Time period determination of the Kuril Ainu’s major
withdrawal from Kamchatka
TAKASE Katsunori1
ABSTRACTThe Kuril Ainu are the indigenous people of the Northern and Central Kuril Islands. Although Russian
documents have suggested that these people also occupied Sothern Kamchatka, the time period andhabitation area in Kamchatka have been poorly understood. However, recent archaeological studies
have shown that they emerged in the 15th century AD and occupied not only the Kuril Islands but alsoa wide area of Southern Kamchatka. Moreover, such studies have indicated that their habitation
area in Kamchatka rapidly decreased from the mid-17th to 18th centuries AD. Because the precise
time period of their departure remains to be revealed, the present study determines when the Kuril
Ainu withdrew from Kamchatka, based on new materials collected from Southeastern Kamchatka.
According to the results, the Kuril Ainu’s habitation area in Kamchatka rapidly decreased in theearly 18th century AD. During that time, the northern boundary of the Kuril Ainu’s habitation areaon the east coast of the peninsula shifted 350 km south from Kronotsky Bay to Vestnik Bay, whereas
there was no signiﬁcant change on the west coast.
KEYWORDS: Kuril Ainu, Kamchatka, Naiji pottery, Nalychevo Culture, Tar’ya Culture

1.

Introduction

The Kuril Ainu are regarded as the indigenous people of the Northern and Central Kuril
Islands, according to the Japanese documents recorded in the late 18th and 19th centuries AD(e.g. Torii 1903, 1919). However, Russian documents from the late 17th to mid-18th centuries
AD have shown that they inhabited not only the Kuril Islands but also the Southern
Kamchatka (Krasheninnikov 1755; Steller 1774; Ogloblin 1891). The Kuril Ainu’s habitation
in Southern Kamchatka has been supported by linguistic studies on geographical names(Murayama 1968, 1987). Recent archaeological studies have provided detailed informationon their appearance in Kamchatka (Figure 1) and the manner in which they lived in theregion from the mid- to late-15th century AD (Takase 2013a, 2015, 2019). However, theirhabitation area in Kamchatka rapidly decreased during the mid-17th century AD and the 18th
century AD. Because the exact time period of their departure from Kamchatka remains to
be revealed, the purpose of the present study is to determine when the Kuril Ainu withdrew
1 Graduate School of Humanities and Human Sciences, Hokkaido University, Kita-10, Nishi-7, Kita-ku,

Sapporo, Hokkaido 060–0810 Japan (takase@let.hokudai.ac.jp)
Category: Original Article Received: 21 September 2019; Accepted: 13 March 2020
JAPANESE JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 8 (2020): 3–24

TAKASE Katsunori

Figure 1. Archaeological sites of the Nalychevo culture in the Kamchatka Peninsula and relatedsites in this study

from Kamchatka. This event must have drastically changed Kuril Ainu’s economy because
there is a large diﬀerence in the quantity and quality of various resources between the
Kamchatka Peninsula and the Kuril Islands as island biogeographical studies demonstrate(Fitzhugh et al. 2004, 2016; Takase 2017: Gjesfjeld et al. 2020). Moreover, this withdrawal
might be caused not only by economic factors but also by social factors such as therelationship with Russians and other indigenous peoples in Kamchatka. As their withdrawal
from Kamchatka has the signiﬁcant meaning in their economy and society, the ﬁndings ofthis study will contribute to a better understanding of the Kuril Ainu’s history.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

4

TIME PERIOD DETERMINATION OF THE KURIL AINU ’ S MAJOR WITHDRAWAL FROM KAMCHATKA

2.

Methods and materials

This study focuses on the age and distribution of clay vessels used by the Kuril Ainu,
also known as Naiji pottery 内耳土器 (Figure 2). This type of pottery, an imitation of themedieval Japanese iron pans, was produced to compensate for the shortage of iron pans
imported from Central Japan. Thus, it was distributed in not only Southern Kamchatka andthe Kuril Islands but also Hokkaido and Sakhalin during the second millennium AD (e.g.
Amano et al. 2007; Baba 1940; Dikova 1983; Jochelson 1928; Kumaki et al. 2010; Niioka
1937; Osada 2008; Petei & Fukuda 1974; Takase 2013a, 2013b; Takase & Suzuki 2013;
Takase & Lebedintsev 2016, 2019; Torii 1903, 1919).
Naiji pottery was an element of the Nalychevo culture that was distributed in Southern
Kamchatka and the Northern Kuril Islands (Dikov 1979). Recent archaeological studies
have shown that this archaeological culture emerged in an uninhabited zone (i.e. an areawith an extremely low population density) during the mid- to late-15th century AD (Takase
2015; Fitzhugh et al. 2016). In addition, there was no tradition of manufacturing pottery
in Southern Kamchatka until the occurrence of Naiji pottery, indicating that Naiji pottery
users migrated from areas where it had been already distributed before the mid-15th century.
Hence, the bearers of the Nalychevo culture should be regarded as the Kuril Ainu, and Naiji
pottery should be considered as a reliable indicator of their occupation in the area (Takase2015)1). Harpoon heads are also important elements of the Nalychevo culture, but the numberof harpoon heads in Kamchatka is still small (Dikova 1983; Takase & Lebedintsev 2019),
and they must have been used only in the coastal area. On the other hand, Naiji pottery ismore ubiquitous archaeological material of the Nalychevo Culture2).
Our study examined the age of the Naiji pottery pieces by using accelerator mass
spectrometric (AMS) radiocarbon dating. To calibrate the conventional radiocarbon age, theIntCal13 calibration curve (Reimer et al. 2013) and the OxCal programme (ver. 4.3, Bronk
Ramsey 2009) were used. The charcoal samples were collected from several archaeologicalsites around Listvennichnaya Bay in Southeastern Kamchatka (Figure 3). This location has
been particularly important, because there was the possibility that the northern boundary of
the younger stage of the Nalychevo culture (type II period in Figure 2) was situated in thisregion, based on the excavations and ﬁndings of a Swedish expedition team (led by Sten
Bergman) in the 1920s (Bergman 1924; Schnell 1932).
The detailed examinations of Naiji pottery in Bergman collection revealed that all
ceramic sherds were from the older stage of the Nalychevo Culture (type Ia and type Ib
periods in Figure 2)3). However, there was no clear evidence on the lack of pottery of theyounger stage of the Nalychevo culture, because of the limited number of ceramic materials.
Moreover, it was impossible to conduct radiocarbon dating of this site cluster because there
were no charcoal samples in the collection. Thus, in 2015, excavations were conducted in© Japanese Archaeological Association

