yukagir and other peoples, in particular the Samoyeds—a task not believed possible until recently (Etnogenez. . ., 1980:10). These data clear up some of the questions concerning their original homeland. At the time of the appearance of the Russians in Northeastern Siberia, that is, in the 1630s–1640s, the Yukagir occupied the territory from the lower reaches of the Lena River in the west to the region of Cape Shelagskii, the mouth of the Anadyr’ River, and the upper reaches of Penzhina River in the east. The river basins from the Omolon in the south to the Chaun in the north were in the realm of the Yukagir settlement. Except for their sources, the Kolyma and Indigirka River basins, a substantial part of the Yana basin, and all of the Alazeya and Khroma basins, fall almost completely within Yukagirskaya zemlitsa (Yukagir Land) (Levin 1958:154). Based on Dolgikh’s (1952:73) assumption, the Yukagir lived in the west as far as the Vilyui River.

V. F. Gening (1989:170–171) identifies pseudotextile ceramics with the ancestors of the Yukagir. The genetic and historical-cultural connections of the early North Asian peoples are touched upon by physical anthropologists in the monograph Ethnic Connections of the Peoples of the North of Asia and America Based on Physical Anthropological Data (1986). The fundamental work of V. P. Alekseev (1989) is dedicated to historical anthropology and ethnogenesis. In the 1980s–1990s, intensive archaeological investigations were conducted in Yakutia, with sites in the Indigirka basin being actively examined. New information permits assigning a whole series of sites (Belaya Gora, DeniskaYuryuiete, Sugunnakh) to the Ymyyakhtakh culture, with its time of existence on the Indigirka substantially more recent (to almost 1,500 years ago) than the lower Lena River basin Ymyyakhtakh burials. Analysis of the Indigirka materials brings researchers to conclude that there was an association of the late Ymyyakhtakh sites with the ancestors of the Yukagir. This conclusion is reinforced by paleoethnographic information found there (Everstov 1999a, 1999b). The study of the dynamics in the development of the Ymyyakhtakh culture brings up the problem of distinguishing its variants, the features established that substantiate the northern local variant of this culture (Alekseev 1999).

The Russians met Yukagir who in many respects had already lost their own culture and had adopted that of the Lamut (Even—M.K.). At the end of the nineteenth century the Yukagir language was almost entirely lost, with only two dialects remaining (Kolyma and Tundra), which Jochelson found on the Yasachnaya and Korkodon rivers (right tributaries of the Kolyma River) and the Alazeya River. Erosion and obliteration of traditional features in the culture of the modern Yukagir make it difficult to distinguish the substrate elements in it (Etnogenez. . ., 1980:10). Therefore, before proceeding to an interpretation of the archaeological resources and data of related sciences, we turn to Jochelson’s materials, which were obtained at the end of the 1800s from the Anadyr’, Kolyma, and Alazeya Yukagir. Jochelson’s primary research is not very accessible

In ethnographic investigations of the last decades of the twentieth century the “Yukagir problem” is directly or

100

An Ethnic Identification of the Late Neolithic Complexes in Western Chukotka since it was not published in Russian, yet is an informative resource in comparison with other, scant research. His work offers a reliable outline for the reconstructive analysis of the archaeological materials.

most families had no more than eight to ten, were also used for the transportation of property during migrations. Fishing was always the foremost occupation in the life of the Yukagir. In antiquity they caught fish with nets and seines made of nettle fibers; the fishing pole was never used. The Yukagir were also acquainted with winter fishing using nets (fishing under the ice), but the use of weirs was characteristic for them.

Jochelson assigns conical dwellings to an early tradition among the Yukagir: a type of tent (among the Kolyma Yukagir) and a cylindrical-conical dwelling (among the Tundra Yukagir). Their characteristic type of dress was the loose-fitting Tungus clothing, but Jochelson also supposed the presence in the past of clothing of the Chukchi type. He focused on one feature of the Tundra Yukagir dress—a strip specially sewn to the back, “which is reminiscent of the tail on Eskimo clothing or the male formal dress of the Koryak.” Noting the insignificant difference between male and female dress, Jochelson dwelt in detail on the description of the apron.1 Much attention is devoted to the latter as the most characteristic feature of Yukagir dress in the ethnic interpretation of the site of the Glazkovo culture (Levin 1958; Okladnikov 1955b), therefore we will quote the description in detail.

They used triangular rafts of logs (mino) and singlelog boats (dug out from a poplar tree) as a means of transportation on the water. Speaking of the hunting pursuits of the Yukagir, Jochelson names the moose as the chief object of the hunt, noting also the traditional importance of hunting wild reindeer at river crossings, which they no longer did. The Yukagir used the dog to hunt small fur-bearing animals, in particular the fox. With the dog they also hunted wild reindeer in spring and fall on skis over a thin ice crust. They used fish nets to hunt ducks and geese by driving the birds from boats.

In the middle of the fur band are attached nine brass pendants (called nige’yebun-lu’dul, i. e., of the apron irons). Some of these pendants have the form of human figures and are regarded as guardians of the young woman. . . . A steel ornament called e’gniepun, in the form of a fish and ornamented with engraved lines, some of which are inlaid with copper is also used. It is regarded as a protector of women against stomach pains and pains connected with menstruation and childbirth.

It was not characteristic for the Yukagir living on the coast of the Arctic Ocean to hunt sea mammals. However, there are stories in their mythology about sea monsters, which they called “wild sea reindeer.” Distinctive in the Yukagir material culture were skis, which they used during migration and hunting. Jochelson describes skis of two types—gliding, which are “broader than those of other tribes of northeastern Siberia,” and stepping (Jochelson 1975:385). These were woven of thongs and were called “raven’s feet” (Jochelson 1975:387).

Of the three discs on the breast part of the apron, the upper one is hammered out of silver coin and is called me’lun-lu’dul, i. e., chest iron, or chest metal. The middle and the lower discs are made of brass or bronze and are called me’lun-pojerxo’, i. e., chest suns. The middle disc has a conventional ornament and on the lower one . . . is a representation of a winged rider on a headless horse. (Jochelson 1975:402, 403–404)

Yukagir fighting equipment consisted of the spear with a point of moose rib, a knife or dagger of moose rib, and the bow (the compound for fighting and hunting, the simple for practice by youths in shooting). Two quivers with arrows equipped with bone points were also counted as fishing equipment. Jochelson cites Yukagir legends that in antiquity a Yukagir warrior “wore over his ordinary garment an armor consisting of rings made of reindeer antlers strung on moose sinew” (Jochelson 1975:383). Arrowheads were made of bone, “mammoth ivory” (Jochelson 1975:385). The stone weapon had limited use.

In the material complex of the Yukagir, Jochelson notes snow goggles made of leather, wood, or birch bark, as well as forged, in his opinion, from silver coins.

Of the domestic implements, copper kettles are mentioned. Among the Yukagir they were called “lu’dun-pi’ge or lu’nbuge which means iron birch bark dish or box” (Jochelson 1975:411) and stories are related about the former use of birch bark vessels for cooking meat. Hot stones were dropped in them in order to boil water.

He describes sledge-dog breeding among the Yukagir who lived on the Kolyma and Anadyr’ rivers. Reindeer, of which S. B. Slobodin’s (2005:590) attempt to correct W. I. Jochelson, who allegedly erroneously described materials of the Okhotsk Even (clothing, apron, and its decoration—M.K.) as Yukagir, seems improper. Jochelson interviewed informants and collected specimens of clothing and other materials in a rather professional manner. He described not just the Tungus and not the Tungusized Yukagir, but the Yukagirized Tungus, which is emphasized in the name of his monograph. Levin (1968), Dolgikh (1970), Fainberg (1981), Shavkunov (1990), and others have written about the Tungus inheriting from the Yukagir many elements of material culture, in particular dress. Slobodin’s conclusion that the “monograph of W. I. Jochelson contains a large volume of unique information, so far not introduced into scientific circulation” also appears discrepant (Slobodin 2005:292) (emphasis by M. K.). Jochelson’s monograph introduced into scientific circulation the materials collected by the ethnographer. It was published in English in the 1930s and also is accessible to our researchers. 1

In the food ration, besides the favorite food (fish), a fondness for blueberries and rose hips is noted. Characteristically, edible mushrooms were absent from the Yukagir menu, but poisonous mushrooms were used. Jochelson gives the name of the mushroom as “can-pai, i. e., tree girl” (Jochelson 1975:419).

101

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka Of the religious cults, the most striking is that of the shaman-ancestor. Connected with it is the ceremony of dismembering the body of the shaman after death, as well as making wooden idols in memory of the shamans-ancestors.

the Ymyyakhtakh culture relative to the Indigirka sites, making it younger (proceeding from Late Neolithic burials) to 1,500 years (Everstov 1999b:57). S. A. Fedoseeva, who studied this culture in depth in a 1980 monograph, also suggested that the Ymyyakhtakh culture could have existed in altered form for a longer time (Fedoseeva 1980).

A unique phenomenon in Yukagir art is pictographic writing (Jochelson 1910:Ch. VII, XVIII, XX, XXII–XXV).

The Rauchuvagytgyn I site (Western Chukotka), the material complex of which plays an important role in the ethnic identification of this site, represents a northern variant of the Ymyyakhtakh culture in its terminal stage.

Relying on the idea, affirmed in the scientific literature, of using sites of the Neolithic period and Bronze Age to reveal “ethnic determinants,” that is, elements of culture, which possess specific stable features characteristic for a specific ethnic group (Etnogenez. . ., 1980; Gurina 1964; Gurvich 1975; Okladnikov 1955a; Shumkin 1984; Simchenko 1976), we will examine archaeological complexes of the Late Neolithic period and undeveloped Bronze Age (early Bronze Age in the chronology of Yakutia—M.K.) obtained in the region being investigated.

In A. N. Alekseev’s opinion, the northern (local) variant of the Ymyyakhtakh culture was widespread in the tundras and forest-tundras of the Taimyr, Yakutia, and Chukotka. He assigns the North Chukotka culture to this same variant (Alekseev 1999:23), which agrees with our conclusions. Arguing his point of view, he cites several criteria (the presence in the complexes of waffle—“checkerboard”— and smooth-walled ceramics, the absence of engraved decoration on the body of the vessel, the preservation and development of a blade industry, the presence of endemic forms of stone assemblage, and others). With reference to V. A. Kashin, he distinguishes “exotic elements” among the criteria: graphic miniatures executed on stone slabs (Rauchuvagytgyn I site) and items of mushroom-like or phallic form (the Rodin burial, lower Kolyma River). These cultural elements, presently encountered nowhere except in the polar region, mark a regional characteristic, in the opinion of researchers (Kashin and Alekseev) (Alekseev 1999:25).

Analysis of the technical-typological indices of Western Chukotkan complexes of the Late Neolithic period and early Bronze Age and identification with diagnostic complexes of Eastern Chukotka (the North Chukotka and Ust’-Belaya cultures), as well as analysis of neighboring Yakutia (complexes of the Ymyyakhtakh culture), permits placing these complexes in a series of analogies and proposing the genetic proximity of the bearers of these cultures. The area of the Ymyyakhtakh historical-cultural community extended from the Lena River to the OkhotskKolyma watershed (evidence includes finds by I. E. Vorobei on the upper reaches of the Omolon River and by me—the “hunter’s kit,” also on the Omolon). In Chukotka, the presence of Ymyyakhtakh material was noted in Old Bering Sea cemeteries (Arutiunov 1983). Artifacts of the Ymyyakhtakh culture are also found in Eastern Chukotka (S. V. Gusev, personal communication).

Analyzing materials from burials—Bugachan, Ichchilyakh (lower Lena River), Pokrovskoe, and Kullaty—as well as the third layer of the Suruktaakh-Khaya sanctuary (middle Lena River), Okladnikov assigned them to the early Bronze Age and, on the basis of identification of complexes, concluded their indisputable connections with the Glazkovo culture of Cis-Baikal (Okladnikov 1946, 1950a, 1955a). These connections can be traced not only in the stone and bone assemblage, but also in adornments of nephrite and mother-of-pearl, as well as in art—flat, pointed-headed idols of bone and engraved linear ornamentation on bone objects (Okladnikov 1955a). The clothing of the split type is also uniform—the so-called Tungus frock with bib (see below for split clothing).

Studying the first finds from the continental regions of Chukotka, Okladnikov noted that during the end of the Neolithic and into the early Bronze Age appeared representatives of those tribes here, who at this time occupied the lower reaches of the Kolyma and Lena rivers (Okladnikov 1955a:175). Materials from Western Chukotka, which in territorial regard is adjacent to the lower reaches of the Kolyma River, corroborate Okladnikov’s views. Okladnikov considered intermediate sites of the Late Neolithic and early Bronze Age of the Indigirka River as clear evidence of the connection of the Neolithic culture of the Chukchi Peninsula with the culture of central Yakutia at this stage in its development (Okladnikov and Gurvich 1957:50). This connection can be traced in the material complexes from the sites of Burulgino, Tat’yanino Lake, Belaya Gora, and Siktyakh (Fedoseeva 1980:Fig. 62). Then, at the end of the 1980s to 1990s, such sites on the Indigirka as Deniska-Yuryuiete and Sugunnakh were discovered and studied. These are dated to the second and third centuries A.D. and interpreted by Yakutian specialists as protoYukagir (Everstov 1999b:62).

Close connections with Yakutian Late Neolithic and early Bronze Age sites, in particular burial complexes, are found in the Ust’-Belaya cemetery of interior Chukotka. They are displayed in the characteristic (ribbed) ceramics, many kinds of arrowheads, burins, axes, and adzes, as well as ornamentation—white nephrite rings and small shell beads (Dikov 1964:14). These elements are viewed as evidence of cultural and possibly ethnic connections. The presence of ribbed ceramics in Ust’-Belaya burials attests to an early Ural (proto-Yukagir) component in the Ust’-Belaya culture, which is connected with Glazkovo people (Stepanov 2004:149).

S. I. Everstov, relying on the most recent archaeological data, revises with good arguments the upper boundary of

Ribbed ceramics, like waffle marked, are noted in the

102

An Ethnic Identification of the Late Neolithic Complexes in Western Chukotka Glazkovo culture of Cis-Baikal (Okladnikov 1955b:130, 347), for which it is more characteristic than waffle marked (Khlobystin 1982:195). In the Ymyyakhtakh culture the correlation is the reverse—waffle marked predominates in significant degree over ribbed.

predecessors was noted by Fedoseeva (1968:148), who considered this fact as evidence of genetic relationship. Konstantinov (1978:92, 93) connected certain types of ceramics in the Early Iron Age of Yakutia with the genetic descendants of bearers of Bronze Age culture.

On the basis of the data cited, the impression is that the origins of the ethnic community that is spread throughout the territory of Yakutia and Chukotka in the Late Neolithic and early Bronze Age must be sought in the Glazkovo culture of Cis-Baikal. On the basis of a new chronological determination (Mamonova and Sulerzhitskii 1986), the Glazkovo culture can be considered the ancestral, maternal culture with regard to the Ymyyakhtakh.

Chukotkan ceramics of the Remnant Neolithic— Vakarevo—are also correlated with ceramics of the Bronze Age of Yakutia by Dikov (1964:18). Pectinate stamp, characteristic for decoration of Vakarevo ceramics, is connected with one of the last waves of the Ural-speaking culture, comparable to proto-Yukagir (Stepanov 2004:148). Among the Vakarevo vessels are specimens with waffle stamp.

The continuity of the traditions of the Late Neolithic population of Yakutia in subsequent periods was examined by I. V. Konstantinov (1978), who focused on ceramic analysis. Studying vessels of Early Iron Age Yakutia, he notes ribbed and waffle technical decoration, along with artistic forms with impressions of dentate stamp and brokenup or continuous applied ribs (Konstantinov 1978:55). He sees in these methods of decorating Early Iron Age vessels the presence of two independent traditions that go back to two different ethnic communities: the first connected with the descendants of the local Bronze Age culture; the second, with a newly arrived population of another culture. In the “newly arrived” he sees the resettlement of the Tungus tribes. He connects the local cultural tradition, going back to the Bronze Age, with the Yukagir ethnic community (Konstantinov 1978:92, 93). After analyzing the archaeological material from Early Iron Age Yakutian complexes, Konstantinov concludes that the Yukagir and Tungus had a parallel existence in Yakutia during this period (Konstantinov 1978). This contradicts his earlier opinion, that the influx of a new population in the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age brought about the formation of new cultures, in which the dominant place belonged to the newly arriving elements, and must undoubtedly have resulted in “displacement, the assimilation of the former inhabitants, and thereby the determining of an entirely different ethnic composition of the population of Yakutia in subsequent centuries” (Konstantinov 1978:82, 83). Yu. V. Bromlei (1973:283) pointed out the failure of such a traditional idea, in that, “apparently the overwhelming majority of movement of peoples entailed almost full annihilation or expulsion of the local aboriginal population.” Even Konstantinov himself concluded that the “new arrivals not only did not completely expel the former population, they did not even entirely assimilate the groups of the local population that remained within the boundaries of their culture” (Konstantinov 1978:83).

Okladnikov considered pseudotextile or checkerboard ceramics (waffle stamp) with imprints of fur or hair on the inner or outer wall of the vessels especially characteristic of Yakutian Late Neolithic, as well as “for still later Remnant Neolithic cultures of the Arctic up to the seventeentheighteenth centuries A.D.” (Okladnikov and Nekrasov 1960:60). The information adduced from the ceramics indicate a rather long (from Late Neolithic to Remnant Neolithic) stability of cultural elements that can be viewed as “ethnic determiners” (Etnogenez . . ., 1980:5). Both types of ceramics—waffle and ribbed—are encountered in sites in Western Chukotka. In the sites of Bol’shoi Nuteneut III and Rauchuvagytgyn I both types of ceramics were in the same stratum. At the sites of Srednee Ozero II and Nizhneilirneiskaya I only waffle marked was found, with no ribbed ceramics in these sites. In house fill at the Tytyl’ IV site, waffle-marked ceramics accompanied smooth-walled, mottled (textile-marked?), and cord-wrapped. In eastern interior Chukotka sites have been recorded with either only waffle-marked ceramics (Chirovaya site) or only ribbed, which accompanied smooth-walled ceramics (Ust’-Belaya cemetery, kurgans No. 8 and 9). These same types of ceramics mark the Ymyyakhtakh culture of Yakutia, with the only difference that on Yakutian vessels in most cases graphic (artistic) decoration is noted, though it is absent in the northern sites of this culture. The cited data support the idea of ethnic homogeneity in the Late Neolithic-early Bronze Age population of Northeast Asia, which is also corroborated by several other factors— the topography of the sites, a single economic type, similarity of stone-working technique (the predominance of percussion flaking and retouch, very rarely grinding), the typological similarity of the material complexes, and analogous burial ceremonies and cults.

The durability of cultural traditions in examples of Early Iron Age complexes in the Khatanga region of Northeastern Siberia was also emphasized by Dolgikh (1952:80). The succession of traditions in the form and technique of making stone tools and ceramics by the population of the upper Vilyui River in the Bronze Age from their Neolithic

At the same time it is impossible to speak of absolute identity of all material complexes in the region uniting Yakutia and Chukotka. Each of the complexes has present

103

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka only its own features, in which two factors can be found— the chronological factor (as evidence from the diachronic nature of the sites) and the ethnic one (as evidence of cultural influences).

and through them the Uelen, Seshan, Chini, Ekven, and other early Eskimo burial structures, on the other (Dikov 2004:126). The graphic material obtained from the Rauchuvagytgyn I site has Siberian analogies. When owners marks (brand-like symbols) are compared, the largest number of parallels is found among the Ob River Ugrians and northern Samoyed (Avaam and Vadeev Nganasan, Khanty and Karasin Enets). Not only are the simple and complex geometric figures (crosses and angles) identical, but also the specific owner’s marks (H- and 9-shaped marks, segments with a bifurcated edge, and lattices). Based on well-known sources, the H-shaped sign, for example, is encountered among the symbols (owners marks) of the Avaam Nganasan 11 times (Dolgikh 1957). Similarity can also be seen in several of the decorative elements, such as double zigzag with “appendages” on the tops of angles and double L-shaped figures (Kiryak 2002:52, 54, 56, 68), as well as in the type of house, which is reminiscent of the yurt of the south Siberian peoples (Kiryak 2002:59). An enigmatic dwelling-like structure on a slab from Rauchuvagytgyn (Kiryak 2002:Fig. 60) is analogous to an image on birch bark obtained by Yakutian archaeologists from the late Ymyyakhtakh Belaya Gora site on the Indigirka River (Everstov 1999b:61, Fig. 6). The displayed similarities reveal the ancient (proto-Nganasan-Yukagir?) ethnic substrate in the bearers of the Rauchuvagytgyn I complex. The former had definite contacts in the past with the ancient Ugor (Kiryak 2002:183).

Opinions concerning the ethnic bearers of the Late Neolithic and early Bronze Age cultures of Yakutia and Chukotka have been expressed based on the accumulation of archaeological data. Okladnikov saw in the interior residents of Chukotka of this period the ancestors of the Yukagir, who had arrived here from the lower Lena and Kolyma rivers (Okladnikov 1955a:175). Levin concurred, seeing in the lower and middle Lena River and Cis-Baikal Eneolithic [Chalcolithic—R.B. & Y.K.] population a pre-Tungus, Paleo-Asiatic population in the broad sense of the word, presumably Yukagir (Levin 1958:187). Yu. A. Mochanov and S. A. Fedoseeva subscribe to another point of view, believing that the Ymyyakhtakh culture bearers played a significant role in the formation of northeastern PaleoAsiatics (the Chukchi and Koryak—M.K.), though they do not exclude the participation of the Ymyyakhtakh people in the ethnogenesis of the Yukagir as well (Fedoseeva 1980:215). Dikov concluded, after analyzing the Ust’-Belaya complex of interior Chukotka that is similar to the Burulgino (Ymyyakhtakh), that the Ust’-Belaya people could have been involved in the ethnogenesis of the Eskimo, Yukagir, and Chukchi (Dikov 2004:120). At the present time, most researchers share the point of view that the ancestors of the Yukagir were bearers of the Ymyyakhtakh culture (Etnogenez . . ., 1980:144).

The Yukagir stratum, with its characteristic ethnocultural elements, is also represented in a monumental work of art in Chukotka, the Pegtymel’ petroglyphs (Kiryak 2002).

The archaeological data of complexes collected from excavations of Late Neolithic, early Bronze Age, and later sites in the Tomsk Region of Western Siberia can be cited as reinforcing arguments. Certain types of stone and bone assemblage, the “eye” decoration, burial ceremony, and cults are connected with component B in the early Sel’kup culture, which is identified with the early ethnic community that has roots in the Neolithic and Bronze Age of Cis-Baikal (Pelikh 1972:122–137).

We turn to data from interdisciplinary sciences since the picture of ethnogenesis cannot be adequately complete if it is constructed only from archaeological resources. Physical anthropological material from Chukotka, which belongs in time to the transitional period from the Late Neolithic to the early Bronze Age, is represented by a single skull from a burial in the Ust’-Belaya cemetery. Analysis conducted by I. I. Gokhman showed that the skull can be assigned to the Siberian Mongoloids based on signs such as flatness, height and width of the face, and weakly projecting nose (Gokhman 1961:15). Based on height, correlation of transverse and longitudinal diameters, and width of brow and nose, it approaches the Arctic type—the Eskimo and Chukchi (Gokhman 1961:17). Based on the angles of the horizontal profile and the degree of flatness of the nose, it is comparable to the Reindeer Tungus. Summarizing all the data, the researcher concludes that the Ust’-Belaya skull unites features of the Baikal and Arctic physical anthropological types with a predominance of features of the latter, and by a complex of features it shows the greatest similarity with the Reindeer Chukchi (Gokhman 1961:17). Levin connects the latter circumstance—the admixture of the Baikal type among the Reindeer Chukchi—with the mestization of the ancestors of the Arctic type with early Yukagir elements (Levin 1958:153–155).

