This book is about the Terminal Pleistocene archaeology of the Vitim River Basin, located between North Baikalsk and the Patomsk uplands. Hardly known outside of Russia, it is only briefly mentioned even in major summaries on the Upper Palaeolithic of eastern Siberia (Mochanov Reference Mochanov2009; Pitul’ko & Pavlova Reference Pitul’ko and Yu. Pavlova2016: 113–15). The release of the English translation of this volume, originally published in Russian in 2010, is therefore very welcome. The Foreword by J. Chlachula provides an introduction of this work for an international audience.
It is important that this book is quite different methodologically from culture-historical studies common in Soviet/Russian archaeology, and represents an approach that follows processual and behavioural frameworks sensu L.R. Binford (‘activity systems’, pp. 17–43). The main topic is the Bol’shoy Yakor’ (Big Anchor) I site, situated on the lower course of the Vitim River near the town of Mamakan, of which approximately 100m2 was excavated in 1985–1998. A plethora of artefacts (approximately 126 300) and animal bones (approximately 58 800) was recovered from the finely laminated strata, providing a unique opportunity for the high-resolution investigation of human culture, subsistence and ecology.
Meticulous excavations allowed for the recovery of artefacts and faunal remains. A number of analytical methods are deployed, including geomorphology, petrographic analysis, archaeozoology, radiocarbon and archaeomagnetic dating and pollen analysis. The rapid accumulation of alluvial sands and loams on the former floodplain, now a terrace of the Vitim River, resulted in the preservation of the remains of multiple short-term human occupation episodes, lasting altogether for about 1500 calendar years. Of 27 radiocarbon dates run on hearth charcoal and animal bones, only 10 within the interval of c. 11 750–12 700 BP were found to be reliable and fit the stratigraphic sequence. An explanation of why the other radiocarbon values are outliers is, however, not given. Animal remains consist of 28 species and genera, with hare, reindeer and Arctic fox the most numerous. During the period when the site was occupied, it was surrounded by a largely treeless landscape with a cold and dry climate, with some minor oscillations; traces of ice wedges in sediments containing cultural layers 4–8 are noticeable.
Thirteen cultural components (3A–9) belong to the Late Upper Palaeolithic and are associated with the Dyuktai Culture of Yakutia and adjacent regions. The ‘trademark’ of this complex is the microblade technology, and microblades were produced at the Bol’shoy Yakor’ I by the Yubetsu method (see Kuzmin et al. Reference Kuzmin, Keates and Shen2007: 53–78, 125–46; Gómez Coutouly Reference Gómez Coutouly2016). About 30 wedge-shaped cores and around 1700 microblades were recovered; refitting was undertaken to reconstruct the technological steps. Bifacial production was also practised, with 14 cores recovered. Unifacial tools are mostly skreblos (plains—approximately 60), while around 130 other formal tools (burins, bifaces, scrapers and chisel-like items) were also excavated. The main raw materials—andesites, dacites, porphyrites, diabases and basalts—were obtained locally as pebbles from the river channel. Three types are of ‘exotic’ origin: rock crystal for making the blades and flakes predominant in layer 4V (the primary source is not identified); andesite-hyalodacites from layer 3V, brought as preforms and ready-to-use tools from between 70 and 150km south of the site; and graphitite for the production of dyestuff, whose source is located some 60km north of the site. A grinding stone with traces of red ochre was found in layer 4A. As for bone tools, around 20 of them were recovered, including slotted implements with grooves for inserting microblades, points, harpoons, eye needles, pressure flakers, chisel-like tools and a mallet.
The reconstruction of human subsistence is a real strength of this work, especially when compared to the majority of Palaeolithic research conducted in Russia. The application of seasonality analysis, based on a study of the growth patterns of animal teeth (see Klevezal Reference Klevezal1996), have made it possible to understand the main survival strategies. Two kinds of occupations have been established: short-term camps characterised by ephemeral activity (layers 3A, 3B, 4, 4A and 4V), usually with a single fireplace, although occasionally with two or more hearths, and seasonal camps of intensive activity, in the winter and autumn (layers 3V and 6–9) and in the spring (layers 4B and 5), all with up to six fireplaces. Ancient people did not procure reindeer at the ford across the Vitim River, but rather conducted non-specialised, opportunistic hunting of large and small mammals and birds, as well as fishing. The authors suggest that the meat of large mammals was moved from the camp. An independent study of a small portion of the Bol’shoy Yakor’ I bone materials (263 pieces) by Turner et al. (Reference Turner, Ovodov and Pavlova2013: 76) established that humans were butchering, cooking and breaking animal bones. The degree of perimortem fragmentation is very high, which suggests that practically no waste was left. There is also evidence for carnivore activity, probably fox or dog, on the bone assemblage. This is in accordance with other archaeozoological data obtained for this site.
Overall, this is a solid research publication on the Upper Palaeolithic in a lesser studied region of Siberia. It provides us with a much better understanding of human subsistence and adaptation around the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary in the Vitim River Basin, and we should be grateful to the translators, Hommel and Reynolds, for making the volume available to the Anglophone world. I would recommend this book to all students of prehistoric Siberia, East Asia and Beringia.