5

TAKASE Katsunori

the same location. It is important to note that, because the author is currently working on
another article on the examination of Naiji pottery in Bergman collection, the present study
focuses on the pottery and radiocarbon dating of the charcoal samples collected in the 2015
excavation project.
On the basis of an archaeological general survey, Ponomarenko (1993) recognised threesites in Listvennichnaya Bay: Listvennichnaya I, Listvennichnaya II, and Listvennichnaya
III (Figure 3). The present study used this classiﬁcation and the Listvennichnaya IV site
found in 2015. Although the detailed information on the pit dwellings and the stratigraphy
have been provided (Takase 2018), the sites and ceramic materials are summarised in thefollowing text:
Listvennichnaya I: This site, which is situated on a terrace along the southern coast of
Listvennichnaya Lake, includes 18 pit dwellings at an elevation of 20–25 m above sea level(Ponomarenko 1993). There were lithics scattered over the eroded surface, possibly causedby brown bears near the entrance of pit dwelling No. 13 named by Ponomarenko (1993).
During the cleaning of the eroded surface (for the purpose of documenting the stratigraphy),a total of ﬁve pottery fragments were discovered between the surface stratum and thesurrounding embankment of the pit dwelling.
The potsherds shown in Figures 4.1–4.4 are ceramic fragments originated from a clay
vessel. All the potsherds include inner lugs, and thick charred material is adhered to theexterior surface. The estimated diameter of this particular pan is 32 cm, with a wall thicknessof 1.1–1.3 cm. The size of the inner lugs is relatively large (more than 7 cm in length), andsmall projections can be seen on the rim. A cross-section of the fragments reveals an uneven
belt on the exterior rim, whereas the opposite side exhibits a wide and shallow groove
typically found in iron pans. The potsherd in Figure 4.5 is a fragment of a diﬀerent clay
vessel. This is a rim fragment of Naiji pottery without an inner lug, complete with a wideand shallow groove on the inner rim and an uneven belt on the opposite side. Although thesurface of this clay vessel has been slightly removed through secondary heating, the wall
thickness is approximately 0.6 cm. For the purpose of this study, AMS radiocarbon dating
was conducted on three charcoal samples found with these potsherds from the cultural layer.
Listvennichnaya II: The site is situated on a terrace near the conﬂuence of the
Listvennichnaya River and its unnamed tributary. Although Ponomarenko (1993) found 24
pit dwellings at an elevation of 15–35 m, three new pit dwellings were discovered in 2015:
N1, N2 and N3.
The Naiji pottery fragments shown in Figures 5.1–5.9 were found in a test trench nearpit dwelling No. 9. Although the ceramic sherds in Figures 5.3 and 5.4 originated froma clay pan, the other clay vessel fragments most likely originated from diﬀerent pans.
The potsherds shown in Figures 5.1, 5.3 and 5.4 are rim fragments without inner lugs. In
addition, they include a wall thickness of 0.7–0.9 cm, with an uneven belt on the exterior rim© Japanese Archaeological Association

6

TIME PERIOD DETERMINATION OF THE KURIL AINU ’ S MAJOR WITHDRAWAL FROM KAMCHATKA

Figure 2. Chronology of Naiji pottery from the Northern Kurils and Kamchatka (revised fromTakase 2013a)© Japanese Archaeological Association

7

TAKASE Katsunori

Figure 3.

Map showing the location of the examined sites

and a wide and shallow groove on the inner rim.
The fragment shown in Figure 5.6 also includes an uneven belt on the exterior rim anda wide and shallow groove in the inner rim (although they are obscure to a certain extent).
The potsherd shown in Figure 5.2 is a rim fragment with a relatively small inner lug (4.1 cm),with a wall thickness of approximately 1.0 cm. It is notable that the cross-section of the inner
lug includes a triangular shape, suggesting the imitation of the morphological features of theoriginal iron pan. The other specimens include fragments of the ﬂat bottom (Figures 5.8 and5.9) and body (Figures 5.5 and 5.7) of Naiji pottery.
The potsherds in Figures 5.10–5.16 were excavated from the test pits near pit dwelling No.
N1. As shown in Figure 5.10, the rim fragment includes a relatively small inner lug (4.3 cm),with a cross-section exhibiting a triangular shape. There is also a small projection on the rim
and a wide and shallow groove on the inner rim surface. As for the body fragment shown in
Figure 5.11, a wide and shallow groove can be seen in the upper part of the ceramic sherd.
Regarding the bottom fragments shown in Figures 5.13–5.16, the surface layer of the innerface has been removed through secondary heating.
At the Listvennichnaya I and II sites, the Naiji pottery was found in the upper culturallayer. Below this layer, a lower cultural layer was discovered (Takase 2018), which contained
thumb-shaped end scrapers, adzes with triangular/D-shaped cross-sections and stemmed
stone scrapers. However, because no pottery fragments were recovered, this lower layer
is assigned to the Tar’ya culture in the ﬁrst millennium BC (Dikov 1977; Ponomarenko© Japanese Archaeological Association

8

TIME PERIOD DETERMINATION OF THE KURIL AINU ’ S MAJOR WITHDRAWAL FROM KAMCHATKA

Figure 4.