Conclusions based on analyses of these complexes corroborate the conclusions of V. N. Chernetsov and V. N. Moshinskaya that in the northern Ob River region, before the Nenets people, there “lived tribes related both by language and by culture to the Paleo-Asiatics of Northeast Asia—the Eskimo of the coast and the Yukagir of the taiga” (Chernetsov and Moshinskaya 1954:186; Pelikh 1972:183). It is curious that the origins of bronze, from which Ust’Belaya burins and awls were made, are traced in southern Siberia, on the upper reaches and middle course of the Yenisei River (Dikov 2004:124–126). Dikov supposes genetic similarity of stone ceremonial structures in the Karasuk culture, encountered on the middle Yenisei, to structures of the Enets people and Nganasan of the Taimyr, on the one hand, and to those of the Ust’-Belaya,

104

An Ethnic Identification of the Late Neolithic Complexes in Western Chukotka Odontological analysis of the Ust’-Belaya material conducted by A. A. Zubov showed a high concentration of Mongoloid features. The absence of some features of the Arctic complex makes the material approach the “continental” Mongoloids—the Yukagir (Zubov 1977:263). The scholar concedes the existence in deep antiquity of an initial “proto-Yukagir” type, which at some degree was also “proto-Arctic.” Based on the available data, the Ust’-Belaya skull is closest to the series from the Ekven (Eskimo—M.K.) cemetery (Zubov 1977:263).

shares this point of view. Levin does not agree with I. S. Vdovin’s conclusion that the region of initial formation of the Chukchi ethnic group was the interior regions of the Chukchi Peninsula, feeling that this conclusion has been inadequately thought out (Levin 1958:222). Speaking of the presence of admixture of the Baikal type among the Reindeer Chukchi and the Koryak, Levin assigns the latter to mixture not with the Lamut, who are recent new arrivals in both Kamchatka and Chukotka, but with the Yukagir (Levin 1958:223). He also connects with the Baikal type those ethnic groups that left sites of Neolithic and Eneolithic times in Cis-Baikal and adjacent territories, assigning them to the pre-Tungus Paleo-Asiatic (Yukagir—M. K.) population, later assimilated by Tungusspeaking tribes (Levin 1961:50). Levin’s conclusions were also supported by Okladnikov: “Physical anthropological materials analyzed by Levin agree well with the results of archaeological investigations. As I have already written many times, archaeological sites in the interior regions of Chukotka attest that these regions have been settled since the Neolithic by the ancestors of the Yukagir” (Okladnikov and Levin 1961:297). On the basis of analysis of the Ust’Belaya skull, I. I. Gokhman concluded that there was the possibility of contacts between the aboriginals of the coastal zone and the continental Paleo-Asiatics (Siberian Mongoloids—M. K.) in the territory where the skull was found (Gokhman 1961:18). The date of the Ust’-Belaya cemetery also establishes the time of those contacts— beginning of the first millennium B.C.

I. M. Zolotareva, after studying the gene frequencies of blood among ethnic groups who occupy the Arctic and Subarctic zone of northern Siberia—Nganasan, Yukagir, Even, Chukchi—concludes they are extremely close (Zolotareva 1971:40). Physical anthropologists conducting research on a modern group of Yukagir note, on the basis of morphological features and odontological analysis, the indisputable antiquity of this group and also possibly direct succession from a Neolithic population (Zolotareva 1971:40, 41). Of contemporary Yukagir, these archaic features are best preserved among the lower Kolyma Yukagir, which permits thinking that the lower Kolyma group, in comparison with other Siberian native populations, is the one that has preserved in significant degree the complex of the ancient physical anthropological substrate (Zolotareva 1971:38). G. F. Debets, analyzing the Yukagir craniological series, concluded that it was exclusively connected “with Siberian groups, not only with Baikal (Tungus), but also with Ural (Ugor-Samoyed) and central Asian [ones—R.B. & Y.K.]. . . which [series—M. K.] thus allegedly unites the continental branch of the Mongoloid race” (Debets 1951:100). A summary of the data of physical anthropology and interdisciplinary science permitted Levin (1958:224). to conclude:

The problem of chronologically bracketing the ethnogenetic processes in Northeast Asia is complicated and debatable, due to a lack of reliable prehistoric human remains in the continental zone of this region. The depth of formation of ethnic groups can be traced where there are paleoanthropological series. Data from the Uelen and Ekven cemeteries, projected onto the modern population of the Chukchi Peninsula, suggests that the physical anthropological composition of the Chukchi and Eskimo was completely formed by the beginning of the first millennium A.D.

Deep connections of the continental population of central Yakutia during the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age, historical-ethnographic data about the composition of the population of Chukotka in the seventeenth century A.D., and finally, the distribution of features of the Baikal physical anthropological type in the modern population of Northeast Asia agree well and elicit the conclusion that the continental regions of the Chukchi Peninsula were settled very early by Yukagir tribes and that these regions initially were not part of the ethnic territory of the Chukchi.”

The rare finds of human remains from Neolithic times in this territory are distinguished by primitive features and the absence of a combination of traits belonging to these peoples, which in V. P. Alekseev’s opinion points not to the Neolithic but to a later time of their ethnogenesis (Alekseev 1989:419). Analysis of a skull from Shilka Cave from Glazkovo times permits assigning the ethnogenesis of the Yukagir to the early Bronze Age, though such antiquity, in the opinion of some researchers, seems doubtful (Alekseev 1989:419).

Levin believes the ethnic territory of the Chukchi was smaller and places it closer to the region of settlement of the Koryak and Itel’men, supposing that “the area of initial settlement and formation of the Northeastern Paleo-Asiatics lay on the northern part of the Okhotsk Sea coast, embracing the coastal region both on the mainland and in Kamchatka,” and that from this region “settlement of the Paleo-Asiatics later passed into the interior regions, connected principally with the penetration and development among them of reindeer herding” (Levin 1958:225). Arutiunov (1983:258)

A comparison of the conclusions of physical anthropologists with the archaeological materials (in particular, those obtained in recent years on the Indigirka River) lead us to conclude that sites of the Late Neolithic and early Bronze Age in Yakutia and interior Chukotka were left by an ethnic

105

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka community (with its local subdivisions) which took direct part in the ethnogenesis of the Yukagir.

Yukagir language, they themselves had no strong linguistic influence on the Yukagir (Kreinovich 1958:246).

The scientific investigations of the Yukagir and their ethnogenesis by specialists of various types—physical anthropologists (Debets 1951a, 1951b; Levin 1958; Zolotareva 1971), ethnographers (Dolgikh 1952; Jochelson 1895, 1900, 1934; Pelikh 1972; Simchenko 1968), and linguists (Dul’zon 1963; Kreinovich 1958)—point to close connections between the early Yukagir and peoples who at present do not have contacts with them. Yukagir-Samoyed, Yukagir-Kott, Yukagir-Ket, Yukagir-Turkic, YukagirMongol, and Yukagir-Evenk connections are revealed (Kreinovich 1958; Vasilevich 1958).

The Yukagir language belongs to the Ural linguistic family. The neighboring ancestors of the Altai people and Tungus were geographically closer to it (in light of early contacts) than the much more remote ancestors of the Chukchi and Koryak, whose languages have an entirely different basis. This geographic element possibly also conceals the lack of close linguistic connections between the Yukagir and the Paleo-Asiatics. The absence of significant connections with Yukagir in the languages of the Chukchi and Koryak permitted Kreinovich to express the proposition that “the Yukagir are not aboriginal in extreme Northeast Asia, but arrived in this region from some other place” (Kreinovich 1958:246). When and from where? How long was the process of segmentation of the proto-Yukagir tribes and how long was their advance into the Northeast? V. N. Chernetsov replied to these questions.

E. A. Kreinovich notes in the Kott language, a vanished people who lived on the Kan River (a tributary of the Yenisei), “a striking coincidence with the Yukagir of endings in the conjugation of intransitive verbs” (Kreinovich 1958:222). Examining Kott-Yukagir linguistic connections, he concludes that there were close relations between the ancestors of the Kott and those of the Yukagir in the distant past (Kreinovich 1958:227). The materials he cites confirm Yukagir elements in the Kott language, and not just Kott in the Yukagir (Kreinovich 1958:227). Yukagir-Kott connections permitted Kreinovich to propose the hypothesis that the Yukagir arrived in the extreme north from somewhere in the south, most probably from the Sayan-Altai Plateau (Kreinovich 1958:227). The Yukagir, in his opinion, found themselves in contact with the Ket in the same place. This is reflected in their method of joining the noun in the genitive case with the word governed by it, in the material closeness of genitive case endings, of plural endings of verbs, and in the conformity of two forms of quantitative numerals (Kreinovich 1958:228).

On the basis of archaeological and linguistic data, Chernetsov (1964:9) placed the ancestors of the Yukagir conjecturally between the Urals and the Yenisei River. He supposed that in the third millennium B.C. a migrational wave occurred, as a result of which “a type close to Ural Cis-Baikal méstis, which Levin, on the basis of physical anthropological data, found possible to bring close to the Yukagir,” emerged on the Yenisei and Angara Rivers (Chernetsov 1964:6). Analyzing the archaeological materials of the Ural-West Siberian region, Chernetsov proposed that in a more distant period the ancestors of the Yukagir lived “along the right bank of the lower Yenisei, and probably along the lower reaches of its right-bank tributaries, neighboring the proto-Samoyed groups of the middle Yenisei” (Chernetsov 1971:114).

The researcher noted, when analyzing the Samoyed languages (Nenets, Enets, Nganasan, and Sel’kup), the material and semantic identity of several words and wordforming elements (Kreinovich 1958:231). Especially close connections can be traced in the Yukagir and Nenets languages. Structural agreement of some elements in not just the Tundra dialect of the Yukagir, but also in that of the Kolyma permitted Kreinovich to assume close contacts between the Yukagir and the Samoyeds (Kreinovich 1958:237).

Researchers have noted less connection between the Yukagir language and languages of the Ural family than with other peoples. The Neolithic ancestors of the Yukagir split from the Ural community earlier than the separation of the Finno-Ugrics and Samoyeds (Etnogenez. . ., 1980:25) and were thus the earliest stratum of Ural people to enter the north. Linguistic data are a valuable resource to resolve the question of origin, mutual ethnic influences, and cultural connections of the ethnic community that interests us. They explain movement in time and space of those elements of material and spiritual culture, to which finding analogies in the region being studied is sometimes impossible.

The observed Turkic and Mongol elements in the Yukagir language also suggests previous settlement of the Yukagir in the region of the Sayan-Altai Plateau (Kreinovich 1958:237). A. P. Dul’zon (1963:14–17) arrived at analogous conclusions about the aboriginal homeland of the Yukagir in the Sayan region on the basis of toponymic data.

Ethnographic resources play a large role in the reconstruction of the historical past and resolution of ethnic questions, revealing the material and spiritual culture of the people. It is interesting to turn to the polemic between A. P. Okladnikov and M. G. Levin concerning the bib as an element of early dress, a feature that has been preserved among some peoples up to the present. Traces of an apron (or bib—M. K.) in the form of numerous decorations and

Kreinovich states as an indisputable fact that the Tungus population arrived in the extreme north much later than the Yukagir (Kreinovich 1958:246). Long contacts led to many Tungus clans becoming Yukagirized, a fact noted by Jochelson (1910). While Tungus clans began to speak the

106

An Ethnic Identification of the Late Neolithic Complexes in Western Chukotka amulets were found in Glazkovo burials of Cis-Baikal and in a burial of the early Bronze Age of Ichchilyakh on the lower Lena River (Okladnikov 1946:95–97; 1955b:162– 165).

There are different opinions concerning the dress of the Yukagir, who by the eighteenth-nineteenth centuries A.D. adopted the dress of a newly arrived (Russian) population. Jochelson, who at the end of the nineteenth centurybeginning of the twentieth century studied the way of life of the Kolyma and Alazeia Yukagir, suggested that up to the arrival of the Lamut (Even) in the polar region among the Yukagir there existed dress of the pullover ChukchiKoryak style (see above). L. N. Zhukova, who has studied the Yukagir culture, also believes that the early Yukagir had pullover dress, which, in her opinion, was distinctive to the Ural-speaking tribes of northern Eurasia (Zhukova 1996a:12, 98; 1999). This premise is contradicted by the archaeological data: Convincing evidence (see above) of cloak-like dress is found not only among the Glazkovo people, recognized (after long argument) as proto-Yukagir by Okladnikov and Levin, as well as by E. V. Shavkunov (1990) who has studied the ethnogenesis of the Tungus; materials from Ymyyakhtakh burials (especially from Ichchilyakh) are interpreted as belonging to the ancestors of the modern Yukagir (Everstov 1999b:60).

Okladnikov (1955b:8, 9) was initially inclined to see the ancestors of the modern Tungus in an Eneolithic site of Cis-Baikal. As evidence for arguing his case, he compared such ethnographic material as a description of the clothing of the Evenk with clothing from Glazkovo burials. Levin, constructing a logical system of evidence, believed this specific element of early culture belonged to a preSamoyed, Paleo-Asiatic (“Yukagir”) population of the Sayan-Altai Plateau, which was assimilated by Samoyed people advancing from the Sayan Mountains, who also took up this element of culture (Levin 1958:181). Levin viewed the presence of the bib in shamanic vestments of the Enets, Nganasan, Sel’kup, and Ket, and its absence in the daily dress among these peoples as confirming the antiquity and archaicness of this element of dress among the peoples (Levin 1958:189). He points out the Nganasan male parka (clothing of a pullover nature), on the front of which a bib is embroidered in the form of a decoration reminiscent of a bib of the Tungus type, as evidence of cloak-like attire with a bib among the Nganasan in the past (Levin 1958:189). Levin is inclined to see in the modern Nganasan parka a modification of cloak-like dress of the early “Yukagir” stratum that participated in the Nganasan ethnogenesis. He connects this modification from cloak-like dress to pullover dress connects with the movement of the ancestors of the Nganasan in the tundra (Levin 1958:191). We agree with Levin’s conclusions concerning the existence of cloak-like dress among the Yukagir in the past, when they were residents of the taiga. Dress of pedestrian hunters, who led a mobile form of life, covering great distances on skis, could only be cloak-like. Pullover dress was not suitable for this way of life (Levin 1958:190).

B. O. Dolgikh cites a characteristic detail of female Nganasan dress—overalls without sleeves or back, which is noted also among the modern Yukagir (Yukagiry, 1975). These are basically trousers with an apron sewn to them and decorated in front by every kind of metal pendant—forged copper and steel rings, a fire striker, a large tin or copper pipe with embroidered tobacco pouch, bells, and every kind of gewgaw (Dolgikh 1952:76). The set of metal objects on the apron is identical among the Nganasan and Yukagir. It is easy to see that the sewn-on garlands of rings, half moons, and disks have lost their former semantics in our time. The number of shining and jingling objects on the apron has increased. They have become simply decorations and are worn, in all probability, for the satisfaction of esthetic needs. In the end of the nineteenth-beginning of the twentieth centuries these objects preserved their symbolism on shamans’ costumes (Gracheva 1983; Popov 1984). The manner of decorating the apron with objects of a certain form and certain assignment (in the past) made it possible to trace the tradition described by Jochelson (1910), possibly following its roots back to Glazkovo times. Also, perhaps a Late Neolithic and early Bronze Age stratum in Yakutia (for example, the Ichchilyakh burial) can be evidence of continuity, connecting synchronic cultures east of the Kolyma River.

Levin questions Jochelson’s assumption that in the past the Yukagir had pullover clothing of the “Paleo-Asiatic” type, considering this opinion unsubstantiated. In our view, Jochelson’s proposal is admissible, with reservations regarding the dress of the Tundra Yukagir, who in the distant past were in contact with the Chukchi-Koryak population on the periphery of settlement of the Yukagir tribes. In this zone they could also have adopted the means of transportation (sledges) and the dress of the native population of the Arctic. It is fully admissible that movement of the Yukagir into the tundra zone of the extreme Northeastern Siberia was also connected with a changing form of dress— from cloak-like to pullover, borrowed by them from the aboriginals of this region. We can suppose that the Chuvan, Khodyn, and Anaul had clothing of the Chukchi-Koryak type. The Taiga Yukagir of the Kolyma, Bol’shoi Anyui, Malyi Anyui, and Omolon rivers were able to preserve the traditional type of cloak-like dress.

It is necessary to dwell in more detail on the genetic closeness of the Yukagir and Nganasan inasmuch as these peoples preserved archaic features in the material and spiritual culture that are directly connected with the Late Neolithic and early Bronze Age of Cis-Baikal, Yakutia, and Chukotka. In the most conservative view, these features are preserved in burial ceremonies of Late Neolithic and early Bronze Age archaeological sites in these territories.

We believe that clothing emerges as an important ethnic determinant, being an identifier of a people who preserved its traditional culture.

Physical anthropologists who have investigated the modern Yukagir and Nganasan people have noted great similarity in their racial types, thinking that at their base lay one

107

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka initial form. Analysis of the physical anthropological data of these series made it possible to suppose even a larger connection of physical types of the Yukagir and Nganasan in the past, when they developed a rather uniform physical anthropological group connected with the early population of the inter-Yenisei-Lena region (Yukagiry, 1975).

Studying the archaeological material from Late Neolithic and early Bronze Age burials of Yakutia, which belong to the Ymyyakhtakh culture, one notes such characteristic elements of the burial assemblage as anthropomorphic images of bone. Okladnikov places emphasis on them, drawing parallels from the Glazkovo burials at Ust’-Uda, at Bratskii Kamen’, and at Staryi Kachug (Okladnikov 1955a:143, 144; Figs. 43, 44). The finds of these images can be traced in the direction of Cis-Baikal—the middle course of the Lena River. An intermediate site is at a Late Neolithic burial on the Ilga River, where it flows into the Lena River. A recent find is on the middle Lena River basin, in a burial on the Kullaty River. Okladnikov, comparing the Glazkovo and Ymyyakhtakh sculptures, emphasizes the “full stylistic unity of all the images” (Okladnikov 1955a:286). In addition, he dwells on one characteristic detail—the modeling of the head: In most of the early sculptures a pointed head is emphasized. The image found at Bratskii Kamen’ in Burial No. 1 (Okladnikov 1955a:290; Fig. 141) was made on a large, slightly curved disk flaked from mammoth tusk. In the careful working of the head, the pointed projecting top was “carved on two slopes and ground to a luster” (Okladnikov 1955a:290; Fig. 141).

Dolgikh (1952:86) wrote about the Nganasan as descendants of an early Paleo-Asian population of northern Asia— Neolithic reindeer hunters. He viewed these aboriginal Paleo-Asiatics as the western periphery of the Yukagir, who spread, in his view, west from the Lena River and along the forest-tundra and tundra zone, perhaps as far as the Taz River in Western Siberia or farther (Dolgikh 1952:86). Dolgikh noted common archaic elements in the culture of the Yukagir and Nganasan: the wearing of amulets in the form of copper disks, which by some were called “pectoral sun,” by others “the evil spirit’s solar eye of good fortune,” as well as the custom of calling the parents by the name of the oldest child (Dolgikh 1952:77, 78). The Yukagir custom of removing muscle tissue from the bones of a deceased shaman was reflected in one of the Nganasan legends (Dolgikh 1952:77, 78). Dolgikh cites Khosun [who live in the Olenek River basin—R.B. & Y.K.] fawn traditions, in which the Mayat Samoyed who live near the sea are mentioned. They had arrow and spear heads of stone, moose antler, mammoth bone, and loon beaks. Long-haired Yungkebil Khosun, according to the legends, was their main character. The Dolgani on the Taimyr Peninsula call the northern lights yungkebil uota (“the fire of Yungkebil”), which is comparable to the Yakut name for this phenomenon—Yukagir uota (“Yukagir fire”). Dolgikh points out that the legends of the Avaam Nganasan refer to a people who live in the east near Chukoch [Chukchi—R.B. & Y.K.] and from whom their ancestors, the “Nya,” separated some time ago (Dolgikh 1952:82, 83).

Such pointed-headedness is observed on the Kullaty and Ust’-Ilga images (Okladnikov 1955a:144; 1955b:291, 292). The last two sculptures have a remarkable detail in common—a projection on the head in the form of a sharpened bump (on the second) and a pin-like projection (on the first). Such details are treated by Okladnikov as a method for fastening the image to clothing (Okladnikov 1955b:291). Another image (now executed in wood), from a Yukagir open-air burial (saiba) of the seventeenth-eighteenth centuries A.D., can be placed in this same series of pointedheaded little idols. We examined it in 1982 at an oxbow lake in the delta of the Yasachnaya River (a tributary of the Kolyma River). The image is like the preceding ones in its stylistic resolution, and in its study of the head, shoulders, body, and legs. Especially striking is its similarity with the image found in the burial at Bratskii Kamen’ (Okladnikov 1955a:Fig. 144): pointed-headed, slightly sloping shoulders, a hole-“navel” carved in the center, arms absent, but incisions made in the place where hands should be found; the legs are straight and separated from each other by a rectangular-oval hollow.

On the basis of these comparisons, Dolgikh concluded the undoubted existence of direct Yukagir-Nganasan ethnographic connections. He suggests that “what is common with the Yukagir and Nganasan, which is in the culture of other peoples of northern Siberia, also probably goes back to their Paleo-Asiatic Yukagir component” (Dolgikh 1952:80). G. N. Gracheva, studying the ethnocultural connections of the Nganasan, dwells on the term “Ngo,” which designates the supreme sacred essence (sky, spirit, shaman). Drawing parallels from other languages (Samoyed, Tungus, and Turkic), she concludes that this term’s greatest closeness is to the Yukagir form (Gracheva 1984).

The paired images found in the Glazkovo burials (Okladnikov 1955a:286; Figs. 139, 140), in Okladnikov’s opinion, were of different sexes (Okladnikov 1955a:290). Two anthropomorphic images (the second, fragmentary) were also found in the above-cited Yukagir burial. Judging by the hole and dot-like depressions made in them, the Yukagir figures can also be treated as images of different sexes, though the meaning of the depressions and holes is impossible to discern. Some of the holes, except the utilitarian ones made for suspending the broken figurine with sinew threads, were evidently connected with certain parts of the human body: two in the upper part of the head (in the brain region), one in the area of the nose (or mouth

Investigations by ethnographers permit comparing modern ethnic groups with the ancient population of certain territories and revealing cultural elements that have preserved common traditional features. We will attempt to trace in the Eneolithic of Cis-Baikal and the Late Neolithic and early Bronze Age of Yakutia and Chukotka some elements of ideology of the early and of the ethnographically surveyed population of these regions.

108

An Ethnic Identification of the Late Neolithic Complexes in Western Chukotka hole), two in the region of the heart, one in the area of the navel, and one in the groin region.

through millennia and a thousand kilometer distance paved the way to the Yakutian Late Neolithic and early Bronze Age burials and even farther to the east, to the Kolyma River, connecting them perhaps by a single ethnic thread.

Let us return to the detail in the early sculptures of pointedheadedness. Pointed-headed images are noted among most tribes of Siberia and the Russian Far East (Okladnikov 1955b:293): Nanai, Gilyak, Ulchi, Yukagir, and Kamchadal, as well as the Yugor and Samoyed. Drawing a parallel from modern wooden sculpture of Siberian peoples, Okladnikov connects this feature of pointed-headedness with traditional primitive methods of making wooden idols, “which had the form of upward-pointed stakes” (Okladnikov 1955b:295). I do not agree with this interpretation. In our view, pointedheadedness bears not an imitative character, but rather is reminiscent of very old customs and the ideas connected with them, which are found in the legends of some peoples about a pointed-headed ancestor.

In all probability, the cult of the ancestor is connected with the production of anthropomorphic idols. Anthropomorphic images, which were an integral part of the ceremonial dress of shamans among many peoples, are treated by researchers as receptacles for spirits, the patrons and protectors of shamans. This adherence of the spirit to the shaman is explained by their family relations (Okladnikov 1955b:303). Among the Evenk, for example, patrimonial protectors were zoomorphic images (moose, reindeer, bear), while their family and personal guardians were anthropomorphic (Anisimov 1950:30, 31). To memorialize their shamans the early Yukagir suspended images of human figures in trees near mountain caves, at the mouths of rivers, and close to hunting sites. These images were called “wooden men.” The Yukagir believed that in the wooden people, provided in honor of a shaman, lived the spirit of the deceased, and they addressed it as an ancestor (Jochelson 1975:165 ff.).

