In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

58 4. Late Paleolithic and Mesolithic Technological Variability in the Lower Vitim Valley, Eastern Siberia evgeny m. ineshin and aleksei v. teten’kin R ecently, archaeologists in eastern Siberia have become increasingly interested in the archaeological record of the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary, for four reasons. First, during the final Pleistocene/early Holocene (14,000–8000  C BP [16,650–8900 cal BP]) there occurred the dynamic formation of highly variable microlithic technologies, which appear to have been based primarily upon Middle Paleolithic and early Upper Paleolithic technical traditions. In southern Siberia, archaeological sites of this period are commonly referred to as “final Paleolithic” and “Mesolithic,” whereas in Yakutia they are referred to as the “Diuktai late Paleolithic” and “Sumnagin Epi-Paleolithic” cultures. Second, across the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary in eastern Siberia there occurred significant changes in climate and landscapes, which must have brought human cultural adaptations. Third, across a large part of northeast Asia, including the lower Vitim River valley, the earliest reliably dated archaeological objects are assigned precisely to the final Pleistocene . Before the final Pleistocene, archaeological sites in the region are rare. Fourth, the final Pleistocene archaeological record of eastern Siberia is undoubtedly important to consider in the context of the peopling of Beringia and the Americas, and studies of northeast Asian cultures of this time are often appraised in terms of their degree of relatedness to early Beringian and American cultures. New archaeological research along the lower Vitim River has led to the discovery and excavation of wellstratified , multilayered final Paleolithic and Mesolithic sites that contain well-preserved living floors and features with artifacts and faunal remains, the taphonomy of which is well understood (figure 4.1). These sites are of critical importance to archaeologists working in eastern Siberia as well as Beringia. In the regional culturetypological scheme of the late Paleolithic, the lower Vitim occupies the place of contact between the Baikal and Lena regions, and in the Mesolithic, the upper Vitim is characterized by the unique Ust’-Karengskaia culture, which contains the most ancient pottery in the region, beginning around 11,000  C BP (12,900 cal BP). The lower Vitim region is made up of the lower course of the river, starting at its exit from the Delyun-Uran and Kodar mountain ranges to its confluence with the Lena River, a length of about 525 km. The Vitim is a major river that drains the Baikal-Patom plateau, which is typically divided into different parts—southern (Baikal) and northern (Patom) (figures 4.1, 4.2). Numerous archaeological sites have been found along the lower Vitim; the most interesting to us (by their age and assignment to the final Pleistocene/early Holocene) are Avdeikha, Bol’shoi Iakor’ 1, Kovrizhka 2, Kovrizhka 3, and Invalidnyi 3 (loci 1 and 2). The three last-mentioned sites are located in the region of the mouth of the Mamakan River, a major tributary of the Vitim. We distinguish this region as the Mamakan Geoarchaeological Region. Still another site, Mamakan 6, has been radiocarbon-dated, but our excavations there have not yet reached basal layers. In this chapter we present details about the major final Paleolithic and Mesolithic sites in the lower Vitim region, focusing on technological aspects of their lithic assemblages . We conclude with a “technological history” of the region, placing the Vitim record in the greater context of northeast Asian prehistory. Bol’shoi Iakor’ 1 The archaeological site of Bol’shoi Iakor’ 1 is located along the left mouth area of Bol’shoi Iakor’ Creek on the Late Paleolithic and Mesolithic Variability in the Lower Vitim Valley 59 acter and extent of the hearths themselves as well as distributions of cultural remains around them. Through paleomagnetic analyses, we have inferred that stone rings of a series of hearths were heated for a short time but nonetheless burned through. We hypothesize that hearths in paired structures were burned during the same occupation periods, with one hearth being formed first and the place of much concentrated activity, and the secondary hearth being prepared and burned as a result of the expansion of the inhabited space. For cultural horizons 6 and 7, we uncovered burin work areas associated with hearths of the paired structures. According to either the absence of cultural remains around hearths or the relative compactness of the sediment around hearths, we have interpreted the presence of light surface dwellings in cultural horizons 3B, 7, and 8. In the latter two horizons, around hearths 1, 2, and 3, we...

Share