Naiji pottery from the Listvennichnaya I site
© Japanese Archaeological Association

9

TAKASE Katsunori

Figure 5.

Naiji pottery from the Listvennichnaya II (1–16) and III (17–24) sites

1985). For the purpose of this study, AMS radiocarbon dating was conducted on 20 charcoal
samples from the upper and lower cultural layers of the Listvennichnaya II site.
Listvennichnaya III: This site is situated on a natural levee between a nameless tributaryof the Listvennichnaya River and the terrace on which the Listvennichnaya II site is located.
The relative elevation between the riverbed and the natural levee is approximately 1.5 m,with an absolute elevation of approximately 5 m. Although six pit dwellings were previously
found by a general survey (Ponomarenko 1993), a 4 m×4 m area in the western part ofthe site was excavated in 2015. Moreover, in the cultural layer under the surface stratum,
an outdoor hearth and various artifacts, including eight Naiji pottery fragments, were
© Japanese Archaeological Association

10

TIME PERIOD DETERMINATION OF THE KURIL AINU ’ S MAJOR WITHDRAWAL FROM KAMCHATKA

discovered. Although each potsherd was small, the fragments exhibited wide and shallow
grooves on the inner rims, with uneven belts on the exterior surfaces (Figures 5.17–5.20).
As for the ceramic sherds shown in Figures 5.21–5.24, they are bottom fragments of Naiji
pottery. For the purpose of this study, AMS radiocarbon dating was conducted on two
charcoal samples from this cultural layer.
Listvennichnaya IV: Situated on a terrace along the northern coast of Listvennichnaya
Bay, this site includes several pit dwellings and some lithics from the eroded surface.
However, no pottery fragments were recovered at this site. For the purpose of this study,
AMS radiocarbon dating was conducted on a charcoal specimen collected from the culturallayer of the eroded surface.

4. Results
Table 1 presents the radiocarbon dates of the 26 charcoal specimens in this study. Althoughmost specimens were collected from the upper cultural layer associated with the Nalychevo
culture, three samples were obtained from the lower cultural layer at the Listvennichnaya IIsite for comparison (L-II-15, L-II-42 and L-II-43). The dates of the samples from the lower
cultural layer ranged from 2280 BP to 1870 BP. In Southeastern Kamchatka, the Tar’ya
culture was found under the KS-1 tephra layer, which dates to 1806±16 BP (Braitseva et al.
1997). At the Listvennichnaya I and II sites, the lower cultural layer was also found undera tephra layer that was estimated to be the KS-1 (Takase 2018). Thus, these radiocarbon
dates are consistent with the age and stratigraphy of the Tar’ya culture. Several specimensfrom the upper cultural layer also included similar dates (L-II-13, L-II-14, L-II-25, L-II-41,
L-II-07, L-II-24 and L-II-08). Apparently, these charcoal samples moved from the lower
cultural layer to the upper cultural layer, because the building of Nalychevo culture pit
dwellings typically destroyed the KS-1 layer and the lower cultural layer.
Although the radiocarbon date obtained from the Listvennichnaya IV site was 1140±20
BP, it is impossible to determine the archaeological culture of this site, because the artefacts
from this period are poorly understood in Southern Kamchatka. Other radiocarbon dates
obtained from the Listvennichnaya sites (ranging from 440 to 150 BP) belong to the
Nalychevo culture period. Although some of the specimens had a greater δ13C value than
–24.0‰, the inﬂuence of the marine reservoir eﬀect was not considered, because all the
specimens consisted of charcoal.

5.

Discussion

5.1

Chronological location of the Naiji pottery from the Listvennichnaya sites

In Southern Kamchatka and the Northern Kuril Islands, Naiji pottery is classiﬁed into four
© Japanese Archaeological Association11© Japanese Archaeological Association

12

Listvennichnaya II

Listvennichnaya II

Listvennichnaya II

Listvennichnaya II

Listvennichnaya II

Listvennichnaya II

Listvennichnaya II

Listvennichnaya II

Listvennichnaya II

Listvennichnaya II

L-II-01

L-II-07

L-II-24

L-II-28

L-II-02

L-II-03

L-II-04

L-II-06

L-II-08

L-II-09

Grid “B-2,” Hearth

Listvennichnaya III

Listvennichnaya IV

L-III-05

Listvennichnaya III

L-III-04

L-IV-01

Grid “B-2,” Hearth

Listvennichnaya II

L-II-43

Test pit in Pit Dwelling No.N1, 1st cultural layer

Test pit in Pit Dwelling No.N1, 1st cultural layer

Test pit east of the Dwelling No.9, 1st cultural layer

Test pit east of the Dwelling No.9, 1st cultural layer

Test pit east of the Dwelling No.9, 1st cultural layer

Test pit east of the Dwelling No.9, 1st cultural layer

Test pit south of Pit Dwelling No.N1, Groove 2 (1st cultural layer)