G. I. Pelikh describes a custom of the Khanty and Mansi in Western Siberia of placing in the forest pointed-headed idols, which they considered images of ancestors (Pelikh 1972:303). She describes mythological pointed-headed yungi (devils) with metal figurines of pointed-headed horsemen attached to the breast. In the past the Khanty called a metal figurine of a pointed-headed man on a horse ilan (spirit), which can descend from the heavens on a horse and go back up again. In the words of Khanty elders, such an ilan lies on the chest of another idol so it could quickly go up into the heavens (Pelikh 1972:304). In the stories of the Narym Khanty, ilani are “bogatyri with iron hides,”2 whom otherwise they called bogatyri “with the rubbed-off pate,” since, according to the legend, a man became like an ilan after a (female) shaman “rolled his head in childhood.” Pelikh presumes that these legends reflect some kind of early half-forgotten custom connected with the artificial deformation of the head (Pelikh 1972:304). There is also information on intentional deformation of the skull among the Nganasan. Gracheva (1983:109) mentions Nganasan female shamans’ graves containing deformed skulls.

The ideas of several peoples hold that the shaman’s head was a receptacle of spirit helpers. Being installed in the shaman’s head, the shaman’s ancestor thinks for him, governs him (Okladnikov 1955b:304). Therefore, they usually also fastened images of the spirit ancestor, or spirit protector, to the shaman’s headgear. Tungus shamans wore anthropomorphic images on their headgear (Okladnikov 1955b:304). On the hat that Nganasan shamans wear for the performance of shamanistic rituals for women in childbirth there was also an anthropomorphic image of the spirit-master of the hat (Popov 1984:131). Similar ideas, in all probability, existed in the Eneolithic population of Cis-Baikal: the small idol from the burial at Bratskii Kamen’ was a component part of the deceased’s headgear (Okladnikov 1955b:290).

The Yukagir also worshiped pointed-headed ancestors. They called one of the layers of the underworld the “land of the Yukagir original father with a pointed head,” which was also considered the head of evil spirits, and at that, the worst of them (Tugolukov 1979:113). The idea of a pointed-headed ancestor was preserved among the Yukagir in the custom of sewing kuratli—burial caps with a pointed top (Tugolukov 1979:92).

The Yukagir also allotted paramount significance to the head of the shaman, reflected in the ceremony of dismembering the shaman’s body after his death. The shaman’s dried bones and body tissues were separated into amulets—personal protectors of family members—while the head was left as a family deity (Jochelson 1975:163). The cutting up of the body of the shaman probably goes back to a legendary shamanistic ritual that existed among the Yakut, Buryat, and Tungus. It was carried out with the consecrating of the new shaman. Researchers believe that these rituals are part of initiation ceremonies (Devlet 1999:153). In the accounts of G. V. Ksenofontov, this procedure is guided by the spirits of the deceased shamans, the ancestors of the shaman being consecrated (Devlet 1999:152). The virtual procedures in the “dissection” of the shaman’s body that Devlet describes are identical to the real ones that took place among the Yukagir on the body of the deceased shaman.

Headgear with a pointed top is also noted among Evenk shamans (Ivanov 1954:154; Fig. 50). An anthropomorphic figure on the headgear of Evenk shamans, which personified the ancestor of a shaman, had a pointed head. Such a detail is interesting: The anthropomorphic pointed-headed figure on the cap of the Yenisei Evenk shaman, cited by S. V. Ivanov, was sewn with beads, the shape of the embroidery being reminiscent of a mushroom (Ivanov 1954:157; Fig. 51:7).

The sources of this ceremony possibly go back to the Neolithic and early Bronze Age. The ritual of the burial of the skull has been noted in a Neolithic burial on the Vilyui

Thus, small pointed-headed idols of the Glazkovo culture 2

Bogatyri are warrior-athlete-heros of Russian legends.—Eds.

109

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka River (Fedoseeva 1968:26) and in a Glazkovo burial in Podostrozhnoe (Okladnikov 1955b:317). Burials of skulls and decapitated skeletons are encountered in the Tomsk Region of Western Siberia (Pelikh 1972:117–119).

noted deep in the eye sockets of a burial of a single skull (Okladnikov 1955b:157, 318). This burial ceremony was reflected in the Yukagir custom of making a mask for the prepared shaman’s skull, in which holes were made for eyes and mouth (Jochelson 1934:180) or circles drawn in their place (Tugolukov 1979:117).

The Sel’kup custom of removing the head of the shaman after his death, according to Pelikh, is connected with ideas of the kedo, the soul of the tomb, which a simple mortal had to keep in the skull until it changed into a spider and crawled into the earth. Among shamans there were no such souls, according to Sel’kup ideas. The soul vanished upon its consecration into shamans, and devils (loz) ate and replaced it with kava-loz, which must not be kept in the skull, but rather must be destroyed. To do this, the Sel’kup separated the head from the deceased, put it in a copper kettle and incinerated or cooked it over a fire, after which they buried it in the ground (Pelikh 1972:117). In the same way, they dealt with people who had died a violent death: They cut the head off and buried it separately. In Sel’kup legends about the Kveli—a people once living on the Ob River who disappeared—there is a story of a whole cemetery of such heads (Pelikh 1972:115). Ritual burial of human skulls in Chukotka (the Sed’moi Prichal site—see Dikov 1961:34) possibly reflects analogous ideas and cults. The skull cult illuminates the appeal to a secret substance—human thought. The custom of removing and preserving the skulls of honored ancestors is known from the Middle Paleolithic. Until recently it existed in Oceania, Indonesia, and South America (Kabo 1984:56).

The custom of covering the face of the deceased with a mask with beads or small bone disks sewn in the place of the eyes is also noted among the Nganasan (Gracheva 1976:50). Masked anthropomorphic idols are also known among the Nganasan, as well as wooden masks or guises (Gracheva 1979). The ritual of making bear masks, unusual for the whole Siberian region, is noted in the ethnography of the Nganasan (Gracheva 1981). Masks were not made for the sake of temporary transformation of man, but rather to establish membership of the bearer of the mask in the sacred world. Gracheva describes two such masks in a shamanistic cult complex and interprets them, on the basis of Nganasan information, as shaman’s helpers—a female bear and bear cub. She supposes that this tradition was borrowed from the Tungus area or an earlier East Siberian (Paleo-Asiatic) ethnic community (Gracheva 1981). In her opinion, this ritual, not characteristic of the Samoyed circle, reflects the notion of the bear as ancestor. All Ural-Siberian peoples consider bears their totemic ancestor (Kosarev 1988:94). During the bear festival among the Ob River Ugrians they cooked and ate ritual parts of a slain bear—the head, heart, and paws. In addition, certain a ceremony was observed: The skull and hide were hung on a tree and the bones and canines were preserved as protectors or talismans (Kosarev 1988:91).

Another burial ritual was widespread in the Glazkovo burials, which Okladnikov did not note, that has an explanation in the burial customs of the Sel’kup, Nganasan, and Yukagir. As was mentioned, there existed among the Sel’kup the idea of the deceased’s soul (kedo), which had to be kept in the skull until it turns into a spider and crawls into the ground. Fear that the soul kedo might desert the body before it decayed forced the practice of covering the deceased’s mouth, nose, and eyes. Bone or metal plates were placed over the mouth and eyes, and bead plugs were put into the nose. Sometimes all these attributes were sewn onto material or hide and this mask placed on the face of the deceased. Pelikh (1972) gives an excellent description of such masks in Basandai kurgans.

In all probability, the cult of the bear-ancestor has deep roots. The presence of bear canines worn as amulets are noted in Glazkovo, Ymyyakhtakh, and Ust’-Belaya burials. Based on analysis of the cited materials, which attest to an ancestor cult, the similarity and long stability of certain elements of spiritual culture are reflected in the burial ceremonies of Eneolithic times and later burials in the region of the Tom’ River, Cis-Baikal, the middle and lower Lena River, the Kolyma River, and Chukotka. This similarity supports the concept of the formation and close contacts of the proto-Samoyed and proto-Yukagir population in the region between the Ob and Yenisei rivers, and marks the movement and distribution of the bearers of these cultural elements from the Cis-Baikal ethnocultural focus.

Interments can be seen in the Glazkovo burials in which marble and nephrite disks and mother-of-pearl beads were not the only decorations of headgear and clothing, as Okladnikov interprets this. Part of these decorations, in all probability, performed the function of covering the eyes and mouth, while a part of the pyrophyllite beads could have been nose plugs. The details shown in the illustrations of the burials point to this idea (Okladnikov 1955b:Figs. 62, 65). He believed that these decorations sometimes fell into the eye sockets after the headgear had decayed, or simply slipped from the forehead and from the crown (Okladnikov 1955b:318). In some burials only two disks (both in the eye sockets) were found: in burial No. 21 (one, a marble disk, the second, nephrite), and two copper plates were

Through sites of the Ymyyakhtakh culture that reveal material complexes analogous to the Glazkovo, we can conclude that the Western Chukotkan Late Neolithic (Rauchuvagytgyn I, Bol’shoi Nuteneut III) and Eastern Chukotkan Ust’-Belaya cemetery (late complex) belonged to the ethnic community that served as an outline for the Yukagir ethnic group, determining its ethnocultural stereotype.

110

An Ethnic Identification of the Late Neolithic Complexes in Western Chukotka burying the dead in the house under the hearth, and of a similar custom in Ket folklore (Popov 1976:64, 65). The charcoal of the hearth was considered sacred. The Nganasan carried a small bag with charcoal or ash from the home fire on their neck or put on the deceased (Gracheva 1983:122, 123). The bag was called simi, which means “charcoal” or “ashes.” On its front side they sewed a button or bright object as the “kou-sei” (“eye of the sun”), “fire heart” (“middle of the fire”), “day bed,” or “fire bed” (Gracheva 1983:40). They usually embroidered the small simi bag with multi-colored beads in concentric circles (Gracheva 1983:65). And if the bright object in the center symbolized the “sun eye” or the “heart of the fire,” the circle of beads itself could symbolize the hearth. They put the simi on the deceased so that the latter would not get lost on the road in the land of the dead. For these same purposes they sometimes used the so-called dyaly (“day”)—a round metal pendant, and put as many rings as possible on the hand (Gracheva 1983:66).

The presently small number of sources connected with the ethnographically reviewed Yukagir (anthropomorphic idols from saiba of the seventeenth-eighteenth centuries A.D., information about the small peaked burial caps of the Yukagir, the ceremony of dismemberment of the body of the shaman recorded at the end of the nineteenth century, and the cult of his head) point to a long ethnic memory of archaic elements of spiritual culture, the roots of which go back into the distant Eneolithic period. We will dwell on certain elements of the spiritual culture, the sources of which can be seen in the same Eneolithic burials of Cis-Baikal, the middle and lower Lena River, and continental Chukotka. On the disks or plates covering the mouth or imitating eyes in the burial masks, a design of concentric circles was applied or in the center of a circle a bead was sewn—in both cases the design was of the “eye” or circular type (Gracheva 1976; Pelikh 1972:Pl. XXXII, Fig. 21; Popov 1984:125, 128, Fig. 8; Vasil’evskii 1971:134).

Concerning the symbolism of the hearth, I. S. Gurvich’s observation, made in the Shmidt area of Chukotka, is interesting. On the outside of the yaranga three small illustrations were noted—the silhouettes of two reindeer and a dog, and on the ground in front of these images was a circle of stones. The images were made because a child in the camp had drowned. The grandmother of the drowned child drew these illustrations, which symbolize the sacrifice, and laid out the hearth, “which symbolized the funeral fire” (Gurvich 1977:84).

The sources of this symbol are clearly marked in Glazkovo burials. The industry of nephrite disks, rings, and plates, as well as flat mother-of-pearl beads with a hole in the middle, was in all probability part of the idea of the “eye” design, which also appeared in bone items of the Glazkovo people (Okladnikov 1955b:Fig. 138:2). G. M. Pelikh, studying circular design in early Sel’kup culture, believes its characteristic feature is the ethnic component B, which, in her opinion, “was a part not just of the Sel’kup ethnic community, but perhaps also can be distinguished in the cultures of other peoples of Siberia” (Pelikh 1972:135).

The Chukotkan illustrations described by Gurvich belong to a class of votives. In this case, substitutes are presented for the original objects. This practice has been noted by ethnographers among many Siberian peoples. In several religious cults in the Sayan-Altai region a sacrificial animal was replaced by a figurine made of flour or carved from wood, birch bark, or other materials (D’yakonova 1984:37).

The treatment of copper and bronze disks on the apron of the Yukagir and Tungus as a solar symbol is generally accepted (Jochelson 1910:Ch. XXII; Okladnikov 1955b:151). Evidently, the circular design was connected with the cult of the sun, though in the art of the Amur peoples “a simple design of concentric circles” represents the snake (Derevianko 1981:181, Fig. 37).

The nephrite rings of the Glazkovo people, disks with concentric grooves, bracelets of mother-of-pearl beads, and small marble plates evidently bore the same semantic assignment as did such symbols among the Nganasan and metal breast disks and sleeves framed by rows of beads on the kaftan among the Yukagir and Even. Glazkovo decorations are characterized by the use of only white nephrite, while tools found in Glazkovo graves were made of green nephrite (Okladnikov 1955b:269).

Such a design can also symbolize a “small sun”—the domestic hearth giving light and warmth. G. N. Gracheva describes the Nganasan ideas about the hearth, the fire of the hearth, and the custom connected with them of bearing the symbol of the hearth or any part of it. On the basis of folkloric data, Gracheva supposes that in the past among the ancestors of the Nganasan there existed the ceremony of cremation at the hearth of certain individuals, possibly the owners of the house (Gracheva 1983:122). The Nganasan considered the fire of the hearth the patron of the family (Gracheva 1983:122). There is evidence that the body of a pup was buried under the hearth as a sacrifice to the fire of the tent. At the hearth, the shaman asked for power for the performance of shamanistic rituals. According to the ideas of the Nganasan shamans, the dead disappear under the earth through an imaginary hole under the hearth (Gracheva 1983:122). A. A. Popov cites the early Saami custom of

Nephrite rings and disks have also been noted in burials of the Ymyyakhtakh culture on the Lena River (in the Ilgin and Kullaty cemeteries), in which small pointed-headed sculptures were also present (Okladnikov 1955b:189). Mother-of-pearl beads, besides in the Glazkovo cemeteries, have been found in an Ichchilyakh burial on the lower Lena River where, on the basis of their location, they were connected with a “Tungus” apron (Levin 1958:191). A large part of the beads (a total of 18,000 were found) from the Rodin burial on the lower Kolyma River evidently served as decoration for an apron (Kistenev 1990:13). Fragments of small mother-of-pearl disks were found in the burial of

111

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka a skull on the Vilyui River (Fedoseeva 1980:132, 133), at the sacrificial place of Suruktaakh-Khaya (Okladnikov 1955a:143). They are also present, along with a nephrite ring, at the Ust’-Belaya cemetery in Chukotka (Dikov 2004:116).

fastened not to felled trunks of trees, but rather between four trunks that served as its lateral supports, three of which were cut off at the height of a man. It was mounted on strong roots of a living tree that protruded above the ground. The burial was oriented along the river, the head downstream. The burial appeared disturbed and, judging by the scraps of clothing that lay about on the ground, partially robbed. Based on the decayed features of the clothing and strips sewn with beads, it can be judged that this was a kaftan of the Tungus type, which Even women wear as festive dress even now.

Decoration of concentric circles was widespread both in time (from the Eneolithic to the Remnant Neolithic) and in space (from Cis-Baikal proceeding in a northeastern direction to Chukotka). Such decoration can be seen in the Glazkovo culture on a needle case from the Fofanovo cemetery (Okladnikov 1955b:278), on the bone facing of a scabbard found in the cemetery of Tepsei VII on the Yenisei (Pshenitsyna et al. 1978:274, 275), and it is characteristic for bone items at the Burulgino site (Fedoseeva 1980:201). The “eye” design is present on bone artifacts of the Old Bering Sea people (Okladnikov 1955b:284). S. A. Arutiunov believes the Burulgino figures served as a prototype for the Old Bering Sea decoration (“circles with a dot in the center, joined by curved shaded lines”) (Aleksandrov et al. 1982:87; Arutiunov 1983). This design is also recorded for the Vakarevo (Yukagir) ceramics of the fifteenth century A.D. in Chukotka (Okladnikov and Nekrasov 1960). Decoration in the form of a circle with a dot was widespread among the Even. It was present on the clothing and on the back of the shaman’s mitten, embroidered on the back part of a child’s cradle (Popova 1981:180, 181), included as a basic element in the design that decorated the festive (and burial) kaftan, and covered bone needle cases (see the collection at the Magadan Regional Museum). The Yukagir decorated mittens with such design (Zhukova 1996a).

Of the burial assemblage, a scoop cut from a deciduous burl, a small cut-out board, and a short wooden staff with transverse hatching along one side were preserved. In the literature there are no descriptions of a saiba as a burial chamber, but upon comparison with a half tumbled down burial on the Yasachnaya River (see above) the structure here is analogous to the one at Bobryan and indicates a rather stable tradition. It differs from the saiba on the Yasachnaya River by having a different selection and limited assortment of assemblage. Visual examination of this structure provides reasons for the name of Yukagir burial chambers. Finding analogies for the Yukagir words in the Mongolian language, E. A. Kreinovich cites as parallels the words: savvan (“trough”—Yukagir), sav (“dishes”— Mongolian), saba (“dishes”—Buryat) (Kreinovich 1958:224). It is possible that a trough-shaped bed also served as a basis for the name of the whole burial chamber. The second burial is analogous in structure to the first: the exterior facing was made from logs pointed on the ends, tightly laid between two growing trees, on their protruding roots. The orientation was the same, along the river, head downstream. The burial chamber was somewhat different from the first: the lateral walls were obtained by trimming the logs, and the bottom and cover were hewn in the form of boards. It is reminiscent in plan of a Russian coffin. The deceased’s body and head were wrapped up in a reindeer hide (a tent cover). Above the reindeer hide, on the right along the walls, a compound bow of Yukagir type (an imitation in natural size) and a quiver with iron and bone arrows had been placed. The clothing and traces of its decoration were not preserved. The forehead part of the headgear with decoration was preserved. In the burial assemblage can be seen Russian influence (a small cross worn under the shirt, a small silver (?) bell, which decorated in all probability the bottom of the clothing, and a firestriker with a chalcedony flint).

The most archaic elements in the culture of the ethnic group are preserved in burial ceremonies, burial dress, and the makeup of the burial assemblage. Therefore, the temporal parallels are interesting in light of the questions raised by research. Ethnographic works on Northeastern Siberia reveal two types of air burials for the Yukagir: in wooden-box frameworks (saiba—Yukagir) that were attached to the trunks of trees cut off above the ground, and in a boat. Burials in saiba have been noted in the forest and foresttundra zones; burials in boats, in the tundra. Saiba, as rarely preserved structures on the Sukhoi (Malyi) Anyui River in Chukotka, are mentioned by members of the expedition headed by F. P. Wrangell in 1820–1824 (Wrangell 1948). These burials scarcely survive to the present: they were either destroyed with time (they had been noted as early as 1821 by members of the expedition) or were disturbed, and in essence destroyed, like the saiba we managed to find on the Yasachnaya River. On the upper reaches of the Omolon River we discovered two such structures, but rather late ones (end of the nineteenth–beginning of the twentieth centuries A.D.). The first (on the Russkaya River) is a box made of logs sharpened toward the ends and not of uniform length. The deceased female had been placed in the trough-like depression cut out of a single trunk. Above it was a cover of logs and slabs in three rows. The box was constructed so that the round side of the trunks in all the structural features were turned outward. The structure was

The deceased hunter was Yukagir or Yukagirized Tungus in origin, which was confirmed by the ceremony of the burial (the construction of a type of saiba), the orientation, the presence of a Yukagir bow, and the remains of the decorations that were preserved on the quiver and the cap. The custom of rolling the deceased up in a reindeer hide existed among the Tundra Yukagir. The construction by the Yukagir of a wooden burial chamber and the ceremony of an air burial confirm their closeness to a certain circle of Siberian peoples—the Ugrians and Samoyeds (Gracheva

112

An Ethnic Identification of the Late Neolithic Complexes in Western Chukotka 1976:Fig. 1)—excluding closeness to Paleo-Asiatics proper, the Chukchi and Koryak, who cremated their dead, and the Itel’men, who practiced air burial in trees in the past. There is one characteristic detail among the above-described two Omolon River burials: small blazes on two sides of the logs that made up the facing. In this custom and in the orientation of the deceased are echos of distant times, when the dead were buried in a boat.

the presence of a multitude of mother-of-pearl shell beads, and the remains of a birch bark cover, possibly a birch bark boat or bed imitating a boat (Kistenev 1980:15), in the accompanying assemblage. Analyzing the burial, the researcher finds much in common with the Oleny Ostrov cemetery in Lake Onega in northwest European Russia (Kistenev 1980:15). The cultural similarity of the tribes of northwestern Russia and Yakutia in the Bronze and Early Iron Ages is revealed from several standpoints: the orientation of the burial, the burial ritual, the makeup of the stone and bone assemblage, its ornamentation (methods and motifs), and the ceramics. Indisputable dominance of the Glazkovo culture of CisBaikal is noted in the cultural interactions of the named tribes (Okladnikov 1955a:170, 171).

Burial in a boat is the second type of Yukagir interment. Based on description, the custom consisted of several features: A coffin was made from a dugout, the personal boat of the deceased. The dugout was sawed transversely, and the deceased, wrapped up in a reindeer skin, was put in one half and covered with the other half. Then the boards were joined with wooden nails. Finally, people took the coffin on a sledge and sacrificed reindeer, after which the bones and skins of the sacrificed animals and the clothing of the deceased were burned (Yukagiry, 1975:76, 77).

One cannot help but note also the similarity of the Rodin burial to the burials of the Anan’ino culture in the Kama River basin, Cis-Urals (eighth to third centuries B.C.), not only in the burial ceremony, but also in the specific features of the decorative inventory and ceramics of the Anan’ino peoples (Kistenev 1980:74–87; Zbrueva 1954:101, Fig. 10; 125, Figs. 2–4).

We find a combination of both burial ceremonies cited above among those of the Sel’kup in component B. The Sel’kup ceremony was carried out in two stages: First, a wooden burial chamber was constructed in the grave (between posts, driven into the corners, and earthen walls they placed logs—whole or split in half—with the rounded side toward the earth); in it the dugout boat, sawed in two, was placed. Next the deceased was placed in one half and covered with the other. Sometimes the boat was replaced by a birch bark cover. The bottom of the grave was covered by flat stones. They placed a wooden nail (or clay imitation) in the grave following a certain procedure (Pelikh 1972:66, 67). In comparing these ceremonies among the Yukagir and the Sel’kup the analogies become clear. It is remarkable that the two different burial ceremonies of the Yukagir (in a wooden structure and in a boat) are combined in one among the Sel’kup.

Okladnikov connects the appearance of the burial ritual— interment of the deceased in a boat or its stone likeness— with the idea of a subterranean world, into which the river of the dead leads. In his opinion, the burial chamber and the deceased’s accompanying assemblage reflected the dependence of the Glazkovo on rivers. The burial’s orientation with regard to the river also indicated this dependence (Okladnikov 1955b:328). Also connected with a way of life on rivers were Yukagir, Nganasan, and Evenk ideas about a subterranean river of the dead, at the mouth of which was the land of the dead (Anisimov 1936:105, Fig. 5; Gracheva 1983:76; Jochelson 1900:112).

Burial in a dugout boat has also been noted in the past among the Dolgan. The Khanty interred people up to the nineteenth century A.D. in coffins made from a boat, from which they had cut the bow and stern (Okladnikov 1955b:237). This custom is found among some groups of the Evenk (Gracheva 1971:256, 259).

In the Glazkovo culture are methods of burial that can be considered exceptional, which took place among the Nganasan, Sel’kup, and Yukagir in later times. One such method is burial of the deceased in a sitting position. This method is noted as a special type of subsurface burial among the Sel’kup (Pelikh 1972:69, 70). Sitting burials in the ground and in trees have been observed among the Nganasan (Gracheva 1983:113, 114). They have also been found in the lower Amur River basin region (Pelikh 1972:143). In Chukotka this type of burial is noted in the late Eskimo cemetery of Yandogai (No. 4) (Dikov 2003:149). Analogous burials are also encountered among the Aleuts, Eskimo, and Indians (Okladnikov 1955b:316).

Analogies to the Glazkovo culture can be found in the above-described Sel’kup burial ceremony. The custom of the Sel’kup to place stone slabs on the bottom of the grave was, in all probability, preserved in ethnic memory from the distant time, when stone burial canoes were constructed, which were also noted in Glazkovo burials. The remains of the birch bark cover for the deceased were also preserved in some burials of the Glazkovo peoples. The burial chamber itself, laid with stone slabs, is reminiscent of a dugout boat (Gracheva 1971:307).

Gracheva explains the sitting burial as the desire to create a circumstance for the deceased in which it is possible to restore his living forces (Gracheva 1983:119). Among the Yukagir, as also among the Nganasan, was the custom of leaving the deceased in the house in a sitting position for several days before the burial (Yukagiry, 1975:88). In that

Several features of the Rodin burial from the Ymyyakhtakh times, discovered on the lower reaches of the Kolyma River, find analogies in Glazkovo burials (Kistenev 1980). Similar are the orientation of the deceased with the head downriver, placement on the back, the presence of ocher,

113

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka Nganasan were hunters. Thus, in one of the Yukagir burials (?), together with a wooden fish-like lure (?), a spear was found (Tugolukov 1979:65). The Yukagir treated the river with the blood of a wild reindeer (Jochelson 1900:122). We found a set of hunting arrows in the saiba we examined on the Yasachnaya River as well as in the late Yukagir burial on the Omolon River. Among the Nganasan, hunting and fishing patrons were transported on the same sledge. They were smeared or cured with the blood or marrow of a slaughtered wild reindeer for a successful hunt (Popov 1984:67).

researcher’s opinion, leaving the deceased in the house together with the living led to the custom of separating the flesh of the deceased from the bones (Gracheva 1983:121), which occurred among the Yukagir and Nganasan. In this custom the Yukagir dismembered the body of a man of special status in the clan—the shaman. Ethnographers connect the sitting burial among some peoples with a certain circle of persons, in particular with shamans (Okladnikov 1955b:316; Pelikh 1972:70). In the Amur River basin twins and the mother of twins were buried in such a way among the Gilyak and Ul’chi, since they were ascribed as creatures of supernatural origin (Okladnikov 1955b:312, 313).

In the Glazkovo culture, which reflects the life of forest hunters and fishermen, the dog played a significant role, the ritual burial of which has been discovered on the Angara River (Okladnikov 1955b:301, 302). The dog cult, connected with the burial of this animal, has been recorded on the Vilyui River (Fedoseeva 1968:40). The bones of a dog were also found at the Ust’-Belaya cemetery in Chukotka and ritual burial of the animal’s skull was noted. The latter was accompanied by the cremated remains of the body (Dikov 2003:126). Bones of a dog were also found during excavations at the Chikaevo site on the Anadyr’ River (Dikov 2003:128). This site belonged to the Vakarevo culture and is interpreted as Yukagir (Dikov 2004:188). The Yukagir, as is well known, were dog breeders. They used dogs for traction. Only the Yukagir of the Northeast PaleoAsiatics characteristically hunted moose or reindeer on a thin snow crust with a dog. They also hunted fox with the aid of a dog (Jochelson 1910:Ch. XIX, XXI). Such hunting is reflected in the Pegtymel’ petroglyphs (Dikov 1999). The dog had a large role in the cult of the Yukagir: they sacrificed the animal and placed it by the shaman (Dolgikh 1952:79). The entrance into the land of the dead, according to the Yukagir, was guarded by an old woman with a dog (Jochelson 1900:114). Dogs played the same role in the lives of the Nganasan, who sacrificed them. At the festival of the “clean tent,” the poles of this tent were covered with the blood of the slain animal. There was also a dog god among the Nganasan (Dolgikh 1952:79).

Besides the sitting method of burial (Okladnikov 1955b:311, 312), the method of prone burial is also exceptional in the Glazkovo culture (Okladnikov 1955b:316), and found also among the Nganasan (Gracheva 1983:116) and the Yukagir. Jochelson cites Yukagir legends about “eating shaman,” that is, shamans who devoured people (Jochelson 1975:193). They buried such shamans lying face down, “so as to prevent him from doing harm after death” (Jochelson 1975:193). The Buryat also buried evil shamans face down (Okladnikov 1955b:317). Among the Tungus such ceremony is noted in relation to suicides (Okladnikov 1955b:317). These specific methods of burial of the deceased, noted in a limited circle of peoples in ethnographic times, extend through their roots back into the Eneolithic period, which can be clearly traced in materials from Glazkovo burials. The ethnography of the Yukagir, Nganasan, and Sel’kup reveal traditional features of economic type that they inherited from Late Neolithic and early Bronze Age predecessors. The river played a significant role in the lives of these peoples, as reflected in the ceremonies described above and in certain cults. Among the Yukagir, spirits—masters of rivers—were treated with special esteem (Yukagiry, 1975:51). In Yukagir mythology, of the three chief spirits-masters that were worshiped as supreme, one that received first place was the Master of Fresh Water, to whom all river and lake spiritsmasters were subordinate (Anisimov 1969:85). Among the Yukagir an image of a fish decorated with engraving or inlay was used as an amulet against illness of the stomach, during childbirth, and so on (Jochelson 1910:Ch. XXI:10). Images of spirits in the form of fish are also noted among the Nganasan, iron or wooden amulets kept in cases made of whole fish skins (Popov 1984:67). Fishing also played a large role among the Sel’kup, judging by the size of villages on the shores of fishing streams and lakes, the numerous finds of harpoon heads, and the stone figurines of fish in burials (Pelikh 1972:122).

Rarely encountered archaeological material—bone armor plates—point to a definite connection of the Late Neolithic and early Bronze Age population of Yakutia, traced in later sites of Chukotka, with the Glazkovo culture. Four such pieces of early armor were found in Yakutia at the Burulgino site (Fedoseeva 1980:132, 135). Similar pieces of bone armor were noted in the Pegtymel’ cave in Chukotka (the site is dated to the fifth century A.D.) (Dikov 2003:143). An armor plate was found on the Okhotsk Sea coast by R. S. Vasil’evskii. Interpreting this find, he supposes that the center of distribution of armor could have been Cis-Baikal, where “rectangular bone plates of composite armor just like North Asian and North American” were found in sites of Glazkovo times (Vasil’evskii 1971:170). Based on the researcher’s assumption, it was from the Cis-Baikal area that composite armor spread into the Lena and Kolyma River basins, and then arrived through the Yukagir onto the Okhotsk Sea coast, into Chukotka, and finally, into North America (Vasil’evskii 1971:171). Indirect support for this

Harpoons, fish hooks, and images of fish-like lures are found in the material complex of the Glazkovo people, indicating that fishing was one of the leading modes among these Eneolithic tribes (Okladnikov 1955b:77). At the same time, evidence suggests that the Yukagir and

114

An Ethnic Identification of the Late Neolithic Complexes in Western Chukotka proposal is the appearance of long three- and four-sided arrows and compound bows on the Okhotsk Sea coast noted along with the armor. This fighting equipment also was used among the Yukagir in early historic times (Vasil’evskii 1971).

of the Tungus cannot satisfactorily explain their genetic relationship with other peoples of the Altaic linguistic community. Arguing for the Trans-Baikal-Amur River basin version of the origin of the Tungus, he believes that the ancestors of the Altai people, including the Tungus, are the bearers of the Karasuk culture (Shavkunov 1990:172–173).

The Yukagir can also be connected with the Pegtymel’ armor plate found in the cave with two types of petroglyphs in the form of graffiti and pecked silhouette images of reindeer, dogs, and anthropomorphic figures (Dikov 2003:143).

During the period of expansion, the advance guard of the Karasuk-proto-Tungus people (the Shavkunov version—M. K.) moved into Cis-Baikal, and being in an unaccustomed geographic environment, not suited to the requirements of nomadic stock breeders, they took up the form of life that the local tribes led, that is, according to Levin, the early Yukagir.

The presence of bone plates as military armor in Old Bering Sea Burials 130 and 204 at the Ekven cemetery is evidently explained as influence from an inland culture of reindeer hunters (Arutiunov and Sergeev 1983:213). These burials belong, in the words of the researchers, “to the period of classic Old Bering Sea” (Arutiunov and Sergeev 1983:226). Convincing data supporting genetic connections of the early Bronze Age Ust’-Belaya culture and Old Bering Sea is cited by Dikov (1972:114, 115). Analogies to the Ekven elements of armor have been noted in the Glazkovo culture (Okladnikov 1955b:252). Armor plates found in Cis-Baikal are considered by Okladnikov as the earliest samples of North Asian bone armor (Okladnikov 1955b:252).

During the process of contact with the aboriginal population, the proto-Tungus borrowed from the early Yukagir not only the types of hunting and fishing equipment and certain work skills, but also the types of dwellings, kind of dress, and world view connected with them. Becoming mixed with the Paleo-Asiatic (the early Yukagir—M. K.) population, the proto-Tungus acquired features of the Baikal anthropological type characteristic for the Paleo-Asiatics of Siberia, and many new words penetrated into their vocabulary. At the same time, they managed to preserve some features of Karasuk culture characteristic for them in the past (Shavkunov 1990:172–173).

According to ethnographic data, armor was used among the early Sel’kup. Legends tell of the Kveli, a people who wore clothing in the form of fish scales (Pelikh 1972:128). The latter is confirmed by the find of antler armor in the area of the Kveli-Kup culture (Pelikh 1972:129).

Drawing on various sources, Shavkunov logically and reasonably forms his hypothesis concerning the origin of the peoples, in whose ethnogenesis the Karasuk culture took part. He believes that part of the Karasuk people, who set off to the west, interacted with Iranian tribes, forming a foundation on which the pre-Turkic linguistic community was developed. The Karasuk people, who were in Mongolia and neighboring territories, assimilated the early Nivkh and became the substrate for the formation of the protoMongols. And finally, according to his theory, the Karasuk people forced into the taiga regions of Eastern Siberia, who mixed with the local Paleo-Asiatic tribes, including the early Yukagir, established the beginning of the formation of the proto-Tungus tribes.

According to Yukagir traditions, an early Yukagir warrior wore armor made from the rings of reindeer antlers sewn to a moose hide over his usual dress (Jochelson 1910:Ch. XXI:18). The history of bone armor is elucidated in detail in the works of Okladnikov (1955b:Ch. V). The data examined above, which reflect the type of economy, material culture, beliefs, and cults of the Eneolithic population of Cis-Baikal, in comparison with ethnographic materials of such peoples as the Nganasan and Yukagir, can probably be assigned to a single ethnic community that became separated from the Glazkovo culture, the latter having participated in the ethnogenesis of the Nganasan and Yukagir.

The hypothesis worked out by Shavkunov and developed on data from archaeology, physical anthropology, linguistics, and ethnography substantiates the origin of the various peoples, in whose ethnogenesis the Karasuk tribes participated. At the same time, it answers several questions regarding the ethnogenesis of the Yukagir and their original homeland. In Shavkunov’s research, elements of material and spiritual culture borrowed by the ancestors of the Tungus from the proto-Yukagir have been preserved up to the present among the Even, in whose ethnogenesis the Evenk (Tungus) and Yukagir participated and who were later assimilated by the Even.

The investigations of E. V. Shavkunov, who touches upon the problem of the origin of the Tungus, shed light on the ethnogenesis of the Yukagir. Analyzing the debate between Okladnikov and Levin concerning the initial place of habitation of the ancestors of the Tungus, Shavkunov, following Levin, poses the question: Using the Cis-Baikal version proposed by Okladnikov, how can one explain the genetic relationship of the Tungus languages with Turkic and Mongol, “which in itself presupposes the existence of a cultural-historical community of bearers of these languages” (Shavkunov 1990:171).

Later works by Yakutian archaeologists, ethnographers, and linguists touch upon the ethnic interpretation of the Neolithic cultures of Yakutia, in particular, the Ymyyakhtakh culture.

In Shavkunov’s opinion, the Cis-Baikal model of the origin

115

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka Supporters of autochthonous development of all the Neolithic cultures from a local (Sumnagin) base suggests that, up to the appearance of the Tungus tribes in eastern Siberia, the population remained for the most part protoYukagir, Ural-speaking (Zhukova 2003).

Archaeological materials obtained in Chukotka allowed Dikov to propose close genetic connections of the Ust’Belaya culture with that of Old Bering Sea, and on the coast of Alaska, with the cultures of Okvik, Norton, and possibly Ipiutak (Dikov 1972:115, 116), having emphasized the priority of Asian sources in the Old Bering Sea culture in comparison with American ones (Dikov 1972:115). These connections are supported by the complex from the Ust’-Belaya culture, which has analogies in Old Bering Sea. Connections include arrowheads that are leaf-shaped, rhomboid unifacially worked, triangular (of varying width-height indices) with straight, as well as symmetrically concave and asymmetrically concave bases, points from partially retouched knife-like bladelets, stemmed points from partially retouched flakes, bifacially retouched rectangular insets from knife-like bladelets, knives of triangular and “curved” form, scrapers on flakes, combination scraping instruments, polyhedral burins with short retouched haft, bone foreshaft for arrowheads, and a toggling single-hole harpoon (Dikov 1972:115).

A new look at the ethnogenesis of the Yukagir has been formulated by A. D. Stepanov. Though he does not reject the Ymyyakhtakh culture as one of the early components of the proto-Yukagir, he considers it ethnically Paleo-Asiatic. In the second (early) component of Yukagir ethnos (the Glazkovo culture) he sees a Ural base. In his opinion, the bearers of the Early Iron Age culture of Yakutia (the Ural-speaking component) participated directly in the development of the Yukagir. This component emerged in an assimilative relation with the Paleo-Asiatics—the Ust’Mil’ people and descendants of the Ymyyakhtakh people. Through this ethnic mosaic the researcher explains the multitude of tribal and clan subdivisions of the Yukagir noted in written sources of the seventeenth century A.D., while he considers the dialects of the different Yukagir groups in the vast territory of Northeast Asia (from the Lena River to the Anadyr’) independent languages, “which a large family of closely related peoples spoke.” Stepanov substantiates this conclusion through linguistic investigations (Kreinovich 1958; Kurilov 2001) and analysis of the ceramics of the named cultures (Stepanov 2004:150). This conclusion is most probably closest to correct.

The archaeological materials we obtained from Western Chukotka offer direct evidence of close contacts between nomadic interior reindeer hunters and the coastal residents of the extreme north. At the sites of Tytyl’ V and Rauchuvagytgyn I, besides the analogous stone assemblage, plates of baleen were found. At the sites of Rauchuvagytgyn I and Tytyl’ IV (Locus 1) small plastic art and graphics were discovered that embodied the image of the master of the Arctic—the polar bear (Kiryak 2002).

When dwelling on questions of the ethnogenesis of the Yukagir, one cannot help but be concerned with the problem of the early ethnic connections between Asia and America. The possibility of direct influence of interior Asian Bronze Age tribes on the culture of the coastal population of Chukotka was first expressed by Okladnikov (1955a:175). Based upon materials from sites and what was known of the early Eskimo culture of Alaska and Chukotka, he noted broad distribution from earliest times of a special type of arrowhead with compound construction, a small intermediate bone stem slotted for inserting the base of a stone tip, the earliest remains of which had been found in cemeteries at Pokrovskoe village and at Bugachan (Okladnikov 1955a:175). Material from Glazkovo burials revealed several elements very characteristic for the Eskimos. Besides the arrow of compound construction, he notes inset stone daggers (Okladnikov 1955b:Figs. 21:4; 26:2) known to the Asian Eskimo into the nineteenth century and widely used by various tribes of North America (Okladnikov 1955b:113) and large bone points made from the ulnas of a predatory animal analogous to daggers of bear bone, which were used by the Eskimo (Okladnikov 1955b:71). Noting the beaver jaws frequently encountered in Glazkovo graves on the Lena River and Angara River, Okladnikov cites an example of the Eskimo using the beaver’s chisel-like incisors as an instrument for working wooden objects (Okladnikov 1955b:116). He ascribes simplification and schematization of early Eskimo design to influences of interior Asian cultures (Okladnikov 1955b:175).

S. A. Arutiunov pointed out the impact of the Ymyyakhtakh culture on the Okvik-Old Bering Sea complex based on the typological similarity of the Burulgino complex (adzes, knives, heads of spears and arrows) and the Burulgino circular design in complexes of the Eskimo cultures of Bering Strait (Aleksandrov et al. 1982:87). He notes some objects characteristic for the Ymyyakhtakh culture are encountered in Eskimo burials as amulets (Arutiunov 1983:258). On the basis of broad scale investigations, physical anthropologists found significant morphological similarity between the Eskimo and Siberian Mongoloids (Debets 1951b; Fainberg 1981; Levin 1949). Physical anthropological data obtained from the Uelen and Ekven cemeteries emphasize the softening and weakening of the Arctic complex and deviation toward non-Arctic interior Mongoloids (Zubov 1969:194). The closeness of the “Ekven” type to “continental” Mongoloids—the Yukagir—permitted A. A. Zubov, the investigator of the Ekven series, to propose an initial “proto-Yukagir” type in deep antiquity, which was simultaneously “proto-Arctic.” He saw the remains of this undifferentiated type in the example of the Ust’-Belaya cemetery, and from the Arctic groups that were formed, features most clearly preserved in the Ekven cemetery (Zubov 1977:263). After studying the human remains from the Uelen and Ekven cemeteries, physical anthropologists conclude that

116

An Ethnic Identification of the Late Neolithic Complexes in Western Chukotka the characteristic features of the Eskimo physical type were already completely formed by the first millennium A.D. (Alekseev 1989; Debets 1975; Levin 1964).

Chukchi Peninsula and adjacent territories. In his opinion, ornamental motifs, widespread by Old Bering Sea time, belong to an earlier period with local origin, an early variant of Neolithic decoration. The presence of this complex among all the peoples of the extreme Northeastern Siberia reflects only the early stages of their ethnogenesis (Ivanov 1963:242) and can be viewed as evidence of close contacts between these peoples in deep antiquity. Tracing the spread of Eskimo design from the Lena River in the west to the coastal regions of Alaska in the east, the researcher concludes that “the western boundary of Eskimoid design ran in the past not along the Lena River, but along the Yenisei River” (Ivanov 1963:238).

Physical anthropological data on North American Na-Dene Indians (characteristic representatives of this group are the Athapaskans) reveal their closeness to Siberian Mongoloids who populated western and southern parts of Siberia, as well as partially the central regions of Eastern Siberia (Alekseev 1989:431). Physical anthropologists propose the first millennium B.C. as the upper boundary of their movement into America, when early Eskimo culture was forming or had already formed (Alekseev 1989:431). The populations of Siberian Mongoloids that penetrated into the American continent at this time could have exerted influence also on the formation of early Eskimo cultures. The flexed and sitting burials encountered in the Ekven (Arutiunov and Sergeev 1975:183) and Yandogai cemeteries and the ceremony of dismemberment of the body— separation of the head—in the latter (Dikov 2003:147) are also evidence favoring interior sources for these burial rites which took place even in the Glazkovo culture.

Based on the generally accepted opinion in modern linguistics that coincidences in grammatical structure of languages and not individual coincidences in vocabulary have primary significance for revealing the genetic connections of languages and history of the people speaking them, L. A. Fainberg, citing E. A. Kreinovich, discovers some analogies in the Samoyed, Eskimo, and Yukagir languages, and concludes that a common substrate participated in the genesis of these presently different nations (Fainberg 1981:138).

Several researchers ascribe the roots of Eskimo hunting at breathing holes in the ice, as well as skills at sea hunting on open water, to the influence of interior cultures of reindeer hunters (Aleksandrov et al. 1982:88; Dolgikh 1964:84). The framed skin boat of the Eskimo may have originated in the framed skin or birch bark boats of the Neolithic population in the northern latitudes of Siberia, in particular the Samoyed people (Aleksandrov et al. 1982:87; Pelikh 1972:181; Simchenko 1976:137).

Physical anthropological, linguistic, and archaeological data permitted V. N. Chernetsov to conclude: “In their centurieslong movements, the Yukagir—seminomadic reindeer hunters, but who did not lose . . . the early skills of winter hunting on the ice—reached extreme Northeast Asia. It is possible that precisely they were the North-Asian interior component that, along with the Pacific coast component, took part in the formation of the Eskimo” (Chernetsov 1964:10, 11).

Researchers suggest that some of the parallels in the culture of the Samoyed and Eskimo are due to the presence among the Nganasan and Eskimo of a common ethnic protoYukagir substrate (Fainberg 1981:129). Researchers explain some characteristic features of festive and burial dress of the Samoyed and Eskimo (fringe on the back and bottom of the abdomen, a plume of reindeer tail on the hood, and so on) as borrowing from the early proto-Yukagir substrate, which flowed into these cultures (Fainberg 1981:135). B. O. Dolgikh wrote that the prototype of Canadian Eskimo dress is Entsi-Nganasan, which goes back to the “Tungus” (1964:85).

The Asian roots of interior cultures are also evident in the early Eskimo cultures of the American mainland. Dikov (2004:109, 119, 120) found parallels between the material complexes of the North Chukotka and Ust’-Belaya cultures and the Norton complex. The archaeological material that we obtained at the Western Chukotkan site of Rauchuvagytgyn I is analogous to the Norton complex not only in the standard stone assemblage, but also in ceramics—waffle and ribbed. Both complexes are synchronic—being dated to the middle of the first millennium B.C. Close connections of the Old Bering Sea culture are revealed with the Norton culture, as well as with the Ipiutak (Dikov 1972:112). Arutiunov, noting significant features of similarity in the cultures of Old Bering Sea, Okvik, and Ipiutak, is inclined to combine them in one Old Bering Sea complex (Aleksandrov et al. 1982:90).

S. V. Ivanov, who studies the ornamental art of Siberian peoples, notes the rather long stability of Eskimo decoration, which changed little over 2,000 years, remaining the same as it was during the period of the Old Bering Sea culture (Ivanov 1963:175). Eskimoid design is characteristic for the decorative art of several modern peoples: the Eskimo, Aleuts, Chukchi, Koryak, Yukagir, Even, and Okhotsk Evenk. And the design of the Dolgan and Evenk of the Nizhnaya Tunguska River is close to it (Ivanov 1963:237).

In addition to similarities between the material complexes of the Ipiutak and Old Bering Sea cultures, as well as earlier interior Chukotkan cultures, researchers note characteristic features with their roots on the Asian continent, especially burial ceremonies, which have preserved the most conservative elements of spiritual culture. Among the Ipiutak people, burial chambers have been noted in the form

Speaking about compositional methods of the modern Eskimo and Northeastern Siberian Paleo-Asiatics, Ivanov notes a long succession from the early population of the

117

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka of crib work set in the ground, as among the early Sel’kup, as well as air burials similar to the Yukagir (Alekseev 1967). In the burials, masks (for the mouth), nose plugs, and artificial eyes have been found with the deceased (Alekseev 1967), with direct analogies in Paleo-Siberian component B, noted in the Sel’kup culture (Pelikh 1972:178). Several cults are also similar. Ipiutak burials reveal the dog cult, the skull and whole skeleton of which have been found in several burials (Alekseev 1967).

(Sagalaev 1991:book jacket). Some face masks in Alaska were executed in traditions of Siberian iconography. On the basis of the sources cited in this chapter, we can create a brief outline as a working hypothesis. At the boundary of the third-second millennia B.C., from the base of the Eneolithic Glazkovo culture an ethnic stratum emerged, forming an ethnic community at the beginning of the second millennium B.C., possibly in the region of the middle Lena River.

Finds of images and skulls of loons attest to a cult of this bird, which was also present among the Nganasan and Yukagir. The custom of dismembering the body also existed among the Ipiutak (Aigner 1986:92).