Test pit south of Pit Dwelling No.N1, Layer M3 (1st cultural layer)

Test pit in Pit Dwelling No.N1, Layer 7 (1st cultural layer)

Test pit east of Pit Dwelling No.9, Layer 2 (1st cultural layer)

Eroded cliﬀ facing Listvennichnaya Bay, Cultural layer

Test pit near Pit Dwelling No.17, 2nd cultural layer

Test pit near Pit Dwelling No.17, 2nd cultural layer

Test pit near Pit Dwelling No.17, 1st cultural layer

Test pit south of Pit Dwelling No.N1, Bottom of the groove around dwelling

Test pit south of Pit Dwelling No.N1, Embankment along the house

Test pit east of Pit Dwelling No.N1, Layer 8a (2nd cultural layer)

Listvennichnaya II

Listvennichnaya II

L-II-15

Test pit east of Pit Dwelling No.N1, Layer 4 (1st cultural layer)

L-II-42

Listvennichnaya II

L-II-14

Test pit east of Pit Dwelling No.N1, Layer 2 (1st cultural layer)

Listvennichnaya II

Listvennichnaya II

L-II-13

Test pit east of Pit Dwelling No.N2, Layer2 (1st cultural layer)

L-II-41

Listvennichnaya II

L-II-11

Test pit east of Pit Dwelling No.9, Layer 4 (1st cultural layer)

Eroded slope near Pit Dwelling No.13, 1st cultural layer

Listvennichnaya II

Listvennichnaya II

L-II-05

Listvennichnaya II

Listvennichnaya I

L-I-03

Provenance

Eroded slope near Pit Dwelling No.13, 1st cultural layer
Eroded slope near Pit Dwelling No.13, 1st cultural layer

L-II-25

Listvennichnaya I
Listvennichnaya I

L-I-01
L-I-02

L-II-27

Site

SpecimenID

Nalychevo

Nalychevo

Nalychevo

Nalychevo

Nalychevo

Nalychevo

Nalychevo

Nalychevo

Nalychevo

Nalychevo

Unknown

Nalychevo

Nalychevo

Tar’yaTar’yaNalychevo

Nalychevo

Nalychevo

Tar’yaNalychevo

Nalychevo

Nalychevo

Nalychevo

Nalychevo

Nalychevo
Nalychevo

Archaeologicalculture320±20400±20250±20150±20440±20

14C age(BP)

420±20330±20350±20390±20390±20250±20290±20370±20330±20Charcoal

370±20Charcoal 1850±20

Charcoal

Charcoal

Charcoal

Charcoal

Charcoal

Charcoal 1860±20

Charcoal 1950±20

Charcoal

Charcoal 1140±20

Charcoal

Charcoal

Charcoal 2280±30

Charcoal 2150±30

Charcoal 2250±20

Charcoal

Charcoal 1880±20

Charcoal 1870±20

Charcoal 1820±20

Charcoal 1830±20

Charcoal

Charcoal

Charcoal

Charcoal
Charcoal

Sampletype−24.73±0.41−26.08±0.40−24.43±0.30−29.75±0.35−26.32±0.29−25.59±0.41−24.56±0.47−27.61±0.42−26.60±0.34−26.53±0.60−21.87±0.46−24.55±0.41−24.66±0.51−24.21±0.37−26.82±0.26−22.64±0.69−25.90±0.44−22.74±0.51−25.21±0.54−25.46±0.47−24.63±0.54−23.24±0.33−23.52±0.58−21.97±0.63−25.28±0.52−23.41±0.45

δ13C (‰)(AMS)

IAAA-162719

IAAA-162718

IAAA-162717

IAAA-162716

IAAA-162715

IAAA-162714

IAAA-153777

IAAA-153776

IAAA-153775

IAAA-153774

IAAA-150980

IAAA-150979

IAAA-150978

IAAA-150977

IAAA-150976

IAAA-150975

IAAA-150974

IAAA-150973

IAAA-150972

IAAA-150971

IAAA-150970

IAAA-150969

IAAA-150968

IAAA-150967

IAAA-150965
IAAA-150966

Lab code

Table 1. The results of the AMS radiocarbon dating of charcoal specimens collected from the Listvennichnaya sites in Southeastern
Kamchatka