The advance of this ethnic group, distinguished in time and in space as the Ymyyakhtakh culture, toward the lower reaches of the Lena River and farther to the east was rather quick (Khlobystin 1973:105). By the first half of the second millennium B.C. the Ymyyakhtakh people had in all probability reached the Kolyma River boundary, having pushed the aboriginal Paleo-Asiatic (Chukchi-Koryak?) community to the outskirts of the Asian mainland and to Kamchatka. In the contact zone of the two communities, which presumably passed along the Pegtymel’, Palyavaam, Osinovaya (on the upper reaches of the latter two), Belaya, and middle Anadyr’ rivers in the west to the Eropol and upper Penzhina Rivers and the upper reaches of the Omolon, new cultures were formed and variants of the Ymyyakhtakh culture split off, such as the North Chukotka and Ust’-Belaya interior cultures of Chukchi Peninsula.

Analysis of sites of the Ipiutak culture and their identification with archaeological sites on the lower reaches of the Ob and Yenisei Rivers have induced researchers of this culture to seek the original homeland of the Ipiutak people in Siberia. In their opinion, the culture of those ethnic groups was formed there, penetrating into America through Bering Strait in the first half of the first millennium A.D. (Rainey 1958). Physical anthropological investigations carried out by G. F. Debets on a series of Ipiutak skulls, led him to conclude, using several features (flatness of the face and projection of nose, lower brain case, and so on), that among the northern Mongoloids these features were peculiar to the Baikal type, which at present is represented by the Reindeer Tungus and their probable physical ancestors—the Yukagir (Debets 1986:21). Studying the physical anthropological type of the American Indians and Eskimo, Debets allots the Eskimo an intermediate place between the American Indians and Asian Mongoloids, considering them closer to the latter (Debets 1986:21). Analysis of blood groups of Eskimo and American Indians led to the same conclusion (Debets 1986:15).

In the first half of the first millennium B.C. the Ymyyakhtakh people entered the Chukotka coast of the Arctic Ocean, coming into contact with the Paleo-Eskimo stratum and taking part in the formation of the Old Bering Sea culture, while part of the population crossed to the American continent and took part in the formation of the Norton and possibly the Ipiutak cultures. Yukagir tribes were formed in the first millennium A.D. in a large territory from the Vilyui River to the mouth of the Anadyr’ River. At the end of the first millennium and the first half of the second millennium A.D. processes of intensive assimilation occur. Evidence of this is the Vakarevo culture of the twelfth to fifteenth centuries A.D., which has a Yukagir base with Koryak (?) admixture (Dikov 2004:188).

Physical anthropological investigations in aggregate with archaeological data from the Ipiutak cemetery suggest that the early population of Alaska and the proto-Yukagir were probably related (Alekseev and Trubnikova 1984:67). Other researchers have also concluded that there is a common ancestral culture with regard to the Old Bering Sea, Norton, and Ipiutak cultural complexes, considering the Old Bering Sea culture as “first cousin” with regard to the latter two (Alekseeva et al. 1983:27). Graphic material collected by American scholars from the early sites at Cape Krusenstern and in other regions of Alaska is a prospective resource for researchers.

In the beginning and first half of the seventeenth century A.D. the Russians found a mosaic of Yukagir tribes (from the Lena River to the Anadyr’ River), who had substantially lost their culture and who spoke in various dialects or languages. Based on historical sources of the seventeenth century, Yukagir tribes are known to the east of the Kolyma River: the Omok, Chuvan, Khodyn, and Anaul peoples, and on the coast of the Arctic Ocean (Cape Shelagskii), the Shelagi, whom some researchers consider Chuvan, others consider them Eskimo (these were possibly Eskimo assimilated by Yukagir).

Graphics on pebbles in some cases reveal a striking similarity in subjects and stylistic resolution with cliff illustrations of the middle Lena River, which are close to ethnographic materials of the Samoyed and Turkic peoples

118

Conclusion

This book introduces into scientific circulation archaeological materials from Chukotka. The materials are based on the most studied Western Chukotkan sites, in particular, those from Lake Tytyl’.

which can only be supposed. However, very few knifelike bladelets are present in the early Mesolithic Tytyl’ complexes compared, for example, to the East Chukotkan Ekityki IV site or the Sumnagin “Holocene Paleolithic” (in the terminology of its investigator Yu. A. Mochanov), the Mesolithic culture of comparable stage in neighboring Yakutia, based on the production of microblades.

The data from the Tytyl’ archaeological cluster have permitted classifying the early Holocene complexes and placing them in historical periods, a new step that can be considered a contribution to the study of the archaeology of Western Chukotka. Based on three radiocarbon values obtained from the early Holocene key site, Tytyl’vaam IV, an age of 10,000 BP was determined. This is the only Upper Paleolithic site in Chukotka confirmed by a series of radiocarbon dates.

Periodization of the later Stone Age complexes of Western Chukotka remain unchanged as worked out earlier (Kiryak 1993a), but with the addition of radiocarbon dates from some Late Neolithic sites (Verkhnetytyl’ IV, Locus 2, and Nizhnetytyl’ IV). This book brings forth new archaeological materials and investigations by Yakutian and Russian Far Eastern scholars, shedding new light on the ethnogenesis of the Yukagir. These materials reinforce the position of those researchers who see in the Ymyyakhtakh culture the ethnic substrate that served as the basis for the ethnogenesis of the Yukagir.

In this work an attempt is made to establish two stages in the Mesolithic of Chukotka: an early one of 8,000–9,000 BP, and a late one of 8,000–7,000 BP, based on the technological traditions and innovations in the material complexes examined, as well as the typological characteristics of the artifacts and their stratigraphic and chronological parallels in sites in adjacent territories.

In connection with the “Yukagir problem,” I felt it necessary to include my earlier studies and to point out such important ethnic and archaeological sources as Ymyyakhtakh burials that revealed evidence of loose clothing and decoration, and portable graphics on stone from the Western Chukotkan site of Rauchuvagytgyn I, which bears connections with Samoyed and Ugrin ethnoses. Another source of interest is the Pegtymel’ petroglyphs, which display, besides Chukchi and Eskimo, Yukagir motifs.

Microliths technology (parallelograms, segments, and so on), as one of the leading criteria of North Eurasian Mesolithic cultures, is not characteristic for Chukotka. Geometrically formed microliths are rare in neighboring Yakutia (Eastern Siberia), and not found at all in the investigated sites of Western Chukotka. In place of microliths, microblades (sections of them) with regular prismatic edges possibly were used as lateral inset blades, though not formed in the shape of trapezoids, triangles, segments, or other geometric forms.1

The Yukagir problem continues to be a subject for discussion and some new well-grounded hypotheses are put forward by Yakutian ethnographers and archaeologists on the basis of their studies.

The absence of classic microliths in the Mesolithic complexes of the region under study does not signify the lack of compound projectile tools, the existence of

The Ymyyakhtakh artifacts from the Late Neolithic (the “hunter’s kit”) found in the upper cultural layer of the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan I site is of interest (Pl. 110). It contains 168 microblades, a microcore (for producing them?), and terminal inset blades that are long and narrow retouched pointed tools. A bone foreshaft (not preserved and apparent only as a yellowish trace of decomposed bone), equipped with lateral and terminal inset blades, could have been used as an arrowhead in addition to the arrow points or dart points found in the kit. The stone points could be broken or lost, and making new ones would require precious time searching for good raw material and for tool manufacture rather than for hunting. Microblade production was not typical of the Late Neolithic tradition in Chukotka, so it is impossible to provide any other reasonable explanation for how the microblades were used at the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan I site. 1

119

Epilogue

This completes our excursion into the depth of centuries and millennia of the Stone Age of Chukotka. The task I have set for myself—to place “on the pile” all the data on the archaeology of Chukotka that I collected over 10–12 years—has been done. This monograph is a repository of all the archaeological sites I had occasion to visit. I think that the resource base of Chukotkan antiquities has been extended and will be a basis for future investigations and more broad-scale work, which for various reasons we were unable to carry out.

regard. Although geologists brought in materials from the enigmatic El’gygytgyn Lake 50 years ago, archaeologists still have not reached there. The problem of the initial settlement of the extreme Northeastern Siberia remains to be cleared up: there is insufficient data on the Upper Paleolithic. The earliest stage in the early history of Chukotka can be sketched only by dotted lines. There is still a large deficit of scientific information on the Mesolithic, the resource base of which is made up only of spotty materials from sites geographically separated by hundreds of kilometers.

All the materials, as far as they were investigated, have been introduced into scientific circulation. When it was possible, they were accompanied by information on the geography and geomorphology of the regions or places of archaeological research. In these cases, the works of geologists, soil scientists, biologists, and other researchers at SVKNII, VNII-1 were used, to whom I offer sincere gratitude and thanks.

The study of later sites with regard to intertribal relations and the beginning of the written history of the peoples who settled Chukotka (at the time of Russian colonization) remains almost entirely out of view. It will require great enthusiasm from those researchers who occupy themselves with the archaeology of Chukotka. Information about forts, fortified towns, and annual fairs can still be obtained from the oldest native residents. This resource must be used now while it still remains.

A multitude of blank spots remains in the vast territory: the polar zone and the southern interior regions of Chukotka (the boundless expanses of the Shmidt, Iul’tin, and Anadyr’ Districts) have not been investigated in archaeological

120

References

Abbreviations can be found at the end of the Reference section

genezisa kul’ta predkov [Domestic “Guardians” among the Evenks and the Problem of the Genesis of the Ancestor Cult]. SE 3:28–43. 1967 Etapy razvitiya pervobytnoi religii narodov Sibiri [Stages of Development of the Primeval Religion of the Peoples of Siberia]. Moscow-Leningrad: Nauka. 1969 Obshchee i osobennoe v razvitii obshchestva i religii narodov Sibiri [The General and Particular in the Development of Society and Religion among the Peoples of Siberia]. Leningrad: Nauka. Archaeology . . . 2006 Archaeology of the Russian Far East: Essays in Stone Age Prehistory. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Arkheologicheskie . . . 1983 Arkheologicheskie pamyatniki Yakutii [Archaeological Sites of Yakutia]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Arutiunov, S. A. 1983 Retsenziya na monografiyu S. A. Fedoseevoi “Ymyyakhtakhskaya kul’tura Severo-Vostochnoi Azii” [Review of the book Ymyyakhtakh Culture of Northeast Asia by S. A. Fedoseeva]. SA 4:256–258. Arutiunov, S. A., and D. A. Sergeev 1983 Nauchnye rezul’taty rabot na Ekvenskom drevneeskimosskom mogil’nike (1970–1974 gg.) [Scientific Results of Work at the Ekven Old Eskimo Cemetery (1970–1974)]. In: Na styke Chukotki i Alyaski, pp. 200–229. Moscow: Nauka. 2006 Problems of Ethnic History in the Bering Sea: The Ekven Cemetery. Translation published through a grant from the Beringian Shared Heritage Program, National Park Service, Anchorage, AK [Originally published in 1975 as Problemy etnicheskoi istorii Beringomor’ya (Ekvenskii mogil’nik). Moscow: Nauka]. Belyi, V. F. 1993 Vpadina ozera El’gygytgyn i nekotorye svyazannye s nei geologicheskie problemy [The Basin of Lake El’gygytgyn and Some Geological Problems Connected with It]. In: Priroda vpadiny ozera El’gygytgyn, pp. 10–25. Magadan: SVKNII DVO RAN. Bromlei, Y. V. 1973 Etnos i etnografiya [Ethnos and Ethnography]. Moscow: Nauka. Burykin, A. A. 1991 Fol’klor evenov na stranitsakh gazety “Orotty pravda” [Folklore of the Evens in the Pages of the Newspaper “Orotty Pravda”]. Kraevedcheskie Zapiski

Abramova, Z. A. 1979 Paleolit Eniseya. Kokorevskaya kul’tura [The Paleolithic of the Yenisei. The Kokorevo Culture]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Aigner, J. S. 1986 Pervye arkticheskie poseleniya v Severnoi Amerike [The First Arctic Settlements in North America]. V mire nauki 1:91–93. Aleksandrov, A. V., S. A. Arutiunov, and D. L. Brodyansky 1982 Paleometall severo-zapadnoi chasti Tikhogo okeana [The Paleometal of the Northwestern Part of the Pacific Ocean]. Vladivostok: Izdatel’stvo Dal’nevostochnogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Alekseev, A. N. 1999 “Severnyi” lokal’nyi variant ymyyakhtakhskoi kul’tury pozdnego neolita [A “Northern” Local Variant of the Ymyyakhtakh Culture of the Late Neolithic]. In: Arkheologiya Severo-Vostochnoi Azii. Astroarkheologiya. Paleometrologiya, pp. 22–26. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Alekseev, V. P. 1967 K kraniologii aziatskikh eskimosov: materialy k etnogenezu [On the Craniology of Asiatic Eskimo: Materials on Ethnogenesis]. Zapiski Chukotskogo Kraevedcheskogo Muzeya 4:11–13. 1989 Istoricheskaya antropologiya i etnogenez [Historical Anthropology and Ethnogenesis]. Moscow: Nauka. Alekseev, V. P., and O. B. Trubnikova 1984 Nekotorye problemy taksonomii i genealogii aziatskikh mongoloidov: kraniometriya [Some Problems of Taxonomy and Genealogy of the Asiatic Mongoloids: Craniometry]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Alekseeva, T. I., V. P. Alekseev, S. A. Arutiunov, and D. A. Sergeev 1983 Nekotorye itogi istoriko-etnologicheskikh i populyatsionno-antropologicheskikh issledovanii na Chukotskom poluostrove [Some Results of HistoricalEthnological and Populational-Anthropological Research on the Chukchi Peninsula]. In: Na styke Chukotki i Alyaski, pp. 3–64. Moscow: Nauka. Anisimov, A. F. 1936 Rodovoe obshchestvo evenkov (tungusov) [Tribal Society of the Evenks (The Tungus)]. Leningrad: Isdatel’stvo Instituta Narodov Severa. 1950 Semeinye “okhraniteli” u evenkov i problema

121

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka Filologii i Filosofii SO AN SSSR. 1984c Arkheologicheskie issledovaniya v Mongolii. Vyp. 5. Pamyatniki kamennogo veka mestonakhozhdeniya Olon-nor [Archaeological Investigations of Mongolia. Issue 5. Stone Age Sites of the Olon-Nor Locality]. Novosibirsk: Institut Istorii, Filologii i Filosofii SO AN SSSR. Derevianko, E. I. 1981 Plemena Priamur’ya. I tys. n.e.: ocherki etnicheskoi istorii i kul’tury [Tribes of the First Millennium A.D. in the Amur River Basin. Essays on the Ethnic History and Culture]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Devlet, M. A. 1999 Drevnie izobrazheniya shamanov v naskal’nom iskusstve [Early Images of Shamans in Rock Art]. In: Arkheologiya Severo-Vostochnoi Azii. Astroarkheologiya. Paleometrologiya, pp. 151–157. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Dikov, N. N. 1958 Drevneishee proshloe Chukotki i zadachi ego izucheniya [Chukotka’s Earliest Past and the Task of Studying It]. Zapiski ChOKM 1:5–11. 1961 Predvaritel’nye dannye ob arkheologicheskikh rabotakh na Chukotke v 1959 godu [Preliminary Data on Archaeological Work in Chukotka in 1959]. Zapiski ChOKM 2:21–36. 1964 Kamennyi vek Kamchatki i Chukotki v svete noveishikh arkheologicheskikh dannykh [The Stone Age of Kamchatka and Chukotka in Light of the Newest Archaeological Data]. In Trudy SVKNII DVNTS AN SSSR 8:5–27. 1972 Novye dannye k istorii eskimosskoi kul’tury [New Data on the History of Eskimo Culture]. Kraevedcheskie Zapiski 9:107–119. 1993 Paleolit Kamchatki i Chukotki v svyazi s problemoi pervonachal’nogo zaseleniya Ameriki [The Paleolithic of Kamchatka and Chukotka in Connection with the Problem of the Initial Settlement of America]. Magadan: SVKNII DVO RAN. 1997 Asia at the Juncture with America (The Stone Age of the Chukchi Peninsula). Translation published through a grant from the Beringian Shared Heritage Program, National Park Service, Anchorage, AK [Originally published in 1993 as Aziia na styke s Amerikoi v drevnosti (kamenny vek Chukotskogo poluostrova). St. Petersburg: Nauka]. 1999 Mysteries in the Rocks of Ancient Chukotka (Petroglyphs of Pegtymel’). Translation published through a grant from the Beringian Shared Heritage Program, National Park Service, Anchorage, AK [Originally published in 1971 as Naskal’nye zagadki drevnei Chukotki (petroglify Pegtymelia). Moscow: Nauka]. 2003 Archaeological Sites of Kamchatka, Chukotka, and the Upper Kolyma. Translation published through a grant from the Beringian Shared Heritage Program, National Park Service, Anchorage, AK [Originally published in 1977 as Arkheologicheskie pamyatniki Kamchatki, Chukotki i Verkhnei Kolymy (Aziia na styke s Amerikoi v drevnosti). Moscow: Nauka]. 2004 Early Cultures of Northeast Asia. Translation

17:136–148. Chen, C., and X. Wang 1989 Upper Paleolithic microblade industries in North China and their relationships with Northeast Asia and North America. Arctic Anthropology 26(2):127–156. Chernetsov, V. N. 1959 Predstavleniya o dushe u obskikh ugrov [Representations of the Soul among the Ob Ugrian]. In: Issledovaniya i materialy po voprosam pervobytnykh religioznykh verovanii. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR. 1964 Naskal’nye izobrazheniya Urala. Chast 1 [Rock Art of the Urals. Part 1]. Moscow: Nauka. 1971 Naskal’nye izobrazheniya Urala. Chast 2 [Rock Art of the Urals. Part 2]. Moscow: Nauka. Chernetsov, V. N., and V. I. Moshinskaya 1954 V poiskakh drevnei rodiny ugorskikh narodov [In Search of the Early Homeland of the Ugrian Nations]. In: Po sledam drevnikh kul’tur: ot Volgi do Tikhogo okeana, pp. 165–224. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR. Debets, G. F. 1951a Antropologicheskie issledovaniya v Kamchatskoi oblasti [Anthropological Investigations in the Kamchatka District]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR. 1951b Proiskhozhdenie korennogo naseleniya Ameriki [The Origin of the Native Population of America]. In: Proiskhozhdenie cheloveka i drevnee resselenie chelovechestva, pp. 523–538. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR. 1975 Paleoantropologicheskii material iz drevneberingomorskikh mogil’nikov Uelen i Ekven [Paleoanthropological Materials from the Old Bering Sea Burial Sites of Uelen and Ekven]. In: Arutiunov, S. A., and D. A. Sergeev Problemy etnicheskoi istorii Beringomor’ya (Ekvenski mogil’nik), pp. 198–201. Moscow: Nauka. 1999 The Paleo-Anthropology of the Early Eskimos (Ipiutak and Tigara). Translation published through a grant from the Beringian Shared Heritage Program, National Park Service, Anchorage, AK [Originally published in 1986 as Paleoantropologiya drevnikh eskimosov (Ipiutak, Tigara). In: Etnicheskie svyazi narodov Severa Azii i Ameriki po dannym antropologii, pp. 6–149. Moscow: Nauka]. Derevianko, A. P. 1983 Paleolit Dal’nego Vostoka i Korei [The Paleolithic of the Far East and Korea]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Derevianko, A. P., D. Dorzh, V. E. Larichev, R. S. Vasil’evskii, and V. T. Petrin 1984a Arkheologicheskie issledovaniya v Mongolii . Vyp. 3. Otdel’nye mestonakhozhdeniya kamennogo veka [Archaeological Investigations in Mongolia. Issue 3. Some Stone Age Localities]. Novosibirsk: Institut Istorii, Filologii i Filosofii SO AN SSSR. 1984b Arkheologicheskie issledovaniya v Mongolii. Vyp. 4. Pamyatniki kamennogo veka mestonakhozhdeniya Khoit-Tsenker-gol [Archaeological Investigations in Mongolia. Issue 4. Stone Age Sites of the KhoitTsenker-Gol Locality]. Novosibirsk: Institut Istorii,

122

References 1978 Etnograficheskie materialy Severo-Vostochnoi geograficheskoi ekspeditsii. 1785–1795 [Ethnographic Materials of the Northeastern Geographic Expedition, 1785–1795]. Magadan: Knizhnoe Izdatel’stvo. Etnografiya Severnoi . . . 1980 Etnografiya Severnoi Azii [The Ethnography of Northern Asia]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Everstov, S. I. 1999a Sugunnakh - novaya stoyanka ymyyakhtakhskoi kul’tury na Indigirke [Sugunnakh - A New Site of the Ymyyakhtakh Culture on the Indigirka]. In: Arkheologiya Severo-Vostochnoi Azii. Astroarkheologiya. Paleometrologiya, pp. 40–53. Novosibirsk: Nauka. 1999b Izobrazhenie na bereste i etnicheskaya identifikatsiya ymyyakhtakhskikh pamyatnikov Indigirki (v svete novykh arkheologicheskikh otkrytii) [Images on Birch Bark and the Ethnic Identification of Ymyyakhtakh Sites of the Indigirka River (In Light of New Archaeological Discoveries)]. In: Arkheologiya Severo-Vostochnoi Azii. Astroarkheologiya. Paleometrologiya, pp. 54–64. Novosibirsk: Nauka. 2000 Drevnie pamyatniki kul’tury Nizhnei Indigirki (po materialam issledovanii dvukh poslednikh desyatiletii) [Early Sites of Culture of the Lower Indigirka River (Based on Materials from Research in the Last Two Decades)]. In: Tsirkumpolyarnaya kul’tura: Pamyatniki kul’tury narodov Arktiki i Severa, pp. 42–47. Yakutsk: Institut Problem Malochislennykh Narodov Severa. Fainberg, L. A. 1981 O nekotorykh parallelyakh v kul’ture samodiitsev i eskimosov: k probleme drevnikh etnicheskikh svyazei mezhdu Aziei i Amerikoi [On Some Parallels in the Culture of the Samoyed and Eskimo: Toward the Problem of Early Ethnic Connections between Asia and America]. In: Traditsionnye kul’tury Severnoi Sibiri i Severnoi Ameriki, pp. 128–142. Moscow: Nauka. Fedoseeva, S. A. 1968 Drevnie kul’tury Verkhnego Vilyuya [Early Cultures of the Upper Vilyui River]. Moscow: Nauka. 1970 Novye dannye o bronzovom veke Yakutii [New Data on the Bronze Age of Yakutia]. In: Po sledam drevnikh kul’tur Yakutii, pp. 128–142. Yakutsk: Knizhnoe Izdatel’stvo. 1980 Ymyyakhtakhskaya kul’tura Severo-Vostochnoi Azii [The Ymyyakhtakh Culture of Northeast Asia]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Gening, V. F. 1989 K voprosu ob arkheologicheskoi interpretatsii “ketskoi problemy” (po materialam keramiki s psevdotekstil’noi poverkhnost’yu i figurnoshtampovym ornamentom) [On the Question of the Archaeological Interpretation of the “Ket Problem” (Based on Materials of Ceramics with PseudoTextile Surface and Shaped-Stamp Decoration)]. In: Keramika kak istoricheskii istochnik, pp. 153–175. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Georgievskii, A. M., and G. I. Medvedev 1982 Mezoliticheskaya stoyanka Tsar’-Devitsa

published through a grant from the Beringian Shared Heritage Program, National Park Service, Anchorage, AK [Originally published in 1979 as Drevnie kul’tury Severo-Vostochnoi Azii. Aziia na styke s Amerikoi v drevnosti. Moscow: Nauka]. Dikov, N. N., and M. A. Kiryak 1982 Otkrytie pervykh mezoliticheskikh i neoliticheskikh pamyatnikov na zapade Chukotki (na ozere Tytyl’ v verkhov’yakh reki M. Anyui) [Discovery of the First Mesolithic and Neolithic Sites in Western Chukotka (At Tytyl’ Lake on the Upper Reaches of the Malyi Anyui River)]. Kraevedcheskie Zapiski 12:115–124. Dikov, N. N., and V. N. Smirnov 1977 Novaya ranneneoliticheskaya stoyanka v basseine r. Amguemy [A New Early Neolithic Site in the Amguema River Basin]. Kraevedcheskie Zapiski 11:121–126. Dixon, J. E. 1976 Stoyanka Gallakher Flint - arkheologicheskii pamyatnik na severnom sklone khrebta Bruksa (Arkticheskaya Alyaska) i ee otnoshenie k Beringiiskoi sushe [The Gallagher Flint Site: An Archaeological Site on the North Slope of the Brooks Range (Arctic Alaska) and Its Relation to the Bering Land Bridge]. In: Beringiya v kainozoe, pp. 467–475. Vladivostok: DVNTS AN SSSR. Dolgikh, B. O. 1952 Proiskhozhdenie nganasan [The Origin of the Nganasans]. In: Trudy Instituta Etnografii AN SSSR 18:5–87. Moscow-Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR. 1957 Tamgi nganasanov i entsev [Brands of the Nganasan and Entsi]. In: KSIE 18:20–30. 1960 Rodovoi i plemennoi sostav narodov Sibiri v XVII v. [Clan and Tribal Composition of the Peoples of Siberia in the Seventeenth Century]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR. 1964 Problemy etnografii i antropologii Arktiki [Problems of Ethnography and Physical Anthropology of the Arctic]. SE 4:76–90. Dul’zon, A. P. 1963 Etnicheskii sostav drevnego naseleniya Zapadnoi Sibiri po dannym toponimiki [The Ethnic Composition of the Early Population of Western Siberia Based on Toponymic Data]. In: Trudy XXV Mezhdunarodnogo kongressa vostokovedov 3:289– 295. D’yachkov, A. E. 1893 Anadyrskii krai: rukopis’ zhitelya s. Markovo [Anadyr’ District: Manuscript of a Resident of Markovo Village]. Zapiski Obshchestva Izucheniya Amurskogo Kraya. Vol. 2. Etnicheskaya istoriya. . . 1972 Etnicheskaya istoriya narodov Azii [The Ethnic History of the Peoples of Asia]. Moscow: Nauka. Etnicheskie svyazi . . . 1986 Etnicheskie svyazi narodov Severa Azii i Ameriki po dannym antropologii [Ethnic Connections of the Peoples of Northern Asia and America Based on the Data of Physical Anthropology]. Moscow: Nauka. Etnograficheskie materialy . . .

123

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka [The Mesolithic Site of Tsar’ Devitsa]. In: Mezolit Verkhnego Priangar’ya, pp. 50–107. Irkutsk: Izdatel’stvo Irkutskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Gladilin, V. N. 1977 K voprosu o tekhnike levallua [On the Question of the Levallois Technique]. In: Problemy paleolita Tsentral’noi Evropy, pp. 29–34. Leningrad: Nauka. Glushkova, O. Y. 1993 Geomorfologiya i istoriya razvitiya raiona ozera El’gygytgyn [Geomorphology and History of the Development of the Region of Lake El’gygytgyn]. In: Priroda vpadiny ozera El’gygytgyn, pp. 26–48. Magadan: SVKNII DVO RAN. Glushkova, O. Y., and L. Gualtieri 1998 Osobennosti pozdnepleistotsenovogo oledeneniya severnoi chasti Koryakskogo nagor’ya [Peculiarities of Late Pleistocene Glaciation of the Northern Part of the Koryak Range]. In: Izmenenie prirodnoi sredy Beringii v chetvertichnyi period, pp. 112–132. Magadan: SVKNII DVO RAN. Gokhman, I. I. 1961 Drevnii cherep s Chukotki [An Early Skull from Chukotka]. Zapiski ChOKM 2:14–18. Gracheva, G. N. 1971 Pogrebal’nye sooruzheniya nentsev ust’ya Obi [Burial Structures of the Nenets at the Mouth of the Ob River]. In: Religioznye predstavleniya i obryady narodov Sibiri v kontse XIX – nachale XX v., pp. 248–262. Leningrad: Nauka. 1976 Konstruktsiya pogrebal’nykh sooruzhenii u nekotorykh sibirskikh narodnostei [Construction of Burial Structures among Some Siberian Nations]. In: Polevye issledovaniya IE 1975, pp. 63–70. Leningrad: Nauka. 1979 K knige D. K. Zelenina “Kul’t ongonov v Sibiri” [On D. K. Zelenin’s Book The Cult of the Ongon in Siberia]. In: Problemy slavyanskoi etnografii, pp. 153–168. Leningrad: Nauka. 1981 Kul’tovyi kompleks nganasan [The Cult Complex of the Nganasans]. In: Material’naya kul’tura i mifologiya, pp. 153–168. Leningrad: Nauka. 1983 Traditsionnoe mirovozzrenie okhotnikov Taimyra: na materialakh nganasan XIX — nachala XX v. [The Traditional World View of Hunters of the Taimyr Peninsula: Based on Nganasan Materials of the Nineteenth – Beginning of the Twentieth Centuries]. Leningrad: Nauka. 1984 K etnokul’turnym svyazyam nganasan. Klassifikatsiya shamanov [Toward Ethnocultural Connections of the Nganasans. Classification of Shamans]. In: Etnokul’turnye kontakty narodov Sibiri, pp. 84–99. Leningrad: Nauka. Grishin, Y. S. 1983 O roli i meste Zabaikal’skogo tsentra mednobronzovoi metallurgii v epokhu bronzy i rannego zheleza [On the Role and Place of a Transbaikal Center for Copper-Bronze Metallurgy in the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age]. In: Po sledam drevnikh kul’tur Zabaikal’ya, pp. 101–107. Novosibirsk: Nauka.

Gurina, N. N. 1964 K voprosu ob etnokul’turnykh oblastyakh lesnoi i lesostepnoi zony evropeiskoi chasti SSSR v epokhu neolita [On the Question of Ethno-Cultural Areas of the Forest and Forest-Steppe Zones of the European Part of the USSR in the Neolithic Period]. Moscow: Nauka (VIIth MKAEN). Gurvich, I. S. 1957 Yukagiry chuvanskogo roda v seredine XVIII v. [Yukagirs of the Chuvan Tribe in the Middle of the Eighteenth Century]. Sibirskii Etnograficheskii Sbornik 2:246–262. 1966 Etnicheskaya istoriya Severo-Vostoka Sibiri [The Ethnic History of Northeastern Siberia]. Moscow: Nauka. 1975 Retsenziya na knigy: Ocherki istorii Chukotki s drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei [Review of the Book: Essays on the History of Chukotka from the Earliest Times up to Present]. SE 6:177–179. 1977 Chukotskie risunki na yarange (k voprosu o semantike naskal’nykh izobrazhenii) [Chukchi Illustrations on the Yaranga (On the Question of Semantics of the Rock Art)]. Izvestiya SO AN SSSR 1(1):83–86. 1983 Problema etnogeneza olennykh grupp chukchei i koryakov v svete etnograficheskikh dannykh [Problems of the Ethnogenesis of the Reindeer Groups of the Chukchi and Koryaks in Light of Ethnographic Data]. In: Na styke Chukotki i Alyaski, pp. 96–119. Moscow: Nauka. Hoffecker, J. F., W. R. Powers, and N. H. Bigelow 1996 Dry Creek. In: American Beginnings. The Prehistory and Palaeoecology of Beringia, pp. 343–352. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press. Ivanov, S. V. 1954 Materialy po izobrazitel’nomu iskusstvu narodov Sibiri XIX — nachala XX v. [Materials on Representative Art of the Peoples of Siberia of the Ninteenth - Beginning of the Twentieth Century]. Moscow-Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR. 1963 Ornament narodov Sibiri kak istoricheskii istochnik (po materialam XIX — nachala XX v.) [Decoration of the Peoples of Siberia as a Historical Source (Based on Materials of the Nineteenth and Beginning of the Twentieth Centuries)]. MoscowLeningrad: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR. Jochelson, W. I. 1895 Zametki o naselenii Yakutskoi oblasti [Notes on the Population of the Yakutsk Region]. Zemlevedenie 2/3:149–176. 1900 Materialy po izucheniyu yukagirskogo yazyka i fol’klora, sobrannye v Kolymskom okruge. Chast 1. Obraztsy narodnoi slovestnosti yukagirov [Materials on the Study of the Yukagir Language and Folklore, Collected in the Kolyma District. Part 1. Samples of Folk Literature of the Yukagirs]. St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaya Rossiiskaya Akademiya Nauk. 1934 Odul’skii yazyk [The Odul Language]. MoscowLeningrad: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR 1975 The Yukagir and Yukagirized Tungus. New York:

124

References AMS Press. Reprint of 1926 edition The Yukaghir and the Yukaghirized Tungus. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. Memoir of the American Museum of Natural History, Vol. 9, Pt. 2. G. E. Stechert & Co., New York. 1997 Koryaki [The Koryaks]. St. Petersburg: Nauka. Jochelson-Brodskaya, D. L. 1907 K antropologii zhenshchin plemen Krainego Severo-Vostoka Sibiri [On the Physical Anthropology of Women in Tribes of Extreme Northeastern Siberia]. Russkii Antropologicheskii Zhurnal 1/2:1–87. Kabo, V. R. 1981 Priroda i pervobytnoe soznanie [Nature and Primitive Perception]. Priroda 8:88–95. 1984 U istokov religii [At the Sources of Religion]. Priroda 3:96–102. Khlobystin, L. P. 1970 Novye pamyatniki basseina rek Anabara i Oleneka [New Sites in the Anabar and Olenek River Basins]. In: Sibir’ i ee sosedi v drevnosti, pp. 174– 179. Novosibirsk: Nauka. 1973 Drevnie kul’tury Taimyra i krupnye etnicheskie obshchnosti Sibiri [Early Cultures of the Taimyr Peninsula and Large Ethnic Communities of Siberia]. In: Proiskhozhdenie aborigenov Sibiri i ikh yazykov, pp. 163–166. Tomsk: Izdatel’stvo Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. 1975 Pamyatniki sibirskogo Zapolyar’ya i ikh sootnoshenie s kul’turami taezhnoi zony [Sites of Arctic Siberia and Their Relation to Cultures of the Taiga Zone]. In: Sootnoshenie drevnikh kul’tur Sibiri s kul’turami sopredel’nykh territorii, pp. 100–110. Novosibirsk: Nauka. 1982 Drevnyaya istoriya Taimyrskogo Zapolyar’ya i voprosy formirovaniya kul’tur Severa Evrazii [The Earliest History of the Arctic Zone of Taimyr Peninsula and Questions of the Formation of Cultures in Northern Eurasia]. Synopsis of Dissertation for Doctor of Historical Science. Leningrad: Leningradskoe Otdelenie Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR. Kholyushkin, Y. P. 1981 Problemy korrelyatsii pozdnepaleoliticheskikh industrii Sibiri i Srednei Azii [Problems of the Correlation of Late Paleolithic Industries of Siberia and Central Asia]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Kiryak, M. A. 1979 Pervye mezoliticheskie i neoliticheskie stoyanki Zapadnoi Chukotki (oz. Tytyl’ v verkhov’yakh M. Anyuya) [First Mesolithic and Neolithic Sites in Western Chukotka (Tytyl’ Lake on the Upper Reaches of the Malyi Anyui]. In: Novye arkheologicheskie pamyatniki Severa Dal’nego Vostoka, pp. 39–52. Magadan: SVKNII DVNTS AN SSSR. 1980 Pervye arkheologicheskie razvedki v bass. r. Malyi Anyui [The First Archaeological Surveys in the Basin of the Malyi Anyui River]. In: Noveishie dannye po arkheologii Severa Dal’nego Vostoka, pp. 38–41. Magadan: SVKNII DVNTS AN SSSR. 1985 Orlovka II - pervaya paleoliticheskaya stoyanka Zapadnoi Chukotki [Orlovka II—The First Paleolithic

Site of Western Chukotka]. In: Novoe v arkheologii severa Dal’nego Vostoka, pp. 12–23. Magadan: SVKNII DVNTS AN SSSR. 1986 Neoliticheskie stoyanki na oz. Bol’shoi Nuteneut [Neolithic Sites on Lake Bol’shoi Nuteneut]. Kraevedcheskie Zapiski 14:151–159. 1988 Mezoliticheskaya stoyanka na oz. Tytyl’ [A Mesolithic Site on Lake Tytyl’]. Kraevedcheskie Zapiski 15:138–150. 1989 Arkheologiya Zapadnoi Chukotki, Srednego i Nizhnego Prikolym’ya i nekotorye voprosy etnogeneza yukagirov [The Archaeology of Western Chukotka, Middle and Lower Kolyma River Basin, and Some Questions on the Ethnogenesis of the Yukagirs]. Synopsis of Dissertation for Candidate of Historical Sciences. Leningrad: Leningradskoe Otdelenie Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR. 1993a Arkheologiya Zapadnoi Chukotki v svyazi s yukagirskoi problemoi [The Archaeology of Western Chukotka in Connection with the Yukagir Problem]. Moscow: Nauka. 1993b Novyi kompleks artefaktov kamennogo veka iz raiona ozera El’gygytgyn [New Complex of Stone Age Artifacts from Lake El’gygytgyn]. In: Priroda vpadiny ozera El’gygytgyn, pp. 199–211. Magadan: SVKNII DVO RAN. 1993c Stoyanka Bol’shoi El’gakhchan I (bassein r. Omolon) - analog paleoliticheskogo kompleksa VII sloya stoyanki Ushki I na Kamchatke [The Site of Bol’shoi El’gakhchan I (Omolon River Basin) Analog of the Paleolithic Complex in Layer VII at the Ushki I Site in Kamchatka]. In: Drevnie pamyatniki Severa Dal’nego Vostoka, pp. 36–52. Magadan: SVKNII DVO RAN. 1993d Ymyyakhtakhskii kompleks so stoyanki Bol’shoi El’gakhchan I (bassein Omolona) [An Ymyyakhtakh Complex from the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan I Site (Omolon Basin)]. Kraevedcheskie Zapiski 19:3–15. 1994 Tytyl’ - novyi mezoliticheskii pamyatnik Zapadnoi Chukotki [Tytyl’ - A New Mesolithic Site in Western Chukotka]. Vestnik DVO RAN 4:103–107. 1995a Drevnyaya stoyanka Rauchuvagytgyn I [The Ancient Site of Rauchuvagytgyn I]. In: Pamyatniki, pamyatnye mesta istorii i kul’tury Severo-Vostoka Rossii, pp. 51–53. Magadan: Knizhnoe Izdatel’stvo 1995b The Paleolithic Site Orlovka-II in Western Chukotka Area. Journal of Korean Ancient Historical Society 19:428–445. 1996a Novyi mezoliticheskii pamyatnik Zapadnoi Chukotki [A New Mesolithic Site of Western Chukotka]. In: Pozdnii paleolit - rannii neolit Vostochnoi Azii i Severnoi Ameriki, pp. 112–116. Vladivostok: Dal’press. 1996b Dokeramicheskie mestonakhozhdeniya v doline r. Kymyneiveem (Vostochnaya Chukotka) [PreCeramic Sites in the Valley of the Kymyneiveem River (Eastern Chukotka)]. In: Arkheologicheskie issledovaniya na Severe Dal’nego Vostoka, pp. 17–24. Magadan: SVKNII DVO RAN. 1996c Kompleks kamennykh izdelii so stoyanki Srednee ozero V (verkhov’ya r. Oloi) [A Complex of

125

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka Stone Artifacts from the Srednee Ozero V Site (Upper Reaches of the Oloi River)]. In: Arkheologicheskie issledovaniya na Severe Dal’nego Vostoka, pp. 51–66. Magadan: SVKNII DVO RAN. 1996d Bol’shoi Elgakhchan I and II Omolon River Basin, Magadan District. In: American Beginnings. The Prehistory and Palaeoecology of Beringia, pp. 228–236. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press. 1997 Mezoliticheskie mestonakhozhdeniya na oz. Ekityki (Tsentral’naya Chukotka) [Mesolithic Sites on Lake Ekityki (Central Chukotka)]. In: Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii Severa Dal’nego Vostoka i sopredel’nykh territorii, pp. 9–18. Magadan: SVKNII DVO RAN. 1999 Material’nyi kompleks stoianki Tytyl’ V (Zapadnaya Chukotka) [The Material Complex of the Tytyl’ V Site (Western Chukotka)]. In: Istoriya, arkheologiya i etnografiya Severo-Vostoka Rossii, pp. 12–21. Magadan: SVKNII DVO RAN. 2002 Drevnee iskusstvo Severa Dal’nego Vostoka kak istoricheskii istochnik (kamennyi vek) [Translated and published through a grant from the Beringian Shared Heritage Program, National Park Service, Anchorage, AK, as “Early Art of the Northern Far East: The Stone Age” (2007)]. Magadan: SVKNII DVO RAN. 2004 Verkhnepaleoliticheskie kompleksy Zapadnoi Chukotki (dolina r. Tytyl’vaam) [Upper Paleolithic Complexes of Western Chukotka (The Valley of the Tytyl’vaam River)]. In: Dni Beringii, pp. 53–63. Moscow: Sovetskii Sport. Kiryak, M. A., O. Y. Glushkova, and T. A. Brown 2003 Upper Paleolithic sites in the Tytylvaam River valley (polar Chukotka). Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 4(3)[No. 15]:2-15. Kistenev, S. P. 1980 Novye arkheologicheskie pamyatniki basseina Kolymy [New Archaeological Sites in the Kolyma River Basin]. In: Novoe v arkheologii Yakutii, pp. 74–87. Yakutsk: Izdatel’stvo Yakutskogo Filiala SO AN SSSR. 1990 Kamennyi vek basseina nizhnei Kolymy [The Stone Age of the Lower Kolyma River Basin]. Synopsis of Dissertation for Candidate of Historical Sciences. Leningrad: Leningradskoe Otdelenie Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR. Konopatskii, A. K. 1982 Drevnie kul’tury Baikala [Ancient Cultures of Lake Baikal]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Konstantinov, I. V. 1978 Rannii zheleznyi vek Yakutii [The Early Iron Age of Yakutia]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Korobkova, G. F., V. E. Shchelinskii 1996 Metodika mikro-makroanaliza drevnikh orudii truda. Chast 1 [Methods of Micro and Macro Analyses of Early Tools. Part 1]. St. Petersburg: Institut Istorii Material’noi Kultury RAN. Kosarev, M. F. 1988 Chelovek i zhivaya priroda v svete sibirskikh etnograficheskikh i arkheologicheskikh materialov [Man and Living Nature in Light of Siberian

Ethnographic and Archaeological Materials]. In: Nekotorye voprosy sibirskoi arkheologii, pp. 84–112. Moscow: Institut Arkheologii AN SSSR. Kreinovich, E. A. 1958 Yukagirskii yazyk [The Yukagir Language]. Moscow-Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR. Kurilov, G. N. 2000 Problema etnicheskogo proshlogo yukagirov [The Problem of the Ethnic Past of the Yukagirs]. In: Tsirkumpolyarnaya kul’tura: Pamyatniki kul’tury narodov Arktiki i Severa, pp. 53–57. Yakutsk: Institut Problem Malochislennykh Narodov Severa. 2001 Yukagirsko-russkii slovar’ [Yukagir-Russian Dictionary]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Lapshin, B. I. 1978 O novykh mestonakhozhdeniyakh kvartsitovogo paleolita v Priangar’e [On New Sites of the Quartzite Paleolithic in the Angara River Basin]. In: Drevnie kul’tury Priangar’ya, pp. 151–155. Novosibirsk: Nauka. 1982 Kamennye orudiya iz raiona sliyaniya Bii i Katuni [Stone Tools from the Region of the Confluence of the Biya and the Katun’ Rivers]. In: Arkheologiya Severnoi Azii, pp. 14–22. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Larichev, V. E. 1976 Paleolit Man’chzhurii, Vnutrennei Mongolii i Vostochnogo Turkestana [The Paleolithic of Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, and Eastern Turkestan]. In: Sibir’, Tsentral’naya i Vostochnaya Aziya v drevnosti, pp. 132–146. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Laughlin, W. S. 1976 Golotsenovaya istoriya Nikol’skogo zaliva Alyaski i evolyutsiya aleutov [The Holocene History of Nikolsky Bay, Alaska, and the Evolution of the Aleuts]. In: Beringiya v kainozoe, pp. 492–508. Vladivostok: DVNTS AN SSSR. Laukhin, S. A., and N. I. Drozdov 1989 Pervoe mestonakhozhdenie artefaktov nachala pozdnego paleolita na Severe Chukotskogo poluostrova [The First Site of Artifacts of the Beginning of the Late Paleolithic of the Northern Chukchi Peninsula]. In: Problemy kraevedeniya (Arsen’evskie Chteniya), pp. 37–41. Ussuriisk: Ussuriisky Gosudarstvenny Pedagogichesky Institut. Lebedintsev, A. I. 2000 Early Maritime Cultures of Northwestern Priokhot’e. Translation published through a grant from the Beringian Shared Heritage Program, National Park Service, Anchorage, AK [Originally published in 1990 as Drevnie primorskie kul’tury Severo-Zapadnogo Priokhot’ya. Leningrad: Nauka]. Leont’ev, V. V., and K. A. Novikova 1989 Toponimicheskii slovar’ Severo-Vostoka SSSR [Toponymic Dictionary of the Northeastern USSR]. Magadan: Knizhnoe Izdatel’stvo. Levin, M. G. 1949 Kraniologicheskie tipy chukchei i eskimosov [Craniological Types of the Chukchi and Eskimo]. In Sbornik MAE AN SSSR 10:96-121. 1958 Etnicheskaya antropologiya i problemy

126

References etnogeneza narodov Dal’nego Vostoka [Ethnic Anthropology and the Problems of the Ethnogenesis of the Peoples of the Far East]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR. 1961 Osnovnye itogi i ocherednye zadachi antropologicheskogo izucheniya Sibiri v svyazi s etnogeneticheskimi issledovaniyami [Major Results and the Immediate Task of Anthropological Investigation of Siberia in Connection with Ethnogenetic Research]. In: Voprosy istorii Sibiri i Dal’nego Vostoka, pp. 44–51. Novosibirsk: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR. 1964 Ob antropologicheskom tipe drevnikh eskimosov [On the Anthropological Type of the Early Eskimo]. In: Sovremennaya antropologiya, pp. 262–269. Moscow: Nauka. Levoshin, N. N. 1950 Drevnyaya stoyanka v verkhov’yakh reki Yakitikiveem [An Early Site on the Upper Reaches of the Yakitikiveem River]. KSIIMK 30:196–198. Lezhnenko, I. L., G. I. Medvedev, and G. N. Mikhnyuk 1982 Issledovaniya paleoliticheskikh i mezoliticheskikh gorizontov stoyanki Sosnovyi Bor na r. Beloi v 1966–1971 gg. [Investigations of the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Horizons at the Sosnovyi Bor Site on the Belaya River in 1966– 1971]. In: Paleolit i mezolit yuga Sibiri, pp. 50–107. Irkutsk: Izdatel’stvo Irkutskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Lindenau, Y. I. 1983 Opisanie narodov Sibiri (pervaya polovina XVIII v.) [Descriptions of Peoples of Siberia (First Half of the Eighteenth Century)]. Magadan: Knizhnoe Izdatel’stvo. Mamonova, N. N., and L. D. Sulerzhitskii 1986 Vozrast nekotorykh neoliticheskikh i eneoliticheskikh pogrebenii Pribaikal’ya po radiouglerodnym dannym [The Age of Some Neolithic and Eneolithic Burials of Cis-Baikal Based on Radiocarbon Dates]. In: Arkheologicheskie i etnograficheskie issledovaniya Vostochnoi Sibiri: itogi i perspektivy, pp. 15–20. Irkutsk: Izdatel’stvo Irkutskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Mezolit SSSR . . . 1989 Mezolit SSSR [Mesolithic of the USSR]. Moscow: Nauka. Mochanov, Y. A. 1969 Mnogosloinaya stoyanka Bel’kachi I i periodizatsiya kamennogo veka Yakutii [The Multilayered Bel’kachi I Site and Periodization of the Stone Age in Yakutia]. Moscow: Nauka. 1976 Paleolit Sibiri (nekotorye itogi izucheniya) [The Paleolithic of Siberia (Some Results of Study)]. In: Beringiya v kainozoe, pp. 540–565. Vladivostok: DVNTS AN SSSR. 1977 Drevneishie etapy zaseleniya chelovekom Severo-Vostochnoi Azii [The Earliest Stages of Man’s Settlement of Northeast Asia]. Novosbirsk: Nauka. Mochanov, Y. A., and S. A. Fedoseeva 1976 Osnovnye etapy drevnei istorii SeveroVostochnoi Azii [The Primary Stages of the Ancient