TAKASE Katsunori

TIME PERIOD DETERMINATION OF THE KURIL AINU ’ S MAJOR WITHDRAWAL FROM KAMCHATKA

main types: Ia, Ib, II and III (Figure 2). Type Ia pottery is characterised by morphologicalfeatures that are similar to those of Japanese iron pans, including a thin wall (less than
1.0 cm), an uneven belt on the outer rim, a wide and shallow groove on the inner rim,
small inner lugs and no ornamentation. In contrast, type II pottery is characterised by
diﬀerent factors such as a thick and simple wall without an uneven belt, projections on therim, coarsely made large inner lugs and ornaments on the exterior surface. Because type
Ib pottery is an intermediate type between type Ia and type II pottery, it is characterisedby coexisting morphological features of both types of pottery. As for type III pottery, it issimilar to Russian iron pans that is characterized by the vertical wall and lugs attached on
the rim. However, this type of pottery is extremely rare, because only one sample has beenfound in the Northern Kuril Islands.
According to the radiocarbon dates, type Ia pottery is assigned to the mid-15th to mid-17th
centuries, whereas type II pottery is assigned to the mid-17th and 18th centuries (Takase
2013a). Although there are no radiocarbon dates for type Ib pottery and type III pottery,
type Ib pottery is tentatively assigned to the 17th century, because it is placed under atransitional phase between type Ia pottery to type II pottery. Because the date of type III
pottery is completely unknown, it is placed between the mid- and late-18th century. Such
temporal changes in Naiji pottery indicate its development from high-quality imitations ofJapanese iron pans to low-quality copies.
A clay vessel from the Listvennichnaya I site (Figures 4.1–4.4) includes the characteristics
of type Ia pottery such as a wide and shallow groove on the inner rim and an uneven belton the outer rim. Meanwhile, it has the characteristics of type II pottery such as large inner
lugs, projections on the rim, a thick wall and the mounded surface on the opposite side of theinner lugs. Thus, this clay pan is classiﬁed as type Ib pottery, because it is an intermediatetype between type Ia pottery and type II pottery. The ceramic fragments shown in Figures
5.2 and 5.10 are also type Ib pottery, as they include the characteristics of type Ia pottery
and type II pottery.
Concerning the identiﬁcation of the type of other potsherds, it was diﬃcult because of thefragments lacking inner lugs. However, a wide and shallow groove can be seen on all therim fragments and some body fragments (Figures 4.5, 5.1–5.6, 5.11 and 5.17–5.19). Amongthem, the elaborate pottery fragments with thinner walls and shorter rims are most likely
type Ia pottery (Figures 4.5, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.17–5.19), whereas the ceramics sherds with therelatively thick walls should be recognised as type Ib pottery (Figures 4.1–4.4, 5.1, 5.6 and5.11). Moreover, other fragments with relatively thin walls are classiﬁed as type Ia or type
Ib pottery (Figures 5.5, 5.7–5.9, 5.12 and 5.20). Conversely, no ceramic fragments wereclassiﬁed as type II or type III pottery. Thus, it is prudent to conclude that the clay vessels
excavated from the Listvennichnaya sites solely consist of type Ia pottery and type Ib
pottery.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

13

TAKASE Katsunori

5.2

Time period of the Kuril Ainu’s major withdrawal from Kamchatka

Figure 6 presents the calibrated dates regarding the Nalychevo culture at the Listvennichnayasites. According to the typological examination, the dates represents the type Ia and typeIb time periods. It is, however, impossible to specify the temporal boundary between
these two types, because the potsherds and related charcoal fragments were mixed in eachsite. Nevertheless, it is possible to determine the time period for the termination of type
Ib pottery. Although Figure 6 indicates that the type Ib period basically ended in the 17th
century, it is important to determine whether this period extended into the 18th century.
Firstly, as the calibrated dates of the L-I-03 and L-II-04 samples show, type Ib pottery
was obviously used in the mid-17th century. However, if this type of pottery was also used in
the mid- to late-18th century (as the probability distribution of the L-1-01 sample suggests),
there is a large time gap ranging from 40 years to 120 years. Instead, it is reasonable toconsider that type Ib pottery terminated at the end of the 17th century, as indicated by theolder calibrated date of the specimen.

Figure 6.

Probability distribution (2σ) of the calibrated dates regarding the Nalychevo culture© Japanese Archaeological Association

14

TIME PERIOD DETERMINATION OF THE KURIL AINU ’ S MAJOR WITHDRAWAL FROM KAMCHATKA

Secondly, as stated earlier, the habitation area of the Kuril Ainu rapidly decreased during
the mid-17th to 18th centuries. This understanding is based on the rapid decrease in the
distribution area of type II pottery, compared to that of type Ia pottery and type Ib pottery(Figure 7). Considering that type Ib and type II pottery were used simultaneously, it isdiﬃcult to provide a reason for such discordance in the distribution of pottery in the samearchaeological culture. Apparently, there is a diﬀerence in the continuance between type Ib
pottery and type II pottery.
The radiocarbon dates also suggest that the temporal boundary between these two
types can be best explained if the termination of type Ib pottery occurred at the end of the
17th century and type II pottery emerged at the beginning of the 18th century. Moreover,Figure 7.

Temporal change in the distribution area of Naiji pottery (revised from Takase 2015)© Japanese Archaeological Association

15

TAKASE Katsunori

Table 2.

Naiji pottery types from each site (revised from Takase 2015)
Site or region

Ia

Ib

Bol’shaya Medvezhka
Nalychevo Lake

(+)
(+)

+
+

Nalychevo 9

II

III

+

Nalychevo 12+

Nalychevo 15(+)+

Kirpichnaya++

Bol’shaya Sarannaya(+)+

Bol’shaya Sarannaya II+

Listvennichnaya Bay

+

+

(+)

+

+

+

+

Utashud I+

Tri Sestry I
Kuril Lake
Shiyushk 1++

Shiyushk 2+

Lopatoka Cape and Lopatka I

+

+

(+)
+

Andrianovka

(+)

+

+

Yavino 4(+)+

Yavino 7

(+)

+

+

(+)
+

Yavino 3+

Gorygina
Northern Kurils
Central Kurils

+
+
+

+

+

+: present; (+): possibly present

a signiﬁcant decrease in the distribution area of the Nalychevo culture simultaneously
occurred with the formation of type II pottery at the beginning of the 18th century. It is
important to note that the Kuril Ainu lived in Listvennichnaya Bay until the end of the 17th
century, but they disappeared by the beginning of the 18th century. Overall, the Kuril Ainu’s
major withdrawal occurred at the beginning of the 18th century.
As mentioned earlier, Listvennichnaya Bay was expected to have been the northernborder of type II pottery, based on limited information regarding Bergman collection.
However, according to this author’s examination of pottery in Bergman collection, there isno type II pottery in this particular region, and this understanding is supported by artefacts
collected by our 2015 campaign. Regarding the convincing northern boundary of type II
pottery on the east coast, there is the Utashud I site in Vestnik Bay (Ponomarenko 1993,
Figure 1 and Table 2). Because the Kuril Ainu’s habitation area expanded to the Zhupanovosite in Kronotsky Bay during the type Ia and type Ib periods (Ponomarenko 1985, Figure1), the northern boundary of the Kuril Ainu shifted 350 km south from Kronotsky Bay© Japanese Archaeological Association

16

TIME PERIOD DETERMINATION OF THE KURIL AINU ’ S MAJOR WITHDRAWAL FROM KAMCHATKA

to Vestnik Bay in the beginning of the 18th century (Figure 7). Although there was no
signiﬁcant change in their habitation area on the west coast, it is clear that the early 18th
century was an important turning point in the history of the Kuril Ainu. Based on theseﬁndings, it is possible that they stopped living in Kamchatka by the end of the 18th century
and solely occupied the Northern and Central Kuril Islands during the 19th century.
It is still diﬃcult to determine the reason(s) for the Kuril Ainu’s ceasing to live inSouthern Kamchatka. However, according to historical documents, Russian invasion of
Kamchatka and subsequent battles between the Russians and indigenous peoples occurred
during the early 18th century (Okun’ 1935). Thus, the Kuril Ainu might have ﬂed Kamchatka
to avoid any conﬂicts with the Russians, although a change in the subsistence, a change inthe relationship with other indigenous peoples and the Japanese or a change in trade shouldbe also taken into consideration (Takase 2015).

5.3Time period regarding the occurrence of the Kuril Ainu

5.4

Time period regarding the Tar’ya culture

According to Figure 6, which provides important information for the occurrence of the Kuril
Ainu, the two oldest ages (L-I-02 and L-II-27) include a narrow range of calibrated dates.
They also suggest that the occurrence of the Nalychevo culture in Southern Kamchatka
can be dated to the mid-15th century. In previous studies by the author, it was impossible tospecify the exact date for the oldest stage of the Nalychevo culture, because all the calibrated
dates for type Ia pottery included a wider time range (i.e. the mid-15th to mid-17th centuries).
This is because the studies also used the harpoon typology to estimate the time period forthe occurrence of the Kuril Ainu (Takase 2015, 2019). However, because the radiocarbon
dates in the present study clearly demonstrated that the Nalychevo culture emerged in the
mid-15th century, this was the time period for the occurrence of the Kuril Ainu.
Although the homeland of the Kuril Ainu remained to be identiﬁed, there is no doubtthat they migrated from the Ainu habitation area to Southern Kamchatka and the Northern
Kurils through the Southern Kurils (Takase 2015, 2018). The time period for the occurrenceof the Nalychevo culture suggests that archaeological materials between the 14th and 15th
centuries are extremely important for determining the homeland of the Kuril Ainu. Perhaps,
future research can compare various specimens from this time period, especially those from
Hokkaido, Sakhalin and the Southern Kurils to determine the Kuril Ainu’s origin.
As a by-product of the radiocarbon dating in this study, the time period regarding the
Tar’ya culture can be clariﬁed. According to Dikov (1977), the radiocarbon dates for thisculture are approximately dated to the ﬁrst millennium BC, despite their large marginof error (2070±190 BP (Mo-354), 2160±290 BP (MAG-5), 2440±80 BP (RUL-607)).
In a more recent study, Ponomarenko (1993) reported two radiocarbon dates from the© Japanese Archaeological Association

17

TAKASE Katsunori

Listvennichnaya II site as 2360±40 BP (GIN-6381) and 890±40 BP (GIN-6382). The older
age most likely belongs to the Tar’ya culture, whereas the newer one is inconsistent withother dates regarding the culture. There are also two reliable AMS radiocarbon dates for
the Tar’ya culture from Southeastern Kamchatka: 2480±40 BP (Beta-243239) and 2420±40
BP (Beta-243240). The former is the date of a charcoal fragment collected from the culturallayer contained a labret at the Nalychevo 8 site (Figure 1), whereas the latter date is derived
from a charcoal specimen collected from the cultural layer at the Avacha site (Dikova 1983).
Figure 8 presents the calibrated dates older than the Nalychevo Culture period. They arederived from charcoal specimens collected at the Listvennichnaja II, the Nalychevo and
the Avacha sites. Based on the ﬁndings, the specimens could have been dated between theeighth century BC and the third century AD, which is consistent with date of the Tar’ya
Culture shown in previous studies (Dikov 1977; Ponomarenko 1985). Thus, all resultsin Figure 8 should be regarded as dates of the Tar’ya Culture. However, Ponomarenko(2014) speculated that the age for this culture might include a wider range. Therefore, adetailed examination of the artefacts, stratigraphy, and possible specimen contamination
is warranted to determine the time period for this culture’s occurrence. Currently, the time

Figure 8. Probability distribution (2σ) of the calibrated dates of samples regarding the Tar’ya culture© Japanese Archaeological Association