History of Northeast Asia]. In: Beringiya v kainozoe, pp. 515–539. Vladivostok: DVNTS AN SSSR. 1980 Osnovnye itogi arkheologicheskogo izucheniya Yakutii [Main Results of Archaeological Investigations in Yakutia]. Novoe v arkheologii Yakutii, pp. 3–13. Yakutsk: Yakutskii Filial SO AN SSSR. 1986 Diring-Yuryakhskii arkheologicheskii kompleks [The Diring Yuryakh Archaeological Complex]. In: Arkheologicheskie i etnograficheskie issledovaniya v Vostochnoi Sibiri: itogi i perspektivy, pp. 79–80. Irkutsk: Izdatel’stvo Irkutskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Mochanov, Y. A., S. A. Fedoseeva, A. N. Alekseev, V. I. Kozlov, N. N. Kochmar, and N. M. Shcherbakova 1983 Arkheologicheskie pamyatniki Yakutii [Archaeological Sites of Yakutia]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Nekrasov, I. A. 1958 Ekspeditsiya na ozero El’gygytgyn [Expedition to Lake El’gygytgyn]. In: Problemy Severa, pp. 360–370. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR. Novikova, K. A. 1980 Ocherki dialektov evenskogo yazyka. Glagol, sluzhebnye slova, teksty, glossarii [Essays on Dialects of the Even Language. Verbs, Helping Words, Texts, and Glossaries]. Leningrad: Nauka. Obruchev, S. V. 1974 Po goram i tundram Chukotki [On the Mountains and Tundras of Chukotka]. Magadan: Knizhnoe Izdatel’stvo. Ogorodnikov, V. I. 1922 Pokorenie Yukagirskoi zemli [The Taming of the Yukagir Land]. In: Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta Narodnogo Obrazovaniya v Chite. Kniga 1:249–352. Okladnikov, A. P. 1946 Lenskie drevnosti. Vyp. 2 [Antiquities of the Lena River. Issue 2]. Yakutsk: Institut Istorii Material’noi Kul’tury imeni N.Y. Marra. 1950a Pervyi neoliticheskii pamyatnik Chukotskogo poluostrova [The First Neolithic Site of the Chukchi Peninsula]. KSIIMK 30:193–195. 1950b Lenskiie drevnosti. Vyp. 3 [Antiquities of the Lena River. Issue 3]. Moscow-Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR. 1953 O pervonachal’nom zaselenii chelovekom vnutrennei chasti Chukotskogo p-va [On the Initial Settlement of the Interior of the Chukchi Peninsula]. Izvestiya Vsesoyuznogo Geograficheskogo Obshchestva 85(4):405–412. 1955a Istoriya Yakutskoi ASSR [The History of the Yakutian ASSR]. Moscow-Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR. 1955b Neolit i bronzovyi vek Pribaikal’ya. Chast 3. Glazkovskoe vremya [The Neolithic and Bronze Age of Cis-Baikal. Part 3. The Glazkovo Time]. MoscowLeningrad: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR. 1975 K izucheniyu drevneishikh sledov deyatel’nosti cheloveka na ozere Baikal; kvartsevyi paleolit [Toward the Investigation of Earliest Traces of Human

127

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka nachalo XX v), pp. 31–43. Leningrad: Nauka. 1984 Nganasany (sotsial’noe ustroistvo i verovaniya) [The Nganasans (Social Organization and Beliefs)]. Leningrad: Nauka. Popova, U. G. 1981 Eveny Magadanskoi oblasti [The Evens of the Magadan District]. Moscow: Nauka. Prilozhenie . . . 1980 Prilozhenie k sborniku “Mezolit Verkhnego Priangar’ya”: illyustratsii [Supplement to the Collection “The Mesolithic of Upper Angara River Basin”: Illustrations]. Irkutsk: Izdatel’stvo Irkutskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Priroda . . . 1976 Priroda i chelovek v religioznykh predstavleniyakh narodov Sibiri i Severa (vtoraya polovina XIX - nachalo XX v.) [Nature and Man in Religious Beliefs of the Peoples of Siberia and the North (Second Half of the Nineteenth – Beginning of the Twentieth Centuries)]. Leningrad: Nauka. Pshenitsyna, M. N., E. L. Nemirovskaya, and V. P. Efimova 1978 Raskopki pamyatnika tesinskogo etapa u gory Tepsei na Enisee [Excavations of the Tesin Stage at Tepsei Mountain on the Yenisei]. AO 1977, pp. 274–275. Moscow: Nauka. Rainey, F. 1958 Arkheologiya Amerikanskoi Arktiki [Archaeology of the American Arctic]. SE 2:55–62. Sagalaev, A. M. 1991 Uralo-altaiskaya mifologiya: Simvol i arkhetip [Ural-Altai Mythology: Symbol and Archetype]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Sayapin, A. K., and N. N. Dikov 1958 Drevnie sledy kamennogo veka na Chukotke (nakhodki na beregu oz. El’gygytgyn) [Early Traces of the Stone Age in Chukotka (Finds on the Shore of Lake El’gygytgyn)]. Zapiski ChOKM 1:17–31. Shavkunov, E. V. 1990 Kul’tura chzhurchzhenei-udige XII - XIII vv. i problema proiskhozhdeniya tungusskikh narodov Dal’nego Vostoka [The Jurchen-Udige Culture of the Twelfth – Thirteenth Centuries and the Problem of the Origin of the Tungus Peoples of the Far East]. Moscow: Nauka. Shishlo, B. P. 2004 Puti i sud’by kul’turnykh i etnicheskikh izmenenii na Nizhnei Kolyme: etnodemograficheskie kontroverzy [The Paths and Fates of Cultural and Ethnic Changes on the Lower Kolyma: EthnoDemographic Controversies]. In: Etnosy Sibiri. Proshloe, nastoyashchee, budushchee. Part 2, pp. 216-225. Krasnoyarsk: Krasnoyarsky Kraevoi Kraevedchesky Muzei. Simchenko, Y. B. 1965 Tamgi narodov Sibiri XVII v. [Brands of the Peoples of Siberia in the Seventeenth Century]. Moscow: Nauka. 1968 Nekotorye dannye o drevnem etnicheskom substrate v sostave narodov Severnoi Evrazii [Some Data on the Early Ethnic Substrate in the Composition of the Peoples of Northern Eurasia]. In: Problemy

Activity on Lake Baikal The Quartzite Paleolithic]. In: Arkheologiya Severnoi i Tsentral’noi Azii, pp. 11–21. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Okladnikov, A. P., and N. A. Beregovaya 1971 Drevnie poseleniya Baranova mysa [Early Sites at Cape Baranov]. Novosibirsk: Nauka [Translated and published through a grant from the Beringian Shared Heritage Program, National Park Service, Anchorage, AK, as “The Early Sites of Cape Baranov” (2008)]. Okladnikov, A. P., and I. S. Gurvich 1957 Drevnie poseleniya v del’te r. Indigirki [Early Sites in the Indigirka River Delta]. KSIE 27:42–51. Okladnikov, A. P., and M. G. Levin 1961 Etnicheskaya antropologiya i problemy etnogeneza narodov Dal’nego Vostoka [Ethnic Anthropology and Problems of the Ethnogenesis of Peoples of the Far East]. SA 1:295–298. Okladnikov, A. P., and I. A. Nekrasov 1957 Novye sledy kontinental’noi neoliticheskoi kul’tury na Chukotke (nakhodki u oz. El’gygytgyn) [New Traces of a Continental Neolithic Culture in Chukotka (Finds at Lake El’gygytgyn)]. SA 2:102– 114. 1960 Drevnie poseleniya v doline r. Main (po rabotam 1957 g.) [Early Sites in the Main River Valley (According to 1957 Research)]. MIA 86:196–213. Okladnikov, A. P., and R. S. Vasil’evskii 1976 Po Alyaske i Aleutskim ostrovam [Along Alaska and the Aleutian Islands]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. 1980 Severnaya Aziya na zare istorii [Northern Asia at the Dawn of History]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Orekhov, A. A. 2004 Drevnekoryakskoe poselenie Svetlaya 2 na p-ve Staritskogo [The Old Koryak Site of Svetlaya 2 on the Staritsky Peninsula]. Vestnik Severnogo Mezhdunarodnogo Universiteta 3:47-52. Paleolit SSSR . . . 1984 Paleolit SSSR [Paleolithic of the USSR]. Moscow: Nauka. Pelikh, G. I. 1972 Proiskhozhdenie sel’kupov [The Origin of the Sel’kups]. Tomsk: Izdatel’stvo Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Pitul’ko, V. V. 1996 Pozdnepleistotsenovye - rannegolotsenovye drevnosti Severo-Vostochnoi Azii: obzor dannykh [Late Pleistocene - Early Holocene Antiquities of Northeast Asia: A Review of the Data]. In: Arkheologicheskie issledovaniya na Severe Dal’nego Vostoka, pp. 5–16. Magadan: SVKNII DVO RAN. Plotnikov, Y. A. 1987 Klady Priob’ya kak istoricheskii istochnik [Caches of the Ob River as a Historical Resource]. In: Voennoe delo drevnego naseleniya Severnoi Azii, pp. 120–135. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Popov, A. A. 1976 Dusha i smert’ po vozzreniyam nganasan [The Soul and Death in the Views of the Nganasans]. In: Priroda i chelovek v religioznykh predstavleniyakh narodov Sibiri i Severa (vtoraya polovina XIX–

128

References antropologii i istoricheskoi etnografii Azii, pp. 194– 213. Moscow: Nauka. 1976 Kul’tura okhotnikov na olenei Severnoi Evrazii [The Culture of Reindeer Hunters of Northern Eurasia]. Moscow: Nauka. Slobodin, S. B. 1999 Arkheologiya Kolymy i Kontinental’nogo Priokhot’ya v pozdnem pleistotsene i rannem golotsene [Archaeology of the Kolyma River and Continental Okhotsk Sea Region in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene]. Magadan: SVKNII DVO RAN. 2001 Iz istorii arkheologicheskikh issledovanii v Beringii: stoyanka Kampus [From the History of Archaeological Investigations in Beringia: The Campus Site]. In: Dikovskie Chteniya, pp. 46–52. Magadan: SVKNII DVO RAN. Sorokin, A. N. 2004 Smeshenie traditsii ili traditsiya smesheniya? (Chast’ vtoraya) [Mixing of Tradition or Tradition of Mixing (Part 2)]. Rossiiskaya Arkheologiya 2:71–78. Stepanov, A. D. 2004 Yukagirskaya problema v izuchenii ymyyakhtakhskoi kul’tury i epokhi rannikh metallov Yakutii [The Yukagir Problem in the Study of Ymyyakhtakh Culture and the Early Metal Age of Yakutia]. In: Etnosy Sibiri. Proshloe, nastoyashchee, budushchee. Part 1, pp. 145–153. Krasnoyarsk: Krasnoyarsky Kraevoi Kraevedchesky Muzei. Tugolukov, V. A. 1979 Kto vy, yukagiry? [Who are You, Yukagirs?]. Moscow: Nauka. Vasilevich, G. A. 1958 Etnogenez i istoricheskaya etnografiya. Retsenziya na knigy: Angere, J. Die UraloJukagirische Frage: Ein Beitrag zum Problem der Sprachlichen Urverwandtschaft. Stockholm, 1956. [Ethnogenesis and Historical Ethnography. Review of book: Angere, J. Die Uralo-Jukagirische Frage: Ein Beitrag zum Problem der Sprachlichen Urverwandtschaft. Stockholm, 1956.]. SE 1:180–183. Vasil’evskii, R. S. 1971 Proiskhozhdenie i drevnyaya kul’tura koryakov [The Origin and Early Culture of the Koryak]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. 1973 Drevnie kul’tury Tikhookeanskogo Severa [Ancient Cultures of the Northern Pacific]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Vdovin, I. S. 1944 Rasselenie narodnostei Severo-Vostoka Azii vo vtoroi polovine XVII i nachale XVIII v. [Spread of the Peoples of Northeast Asia During the Second Half of the Seventeenth and Beginning of the Eighteenth Centuries]. Izvestiya Vsesoyuznogo Geograficheskogo Obshchestva 76(5):250–265. 1973 Ocherki etnicheskoi istorii koryakov [Essays on the Ethnic History of the Koryaks]. Leningrad: Nauka. Vdovin, I. S., and N. M. Tereshchenko 1959 Ocherki istorii izucheniya paleoaziatskikh i samodiiskikh yazykov [Essays on the History of the

Study of Paleo-Asiatic and Samoyed Languages]. Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR. Vorobei, I. E. 1991 Ritual’nyi pamyatnik v verkhov’yakh Omolona [A Ritual Site on the Upper Reaches of the Omolon River]. Kraevedcheskie Zapiski 17:117–124. 2001 Beringiiskii vopros v arkheologii Krainego Severo-Vostoka Azii [The Beringian Question in the Archaeology of Extreme Northeast Asia]. In: Dikovskie Chteniya, 34–39. Magadan: SVKNII DVO RAN. West, F. H. 1976 Arkheologicheskii kompleks Tangl-Leiks (Tsentral’naya Alyaska) i ego svyaz’ so Starym svetom [The Archaeological Complex of Tangle Lakes (Central Alaska) and Its Connection with the Old World]. In: Beringiya v kainozoe, pp. 439–458. Vladivostok: DVNTS AN SSSR. 1996 Teklanika West. In: American Beginnings. The Prehistory and Palaeoecology of Beringia, pp. 332–341. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press. Wrangel, F. P. 1948 Puteshestvie po severnym beregam Sibiri i po Ledovitomu okeanu, sovershennoe v 1820, 21–24 gg. ekspeditsiei, sostoyavsheyu pod nachal’stvom flota leitenanta F. Vrangelya [Travels on the North Coasts of Siberia and the Arctic Ocean Carried Out in 1820, 1821, 1823, and 1824 by the Expedition under Command of Navy Lieutenant F. Wrangel]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Glavsevmorputi. Yukagiry . . . 1975 Yukagiry [The Yukagirs]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Zbrueva, A. V. 1954 Naselenie beregov Kamy v dalekom proshlom [The Population of the Banks of the Kama River in the Distant Past]. In: Po sledam drevnikh kul’tur: ot Volgi do Tikhogo okeana, pp. 97–162. Moscow. Zhukova, L. N. 1988 Obraz cheloveka v piktograficheskom pis’me yukagirov [The Image of Man in a Pictographic Writing of the Yukagir]. In Yazyk-mif-kul’tura narodov Sibiri, pp. 126–147. Yakutsk: Izdatel’stvo Yakutskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. 1994 Binarnye oppozitsii v mirovozzrenii aborigenov Yakutii: simvolika raznonapravlennykh dug [Binary Opposition in the World View of the Aborigines of Yakutia: Symbolics of Multi-Directional Arcs]. In Yazyk-mif-kul’tura narodov Sibiri. Vypusk 3, pp. 33–54. Yakutsk: Izdatel’stvo Yakutskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. 1996a Odezhda yukagirov [Dress of the Yukagirs]. Yakutsk: Yakutskii Krai. 1996b Religiya yukagirov. Yazycheskii panteon [Religion of the Yukagirs. Pagan Pantheon]. Yakutsk: Izdatel’stvo Yakutskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. 1999 Odezhda yukagirov: genezis i semantika [Dress of the Yukagirs: Genesis and Semantics]. Synopsis of Dissertation for Candidate in Historical Sciences. Yakutsk: Yakutsky Gosudarstvenny Universitet.

129

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka N. N. Archaeological Sites of Kamchatka, Chukotka, and the Upper Kolyma, pp. 245–249. Translation published through a grant from the Beringian Shared Heritage Program, National Park Service, Anchorage, AK.

2003 Yukagiry – nasledniki tsirkumpolyarnoi kul’tury Severnoi Evrazii [The Yukagirs—Descendants of a Circumpolar Culture of Northern Eurasia]. Ilin 1:80–82. Zolotareva, I. M. 1971 O nekotorykh problemakh etnicheskoi antropologii Severnoi Azii [On Some Problems of the Ethnic Anthropology of Northern Asia]. SE 1:36–45. Zubov, A. A. 1969 Odontologicheskii analiz cherepnykh serii iz Ekvenskogo i Uelenskogo mogil’nikov [Odontological Analysis of a Series of Skulls from the Ekven and Uelen Burial Grounds]. In: Arutiunov, S. A., and D. A. Sergeev Drevnie kul’tury aziatskikh eskimosov, pp. 185–205. Moscow: Nauka. 1977 Nekotorye dannye po odontologii drevnego naseleniya Chukotki i Kamchatki [Some Data on Odontology of the Early Population of Chukotka and Kamchatka]. In: Dikov N. N. Arkheologicheskie pamyatniki Kamchatki, Chukotki i Verkhnei Kolymy: (Aziia na styke s Amerikoi v drevnosti), pp. 260–263. Moscow: Nauka. 2003 Some Data on Odontology of the Early Population of Chukotka and Kamchatka. In: Dikov,

Abbreviations in book, journal, and volume titles: SE – Sovetskaya Entografiya; SA – Sovetskaya Arkheologiya; ChOKM – Chukotsky Oblastnoi Kraevedchesky Muzei; AN SSSR – Akademiya Nauk SSSR; SO AN SSSR – Sibirskoe Otdelenie Akademii Nauk SSSR; AO – Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya; IE – Institut Etnografii; RAN – Rossiiskaya Akademiya Nauk; DVO RAN – Dalnevostochnoe Otdelenie Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk; MAE AN SSSR – Muzei Antropologii i Entografii Akademii Nauk SSSR; DVNTS – Dalnevostochny Nauchny Tsentr; SVKNII – Severo-Vostochny Kompleksny Nauchno-Issledovatelsky Institut; IBPS – Institut Boilogicheskikh Problem Severa; KSIIMK – Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Istorii Materialnoi Kul’tury; KSIE – Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Etnografii; MIA – Materialy i Issledovaniya po Arkheologii SSSR; MKAEN – Mezhdunarodny Kongress Antropologicheskikh i Etnograficheskikh Nauk.

130

Appendices

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

1a. View on Lake Tytyl’ from the Tytyl’ IV site. The Tytyl’ I site in background (2004).

1b. Lake Tytyl’. View of the Verkhnetytyl’ IV and V sites (2004).

132

Appendices

1c. Lake Tytyl’. At the foot of the hill with the Verkhnetytyl’ IV site. The Verkhnetytyl’ V site on the hill in the background (2004).

2a. The Tytyl’vaam IV site (Locus 2). View of the camp. In background ice field that doesn’t thaw in summer (1998).

133

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

2b. Tytyl’vaam Valley. Excavations of the site of the same name at Locus 1 (1998).

2c. Excavations at the Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 2 (2002).

134

Appendices

3a. Excavations at the Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 2. Workers on the backdirt (from left to right): Vanya, Dima, and Gera (2002).

3b. Excavation at the Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 2 (2002).

135

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

3c. Tytyl’vaam River valley. Gera in one of the four pit fortifications (2002).

4a. Tytyl’vaam River valley. Vanya near the lowest pit fortification (2002).

136

Appendices

4b. Lake Tytyl’. The Nizhnetytyl’ III site. Shaped stone feature (clastoform) on the surface (2004).

4c. Lake Tytyl’. Preparation for the float survey. The Tytyl’ I site on the hill in the background (1998).

137

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

5a. Float survey on the Malyi Anyui River. The village of Ilirnei in the background (1998).

5b. The Yagodnaya site on the Malyi Anyui River (August 1987). Our tent.

138

Appendices

5c. The Yagodnaya site. View of uncompleted excavation (August 1987).

6a. Lake Rauchuvagytgyn. Site of the same name in the foreground (1993).

139

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

6b. Excavation of the Rauchuvagytgyn I site (1993).

6c. The Yttyl’yveem site. Stone surface feature (clastoform) (2004).

140

Appendices

7a. View from the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan I site to the mouth of the river of the same name. Below, moose cross the stream (1999).

7b. Mouth of the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan River. On the left, the point with the site of the same name (1999).

141

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

7c. Vakarevo site on the Main River. Stratigraphic profile (1982).

7d. Vakarevo site. In the foreground a carbonaceous area of the “floor” of a house with a cluster of fragments of ceramics and waterfowl bones (1982).

142

Appendices

8a. Float survey on the Omolon River (1999).

8b. One of the Omolon River channels near the Kegali meteorological station (1999).

143

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

8c. In the search for the cave on the Kadaramnan River (right tributary of the Omolon River). Guests from the tundra. Second from left – N. M. D’yachkov, resident of Ulyashka Village (Oloi River), guide for many geological expeditions in the 1950s in the Omolon River basin.

1a. Group of students, members of the archaeology crew, from the town of Aliskerovo (Tytyl’ IV site, 1987).

144

Appendices

1b. M. A. Kiryak at the Tytyl’ I site (1987).

2a. Excavation at the Tytyl’ V site (1995).

145

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

2b. Clearing the slope at thee Tytyl’ V site (1995).

2c. Excavation of the Nizhnetytyl’ IV site (1995).

146

Appendices

2d. Excavating a cache of points at the Verkhnetytyl’ IV site (1995).

3a. Cluster of debitage of ancient stone-work production at the Verkhnetytyl’ VI site (1995).

147

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

3b. M. A. Kiryak at the Rauchuvagytgyn I site (August 1987).

4a. Rauchuvagytgyn I site. Cleared hearth in Locus 2 (1993).

148

Appendices

4b. Rauchuvagytgyn I site. Guest from the tundra (1982).

4c. Lake Rechnoe. View of a hill with ancient sites (1983).

149

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

5a. Right bank of the Mlelin River. Location of the burial of reindeer antlers; view before clearing (1989).

5b. Right bank of the Mlelin River. Location of the burial of reindeer antlers; view after clearing (1989).

150

Appendices

5c. Excavation of the Orlovka II site (1982).

6a. Lake Glubokoe. View of the terrace with ancient sites (1983).

151

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

6b. Upper reaches of the Omolon River. Examination of stone surface features (1988).

6c. Upper reaches of the Omolon River. An overnight camp on the float survey (1988).

152

Appendices

7a. View of the promontory with the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan I site (1988).

7b. Preparation for the float survey (1988).

153

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

7c. View from the Bol’shoi El’gakhchan I site to the mouth of the river of the same name. Preparing to enter the Omolon River (1988).

8a. Open-air burial on the upper reaches of the Omolon River (1988). Members of the expedition (from left to right): L. N. Khakhovskaya, V. Sharshakov, I. E. Vorobei, M. A. Kiryak, operator of Magadan Television A. G. Sharov.

154

Appendices

8b. Float survey on the Amguema River (1994). M. A. Kiryak and fellow member of the Chukotka Regional Museum S. G. Prostakov with students from the town of Amguema.

8c. M. A. Kiryak on a float survey along the Amguema River (1994).

155

Plates

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 1. Tytyl’ I site. Stone assemblage: 1–3 – cores; 4 – core spall; 5 – end scraper; 6–9 – tools on flakes. Note: On plates 1–113, each bar unit on the ruler is equal to 1 cm.

158

Plates

Plate 2. Tytyl’ I site, Locus 6. Stone assemblage: 1 – core; 2–4 – tools on knife-like bladelets and blades; 5–7 – burins on knife-like bladelets and blades; 8 – a renewal spall from a core platform; 9, 10 – end scrapers on blades; 11 – core blank; 12, 13 – lamellar flakes; 14 – combination artifact on a lamellar flake (scraper-spokeshave?).