18

TIME PERIOD DETERMINATION OF THE KURIL AINU ’ S MAJOR WITHDRAWAL FROM KAMCHATKA

period between the eighth century BC and the third century AD should be recognised as thecore period for the Tar’ya culture in Southeastern Kamchatka.
According to Figure 8, the Tar’ya people did not persist in Listvennichnaya Bay after
the early third century AD, which is relevant for examining the termination of this culture.
As stated earlier, the pit dwellings of the Nalychevo culture were often constructed bydestroying the KS-1 tephra layer and underlying cultural layer (e.g. Ptashinski & Takase2008). Because there were no artefacts found between the Tar’ya cultural period and the
Nalychevo cultural period in Southeastern Kamchatka, it could be that either the people did
not live in this region or the population density was extremely low after the termination of the
Tar’ya culture. Based on the close ages between the KS-1 layer (1806±16 BP, 134 AD–251
AD at 95.4% probability) and the end of the Tar’ya culture (i.e. the second century AD tothe ﬁrst half of the third century AD), it is posited that the Tar’ya culture disappeared after
the Ksudach volcanic eruption (KS-1) in Southern Kamchatka (Figure 1). It is important tonote that, according to the Volcanic Explosivity Index (Newhall & Self 1982), this particular
eruption was assumed to be of a magnitude of six (colossal eruption). Although this eruption
cannot explain the extinction of the Tar’ya culture in the entire Southern Kamchatka, it
makes sense to consider the inﬂuence of such volcanic activity on humans in Southeastern
Kamchatka.

6.

Conclusions

This study examined various fragments of Naiji pottery and conducted radiocarbon datingof charcoal samples from the four Listvennichnaya sites in Southeastern Kamchatka. Basedon the typological examination of the pottery, all the ceramic fragments were categorised as
type Ia or type Ib pottery. The radiocarbon dating of the charcoal samples also demonstrated
that the Kuril Ainu habitatation area in Southern Kamchatka rapidly decreased in the early
18th century. At that time, the northern boundary of their habitation area shifted 350 km
south from Kronotsky Bay to Vestnik Bay, whereas there was no signiﬁcant change on thewest coast. In addition, because the time period of the Nalychevo culture occurrence wasdetermined to be the mid-15th century, this was also the date of Kuril Ainu’s formation.
Finally, the age of the Tar’ya culture was dated from the eighth century BC to the third
century AD. Although further research is required, this study posited that the large eruptionof the Ksudach volcano (KS-1) might have caused the extinction of the Tar’ya culture in
Southeastern Kamchatka.

Acknowledgements
This study was based on a cooperative research project between Kamchatka State© Japanese Archaeological Association

19

TAKASE Katsunori

University and Hokkaido University. The author thanks A. V. Ptashinski from Kamchatka
State University for arranging the ﬁeldwork, providing helpful information regarding thesites/artefacts, and oﬀering eﬀective suggestions. The author also thanks to S. V. Gun’ko(Kamchatka State Uniﬁed Museum) and M. Lee (Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities) for
providing the opportunity to examine archaeological materials from Southern Kamchatka.
This work was supported by a JSPS KAKENHI Grant-in-Aid for Scientiﬁc Research (Grant
No. 15H01899).

Notes1) It is notable that an archaeological culture usually does not necessarily correspond toa certain ethnic group. However, the main bearers of the Nalychevo culture should be
regarded as the Kuril Ainu, based on certain conditions (Takase 2015, 2019).
2) As recorded in the Russian documents from the 17th and 18th centuries, the Kuril
Ainu included a mating network with the Itel’men. Thus, some of the Kuril Ainu
were assimilated in Southern Kamchatka (e.g. Krasheninnikov 1755; Ogloblin 1891).
However, the archaeological sites of the Itel’men culture were distributes around theKamchatka River basin, whereas the archaeological sites along the coastal areas ofSouthern Kamchatka (particularly those from the latter half of the second millenniumAD) basically belonged to the Nalychevo culture. According to a physical anthropologicalexamination, the Kuril Ainu people were tightly clustered with the Hokkaido Ainu andthe Sakhalin Ainu (Yamaguchi et al. 1993). A study on ethnographic documents alsosuggests that the cultural elements of the Ainu were well preserved even in the mid-18th
century (Sasaki 2015). Thus, the Kuril Ainu in the present study refers to the Ainu who
spoke the Kuril dialect of the Ainu language.
3) Bergman collection also contains artefacts from the Japanese Islands and the Southern
Kuril Islands (Schnell 1932). Detailed information on various artefacts and human bones
from the Southern Kuril Islands has been reported by Shubina (2017).

References
Amano T. 天野哲也, B. Fizhugh and & V. Shubin. 2007. Chishima rettō ni okhotsuk bunka
no kigen wo motomete 「千島列島にオホーツク文化の起源を求めて｣ (ln pursuit of
the origin of the Okhotsk Culture in the Kuril Islands), In Takahashi Y, Y. Kato & Y.
Matsuda 高橋英樹・加藤ゆき恵・松田由香 (eds.) Hokudai Chishima Kenkyū no Keifu:
Chishima Rettō no Kako, Genzai, Mirai 『北大千島研究の系譜—千島列島の過去・現在・未来—』(Geneaology of Kuril Studies of Hokkaido University: Past present, and© Japanese Archaeological Association