159

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 3. Tytyl’ IV site. Stone assemblage and ceramics: 1–5, 31 – cores; 6 – core spall; 7 – blade; 8–10 – knife-like bladelets; 11, 12 – end scrapers on sections of blades; 13 – lamellar spall; 14–16 – adze blanks; 17–19 – fragments of ceramics; 20–28 – points; 29 – multifaceted burin; 30 – graver; 31 – scraper.

160

Plates

Plate 4. Tytyl’ IV site. Stone assemblage: 1, 4, 11 – blades; 2 – knife (?); 3 – core spall; 5, 6, 20 – fragments of points; 7, 8, 9, 11–16 – knife-like bladelets; 10 – ribbed bladelet; 17, 22 – scrapers; 18, 19 – tools on flakes; 21 – double scraper; 23–25 – zoomorphic images.

161

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 5. Tytyl’ IV site. Stone assemblage: 1, 2, 4, 5, 9 – points; 3, 6–8, 16 – burins; 10 – core fragment; 11–14 – tools on flakes; 15 – notched-dentate instrument on a knife-like bladelet; 17 – scraper blank; 18 – scraper.

162

Plates

Plate 6. Tytyl’ IV site, Locus 1. Stone assemblage: 1–7, 12 – scrapers; 8 – graver; 9, 11 – knives; 10 – drill; 13 – adze; 14, 15 – ceramic fragments; 16, 17 – point fragments.

163

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 7. Tytyl’ IV site, Locus 1. Stone assemblage: 1, 2 – adze blanks; 3 – adze; 4–6 – points; 7 – knife; 8 – ground slab.

164

Plates

Plate 8. Tytyl’ IV site, Locus 1. Stone assemblage: 1 – combination tool; 2 – polar bear figurine.

165

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 9. Tytyl’ IV site, Locus 2. Stone assemblage: 1, 2 – end scrapers on knife-like bladelets; 3 – pestle; 4 – unidentified (zoomorphic? mythological?) image.

166

Plates

Plate 10. Tytyl’ IV site, Locus 3. Stone assemblage: 1–3 – core blanks; 4–14 – cores.

167

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 11. Tytyl’ IV site, Locus 3. Stone assemblage: tools on lamellar flakes and knife-like bladelets.

168

Plates

Plate 12. Tytyl’ IV site, Locus 3. Stone assemblage: 1–10 – end scrapers; 11, 12 – indeterminate artifacts.

169

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 13. Tytyl’ IV site, Locus 3. Stone assemblage: scrapers.

170

Plates

Plate 14. Tytyl’ IV site, Locus 3. Stone assemblage: 1–6 – scrapers on “small tablets”; 7, 8 – end scrapers on lamellar spalls.

171

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 15. Tytyl’ IV site, Locus 3. Stone assemblage: 1, 2, 4–13 – tools on flakes; 3 – chisel; 14 – pointed tool.

172

Plates

Plate 16. Tytyl’ V site. Stone and bone assemblages: 1 – biface; 2 – core blank; 3, 4 – points; 5 – ground stone; 6, 7 – ceramics; 8–12 – cores; 13 – piece of antler.

173

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 17. Tytyl’ V site. Stone and bone assemblages: 1–5, 11–14, 16 – points; 6–10 – cores; 7 – small plate of baleen; 8, 20–22 – knives; 9 – notched-dentate instrument on a knife-like bladelet; 15 – double scraper; 17 – graphic image of a bird (?); 18 – sculpted image of a fish; 19 – fragment of ceramics.

174

Plates

Plate 18. Tytyl’ V site. Stone assemblage: 1–11 – points; 12, 16 – burins; 13 – drill; 14, 15, 17, 18 – scrapers; 19 – lateral inset blade (?); 20 – adze.

175

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 19. Tytyl’ V site. Stone and bone assemblages: 1 – core; 2–4, 8, 9 — knife-like bladelets; 5–7, 11, 15 – scrapers; 10 – burin; 12 – blade; 13, 14 – points; 16 – pointed object (point?) of reindeer rib; 17, 18 – small sculptures.

176

Plates

Plate 20. Tytyl’ V site. Stone assemblage: 1, 5–8 – knife fragments; 2–4 – point fragments (blanks?); 9 – zoomorphic sculpture.

177

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 21. Tytyl’ V site. Stone assemblage and ceramics: 1–4 – points; 5–7 – burins; 8, 9 – scrapers; 10–13 – ceramic fragments.

178

Plates

Plate 22. Tytyl’ V site. Stone assemblage: 1–5 – scrapers; 6–8 – small sculptures.

179

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 23. Tytyl’ V site. Ceramics.

180

Plates

Plate 24. Nizhnetytyl’ I–III sites (1–5) and Nizhnetytyl’ IV site (6–14) sites. Stone assemblage: 1 – fragment of a spear point (or knife blade); 2, 4, 5 – points; 3 – end scraper; 6, 7 – retouched bladelets; 8 – point fragment; 9–12 – burins; 13 – burin spall; 14 – punch (?).

181

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 25. Nizhnetytyl’ IV site. Stone assemblage: cores.

182

Plates

Plate 26. Nizhnetytyl’ IV site. Stone assemblage: cores.

183

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 27. Nizhnetytyl’ IV site. Stone assemblage and ceramics: 1–5, 12, 13 – cores; 6, 15, 19 – knife-like bladelets; 7 – tool on a flake; 8 – ceramic fragment; 9 – graver (?); 10, 11 – burins; 14, 16, 17 – tools on a blade and knife-like bladelets; 18 – ribbed bladelet.

184

Plates

Plate 28. Nizhnetytyl’ IV site. Stone assemblage: 1, 14–16 – scrapers; 2–5 – cores; 6 – star figurine; 7, 12, 13, 17 – burins; 8, 9 – tools on blades; 10 – knife-like bladelet; 11 – tool on a knife-like bladelet.

185

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 29. Nizhnetytyl’ IV site. Stone assemblage: multifaceted burins.

186

Plates

Plate 30. Nizhnetytyl’ IV site. Stone assemblage: 1 – tool on a blade; 2, 3, 19 – points; 4, 20 – gravers; 5 – core blank; 6, 11, 13, 14 – knife-like bladelets; 7, 8 – pendants; 9 – notched-dentate tool on a knife-like bladelet; 10 – skreblo (spokeshave?); 12 – angle burin; 15, 16 – knives; 17, 21 – punches; 18 – indeterminate tool.

187

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 31. Nizhnetytyl’ IV site. Stone assemblage: 1 – core; 2 – inset blade; 3, 7 – artifacts on knife-like bladelets; 4 – knife fragment; 5, 6 – burins; 8 – point; 9 – chisel.

188

Plates

Plate 32. Verkhnetytyl’ IV site, Locus 1. Stone assemblage: 1 – core; 2 – tool on a blade; 3, 4 – adze blanks; 5–10 – points.

189

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 33. Verkhnetytyl’ IV site, Locus 1. Stone assemblage: 1, 2 – cores; 3–5, 9–11, 17–20 – scrapers; 6 – punch; 7 – tool on a flake; 8 – drill; 12–15 – points; 16 – graver; 21 – notched-dentate instrument; 22, 23 – small sculptures.

190

Plates

Plate 34. Verkhnetytyl’ IV site, Locus 1. Stone assemblage: 1–4 – scrapers; 5–8 – burins; 9–11 – cores; 12 – knife fragment (point?); 13–19 – points.

191

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 35. Verkhnetytyl’ IV site, Locus 2 (1–5); and Morennaya site (6–11). Stone assemblage and ceramics: 1, 2 – ceramic fragments; 3 – knife fragment; 4 – scraper; 5 – punch; 6–11 – scrapers.

192

Plates

Plate 36. Combined assemblages of Verkhnetytyl’ IV site, Locus 3 (1–3); Verkhnetytyl’ IV site, Locus 4 (4–7, 9, 11, 13–15); Tytyl’ IV site, Locus 2 (8, 10, 12); and Krivoe Ozero site (16–18).

193

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 37. Verkhnetytyl’ VI site. Stone assemblage: 1–10 – points; 11–15 – scrapers.

194

Plates

Plate 38. Verkhnetytyl’ VI site. Stone assemblage: 1, 2, 4, 5 – cores; 3 – end scraper; 6, 7 – knife-like bladelets; 8 – graver (?); 9, 10 – blades; 11 – ribbed blade; 12–16 – points on bladelets.

195

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 39. Verkhnetytyl’ VI site. Stone assemblage: 1, 3, 4, 9 – blades; 2 – core; 5–8, 12 – knife-like bladelets; 10 – end scraper; 11 – core spall; 13 – angle burin (?); 14, 16 – grooved-dentate notched-dentate instruments; 15 – scraper; 17 – combination tool; 18 – fragment of an indeterminate artifact.

196

Plates

Plate 40. Verkhnetytyl’ VI site. Stone assemblage: 1 – hafted scraper; 2 – core; 3 – burin; 4 – core blank.

197

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 41. Verkhnetytyl’ VI site. Stone assemblage: 1, 9 – notched-dentate tools on blades; 2 – tool (graver?) on a blade; 3–6, 10 – section of blade; 7 – burin (?); 8 – knife-like bladelet; 11 – knife (?).

198

Plates

Plate 42. Verkhnetytyl’ VI site. Stone assemblage: dentate tools.

199

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 43. Verkhnetytyl’ VI site. Stone assemblage: 1 – flaked pebble; 2 – skreblo; 3 – spear point? (knife blade?); 4 – adze.

200

Plates

Plate 44. Verkhnetytyl’ VI site (7, 8) and Tytyl’vaam I site (1–6). Stone assemblage: 1–3 – points; 4 – scraper; 5 – knife-like bladelet; 6 — spokeshave (?); 7 – combination tool on a large spall; 8 – tool on a discoid flake.

201

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 45. Tytyl’vaam II site (1, 4, 5) and Tytyl’vaam IV site (2, 3). Stone assemblage: cores.

202

Plates

Plate 46. Tytyl’vaam II site. Stone assemblage: 1 – flaked pebble; 2 – core; 3 – end scraper on a cortical spall; 4 – graver (?) on a cortical spall; 5 – tool on a blade; 6 – section of a blade; 7 – tool on a rejuvenation spall of a core platform; 8 – ribbed blade.

203

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 47. Tytyl’vaam II site. Stone assemblage: nodules.

204

Plates

Plate 48. Tytyl’vaam II site. Stone assemblage: 1, 5 – nodules; 2 – end core; 3 – blade; 4 –notched tool on a lamellar flake.

205

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 49. Tytyl’vaam II site. Stone assemblage: cutting tools.

206

Plates

Plate 50. Tytyl’vaam II site. Stone assemblage: 1 – tool with concave-convex edge; 2 – tool on discoid flake.

207

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 51. Tytyl’vaam II site. Stone assemblage: 1 – core blank; 2, 7 – scrapers; 3 – retouched flake; 4 – end core; 5 – biface; 6 – blade; 8 – zoomorphic sculpture.

208

Plates

Plate 52. Tytyl’vaam II site (2–8) and Tytyl’vaam III site (1). Stone assemblage: 1 – core blank; 2 – tool on a lamellar flake; 3, 5 – tools on blade sections; 4 – end core; 6, 8 – tools on flakes; 7 – biface fragment.

209

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 53. Tytyl’vaam III site. Stone assemblage: 1 – core blank; 2 – end scraper; 3–5 – tools on lamellar flakes; 6 – end core.

210

Plates

Plate 54. Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 1 (1, 4, 5, 12, 14) and Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 2 (2, 3, 6–11, 13). Stone assemblage: 1, 2 – core blanks; 3–9, 13 – wedge-shaped cores; 10, 11 – point fragments; 12 – biface; 14 – scraper.

211

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 55. Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 1. Stone assemblage: discoid bifaces.

212

Plates

Plate 56. Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 1. Stone assemblage: 1–3 – biface fragments; 4, 5 – tools on lamellar flakes.

213

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 57. Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 1. Stone assemblage: 1, 2 – tools on blades; 3, 4 – burins; 5 – end scraper; 6, 8 – gravers; 7 – scraper fragment; 9, 10 – biface fragments; 11 – combination artifact.

214

Plates

Plate 58. Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 1. Stone assemblage: 1 –cutting tool; 2 – combination instrument; 3, 4 – retouched flakes; 5, 6, 8 – tools with notched-dentate edge; 7 – blade fragment.

215

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 59. Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 1 (1–5, 7–10), and Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 3 (6). Stone assemblage: 1, 2, 4, 5 – tools with notched-convex working edge; 3 – angle scraper; 6 – biface fragment; 7, 8 – knives (?); 9, 10 – knife-like bladelets.

216

Plates

Plate 60. Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 1. Stone assemblage: tools on large flakes.

217

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 61. Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 2. Stone assemblage: 1, 2 – split bifaces; 3 – end core; 4 – spall.

218

Plates

Plate 62. Tytyl’vaam IV site, loci 1 (3) and 2 (1, 2). Stone assemblage: 1 – core blank; 2, 3 – cores.

219

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 63. Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 2. Stone assemblage: cores.

220

Plates

Plate 64. Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 2. Stone assemblage: 1 – scraper; 2 – seam polisher (?); 3 – wedge-shaped core blank; 4, 5 – retouched flakes.

221

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 65. Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 2. Stone assemblage: 1 – core; 2 – rejuvenation spall from a core platform; 3 – core spall; 4 – end core-scraper (spokeshave?); 5 – graver; 6, 7 – scrapers; 8 – knife (?); 9 – blade.

222

Plates

Plate 66. Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 2. Stone assemblage: 1–3 – end scrapers; 4 – blade; 5–17 – microblades; 18–20 – burins; 21, 22 – retouched flakes; 23–25 – rejuvenation spalls from core platforms.

223

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 67. Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 2. Stone assemblage: cores.

224

Plates

Plate 68. Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 2. Stone assemblage: cores.

225

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 69. Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 2. Stone assemblage: choppers.

226

Plates

Plate 70. Tytyl’vaam IV site, Locus 3. Stone assemblage: 1, 3 – notched-dentate tools; 2–7, 12 – retouched flakes; 8 – knife-like bladelet; 9, 10 – tools on lamellar flakes; 11 – scraper; 13–15 – bifaces.

227

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 71. Podgornaya site. Stone assemblage: 1, 2 – beaked tools; 3, 4 – bifaces.

228

Plates

Plate 72. Verkhnetytyl’ IV site, Locus 1. Cache (No. 1) of stone points.

229

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 73. Verkhnetytyl’ IV site, Locus 1. Cache (No. 2). Stone artifacts (blanks?).

230

Plates

Plate 74. Verkhnetytyl’ IV site, Locus 1. Cache (No. 2). Stone artifacts (blanks?).

231

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 75. Srednee Ozero V site. Stone assemblage: core blanks.

232

Plates

Plate 76. Srednee Ozero V site. Stone assemblage: 1–4 – core blanks; 5–11 – pieces of raw material with retouch; 12 – scraper; 13, 14 – cores.

233

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 77. Srednee Ozero V site. Stone assemblage: cores.

234

Plates

Plate 78. Srednee Ozero V site. Stone assemblage: 1–10 – multifaceted burins; 11–15 – burin blanks.

235

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 79. Srednee Ozero V site (1–15) and El’gygytgyn V site (16–21). Stone assemblage: 1 – bladelets with a notch; 2, 3, 5, 8, 12 – burins; 4, 10 – microblades with retouched edge; 6, 7, 9 – microblades; 11 – ribbed bladelet; 13 – pointed tool (?); 14, 18 – bifaces; 15 – punch; 16, 17 – cores; 19 – lateral inset blade; 20 – point; 21 – bladelet with retouch.

236

Plates

Plate 80.Yttyl’yveem I site (1–16) and Yttyl’yveem III site (17). Stone assemblage: 1, 2 – core blanks; 3 – indeterminate artifact; 4 – graver; 5 – scraper; 6, 7 – punches; 8, 9 – drills (?); 10–15 – flakes with retouch; 16 – spokeshave (?); 17 – adze-like artifact.

237

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 81. Yttyl’yveem II site. Stone assemblage: 1 – core; 2 – core fragment; 3, 5, 7 – biface blanks; 4 – retouched flake; 6 – end scraper.

238

Plates

Plate 82. El’gygytgyn II site. Stone assemblage: 1, 4 – wedge-shaped cores; 2, 3 – knives; 5 – knife-like bladelet; 6, 7 – gravers; 9 – lateral inset blade; 9, 10, 12 – points; 11 – point fragment, reformed (?) into a burin; 13 – retouched flake.

239

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 83. El’gygytgyn III site. Stone assemblage: 1, 2 – core blanks; 3, 5–8 – core; 4 – knife; 9 – micro-scraper; 10 – graver; 11 – point fragment on a bladelet; 12, 13 – small zoomorphic sculpture; 14 – natural pebble of zoomorphic appearance.

240

Plates

Plate 84. El’gygytgyn IV site. Stone assemblage: 1, 2 – cores; 3, 4 – burins on knife-like bladelets; 5, 6 – combination instruments on knife-like bladelets; 7 – lateral inset blade (?); 8 – point fragment; 9 – multifaceted burin; 10, 11 – blank fragment; 12, 13 – knives; 14 – indeterminate artifact.

241

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 85. Surface collection on the east shore of Lake El’gygytgyn: 1 – core; 2–6, 13, 14 – points; 7 – burin; 8 – knife-like bladelet; 9–11 – knives; 12 – ceramic fragment.

242

Plates

Plate 86. Rauchuvagytgyn I site, Locus 2. Stone assemblage: 1–6, 9 – points; 7, 8, 10 – knives; 11 – sinker; 12 – bas-relief zoomorphic image.

243

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 87. Rauchuvagytgyn I site. Stone and bone assemblages: 1–4, 7 – points; 5 – burins; 6 – knife-like bladelet; 8 – knife; 9 – engraving on a plate of baleen; 10 – engraving on a slate slab.

244

Plates

Plate 88. Rauchuvagytgyn I site. Stone and bone assemblages: 1–3 – points (2 – with a bone foreshaft); 4 – pointed tool of antler; 5, 6 – shaped knives; 7 – ceramic fragment with engraving.

245

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 89. Rauchuvagytgyn I site. Illustrative artifacts: 1 – pebble with an incised image of a bird; 2 – face on a slate slab; 3 – polyiconic figurine; 4–7 – engravings on slate slabs.

246

Plates

Plate 90. Burial of reindeer antlers on the right bank of the Mlelin River (scale of 1:20); arrows point north.

247

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 91. Orlovka II site. Stone assemblage: 1–8 – microblades; 9 – knife (?); 10, 11 –burins; 12–16 – knife-like bladelets with retouch; 17 – core fragment; 18 – ribbed bladelet; 19 – cortical flake with retouch; 20 – pebble tool.

248

Plates

Plate 92. Orlovka II site. Stone assemblage: 1, 2 – end scrapers; 3–6 – blades; 7–10 – burins; 8 – end spall.

249

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 93. Orlovka II site. Stone assemblage: 1, 3 – split pebbles; 2 – sharpened pebble; 4 – skreblo on pebble spall.

250

Plates

Plate 94. Orlovka II site. Stone assemblage: 1–3 – cores; 4, 6 – choppers; 5 – split pebble.

251

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 95. Orlovka II site. Stone assemblage: 1 – skreblo (spokeshave?); 2, 3 – end scrapers.

252

Plates

Plate 96. Stone assemblage from sites on the Kymyneiveem River (1–14, 17–19 – Bezymyannyi Creek; 15, 16 – Vysokii Point): 1, 9, 12 – cores; 13, 14 – trimming spalls from core platforms; 2–5, 10, 11 – microblades; 6, 15 – perforators; 7, 8, 16, 19 – retouched flakes; 18 – transverse burin.

253

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 97. Stone assemblage: Sites on the Kymyneiveem River (1– Bezymyannyi Creek; 2 – Vysokii Point; 3–13 – Levyi Kymynei): 1, 2 – cores; 3 – ribbed bladelet; 4–12 – knife-like bladelets; 13 – retouched blade.

254

Plates

Plate 98. Levyi Kymynei site. Stone assemblage: 1–9 – knife-like bladelets; 10–13 – arrow points; 14 – biface fragment; 15, 16 – scrapers; 17 – knife.

255

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 99. Tadlevaam site (1–10) and Ilirnei II site (11–19). Stone assemblage: 1–4 – retouched knife-like bladelets; 5, 6, 9 – points; 7 – adze; 8, 10 – burins; 11–13 – cores; 14 – ribbed bladelet; 15 – bladelet with retouch; 16 – point; 17 – scraper; 18 – burin; 19 – knife.

256

Plates

Plate 100. Ilirnei IV site (1–7) and Ilirnei V site (8–22). Stone assemblage: 1–3 – core blanks; 4, 14–22 – points; 5, 7, 13 – scrapers; 6, 12 – knives; 8 – rejuvenation spall from a core platform; 9, 11 – knife-like bladelets with retouch; 10 – burin.

257

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 101. Ilirnei V site. Stone assemblage: 1 – frontal spall from a core; 2 – burin; 3–5 – lateral inset blade; 6, 19–21 – knives; 7, 8 – scrapers; 9–18 – points; 22 – dolphin figurine.

258

Plates

Plate 102. Ilirnei V site. Stone assemblage: 1–5, 8–10, 12–14 – points and point fragments; 6, 7, 11, 15, 17, 18 – knives and knife fragments; 16 – adze fragment.

259

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 103. Ilirnei V site. Stone assemblage: knives and knife fragments.

260

Plates

Plate 104. Ilirnei V site (1–12) and Ekityki I (13–19). Stone assemblage: 1 – blade; 2 – burin; 3, 4 – knife-like bladelets with retouch; 5–10, 16–19 – points; 11 – burin; 12 – knife; 13–15 – scrapers.

261

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 105. Ekityki IV site. Stone assemblage: 1–4 – cores; 5–10 – knife-like bladelets; 11 – core spall; 12 – retouched blade; 13, 14 – burins; 15, 17–22 – scrapers; 16 – graver.

262

Plates

Plate 106. Yimyveem site. Stone assemblage: 1, 6 – core blanks; 2, 7 – pebble spalls with retouch; 3, 5 – points; 4, 9 – knives; 8 – punch; 10 – scraper blank.

263

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 107. Rechnoe I site (1–11) and Rechnoe II site (12). Stone assemblage: 1, 2 – knife-like bladelets; 3 – point fragment on a knife-like bladelet; 4 – burin; 5–7 – points; 8 – cutting tool; 9 – blank; 10 – biface; 11, 12 – cortical spalls with curved-point working edge; 13 – chisel blank (?).

264

Plates

Plate 108. Rechnoe I site (1–3) and Rechnoe II site (4–13). Stone assemblage: 1 – blade; 2, 12 – end scrapers; 3 – scraper blank; 4–6, 8–10 – knife-like bladelets; 7 – ribbed bladelet; 11 – point; 13 – micro-scraper.

265

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 109. Glubokoe Ozero site. Stone assemblage: 1 – core; 2 – knife-like bladelet; 3, 4, 7–10 – points; 5, 15, 16 – scrapers; 6 – burin; 11–13 – knives; 14 – blank.

266

Plates

Plate 110. Bol’shoi El’gakhchan I site. Stone assemblage: 1–6, 8 – points; 7, 17 – end inset blades; 9–13 – files (?) (lateral inset blades); 14, 20 – burins; 15, 16 – beaked tools; 18, 19 – lateral inset blades; 21, 22 – scrapers; 23 – micro-core perform.

267

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 111. Bol’shoi El’gakhchan I site. Stone and bronze assemblages: 1 – adze; 2 – spear point; 3 – abrader; 4 – bronze knife; 5 – bronze burin; 6 – knife blade.

268

Plates

Plate 112. Ushki I site (Kamchatka). Wedge-shaped core blanks.

269

Margarita A. Kiryak (Dikova) - The Stone Age of Chukotka

Plate 113. Combined plate with Upper Paleolithic artifacts from sites in Kamchatka, Chukotka, and the Magadan Region (1–5, 8, 14 – Ushki I; 6, 7, 9–13 – Talyain I; 15 – Bol’shoi El’gakhchan II). Stone assemblage: 1–8, 14, 15 – wedge-shaped cores; 9 – burin; 10–12 – microblades; 13 – biface.

270