20

TIME PERIOD DETERMINATION OF THE KURIL AINU ’ S MAJOR WITHDRAWAL FROM KAMCHATKA

future), pp. 60–66. Sapporo: Hokkaido University Museum.
Baba, O. 馬場 脩 1940. Nihon hoppō chiiki oyobi fukin gaichi shutsudo no “naiji donabe”
nitsuite ｢日本北方地域及び附近外地出土の｢内耳土鍋｣に就いて｣ (On Naiji pottery
from northern and foreign part of Japan). Jinruigaku Senshigaku Kōza 14 『人類学・先史学講座14』(Collection of Papers in Anthropology and Prehistory), pp. 1–104. Tokyo:
Yūzankaku. (Reprinted in his: 1979 Karafuto Chishima Kōko Minzokushi, 3 『樺太・千島考古・民族誌3』 pp. 163–266. Hokkaido Shuppan Kikaku Center).
Bergman, S. 1924. (Translated by F. Whyte in 1927) Through Kamchatka by Dog-Sled andSkis. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott.
Braitseva, O.A., V.V. Ponomareva, L.D. Sulerzhitsky, I.V. Melekestsev, & J. Bailey. 1997.
Holocene key-marker tephra layers in Kamchatka, Russia. Quaternary Research 47(2):
125–139.
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51(1): 337–
360.
Dikov, N.N. 1977. Archaeological sites of Kamchatka, Chukotoka, and the Upper Kolyma.
Moscow: Nauka (in Russian with English summary).
Dikov, N.N. 1979. Ancient Cultures of Northeast Asia. Moscow: Nauka (in Russian withEnglish summary).
Dikova, T.M. 1983. Archaeology of Southern Kamchatka in Connection with Problem ofSettlement of the Ainu. Moscow: Nauka (in Russian with English summary).
Fitzhugh, B., E.W. Gjesfjeld, W.A. Brown, M.J. Hudson & J.D. Shaw. 2016. Resilienceand the population history of the Kuril Islands, Northwest Paciﬁc: a study incomplex human ecodynamics. Quaternary International 419: 165–193. doi: 10.1016/j.
quaint.2016.02.003
Jochelson, W. 1928. Archaeological Investigations in Kamchatka. Washington DC:
Carnegie Institute of Washington.
Krasheninnikov, S.P. 1755. (Translated by J. Grieve in 2015) The History of Kamchatka, andthe Kurilski Islands, with the Countries Adjacent. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kumaki, T. 熊木悛朗, Takahashi, K. 高橋 健, Morisaki, K. 森先一貴 & Sasada, T. 笹田朋
孝 2010 Tokyo Daigaku Sōgō Kenkyū Hakubutsukan Shozō no Chishima Rettō Shiryō｢東京大学総合研究博物館所蔵の千島列島資料｣ (Kuril artifacts in the collection of
the University Museum, University of Tokyo). In Chishima Rettō Senshi Bunka no
Kōkogakuteki Kenkyū 『千島列島先史文化の考古学的研究』 (Archaeological Studyon Prehistoric Cultures of the Kuril Islands), pp. 19–60. Tokyo: Graduate School of
Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Tokyo.
Murayama, S. 1968. Ainu in Kamchatka, Bulletin of Faculty of Letters. Kyushu University
12: 55–77.
Murayama, S. 村山七郎 1987 Kuril Shotō no Bunkengakuteki Kenkyū 『クリル諸島の文献学的研究』(Philological Study on the Kuril Islands). Tokyo: San’ichi Shobō.
Newhall, C.G. & S. Self. 1982. The volcanic explosivity index (VEI): An estimate of© Japanese Archaeological Association

21

TAKASE Katsunori

explosive magnitude for historical volcanism. Journal of Geophysical Research87(C2): 1231–1238.
Niioka, T. 新岡武彦 1937 Karafuto no Naiji donabe ｢樺太の内耳土鍋｣ (Naiji pottery of
Sakhalin). Jinruigaku Zasshi 『人類学雑誌』 Vol. 52(3): 1–12.
Ogloblin, N. 1891. Two tales of Vladimir Atlasov on the discovery of Kamchatka. Readingsof Society for History and Antiquity of Russia 3: 3–18 (in Russian).
Okun’, S.B. 1935. Essays on History of Colonial Policy of Tsarism in Kamchatka Krai.
Leningrad: Sotsekgiz (in Russian).
Osada, Y. 2008. 長田佳宏 2008 Hoppōiki ni okeru Naiji doki hennen ni tsuite ｢北方域における内耳土器編年について｣ 『北方島文化研究』 6 37–58頁 (On Chronology of Naiji
pottery in the northern region). Hoppōtō Bunka Kenkyū 『北方島文化研究』, Vol. 6:
37–58.
Petei, K. 辺泥和郎 & T. Fukuda. 福田友之 1974. Kitachishima Paramushir Tō hakken no
doki ni tsuite ｢北千島・パラムシル島発見の土器について｣ (On pottery discovered in
the Paramushir Island, the Northern Kuril Islands). Hokkaido Kōkogaku 『北海道考古学』, No. 10: 89–97.
Ponomarenko, A.K. 1985. Ancient Culture of the Itel’men of Kamchatka. Moscow: Nauka(in Russian).
Ponomarenko, A.K. 1993. New archaeological sites of Southern Kamchatka and the Lopatka
Cape: Toward a problem on the habitation of the Ainu in Southern Kamchatka. Bulletinof the Kamchatka Regional Museum 1993: 2–136 (in Russian).
Ponomarenko, A.K. 2014. Tar’ya Culture of the Kamchatkan Neolithic. Vladivostok: Far
Eastern Federal University (in Russian).
Ptashinski, A.V. & K. Takase. 2008. Nalychevo 9 Iseki Hakkutsu Chosa Hokokusho (Reportof Archaeological Excavations at the Nalychevo 9 Site). Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskij:
Kamchatka State University (in Japanese with English and Russian summary).
プタシンスキー， A. V. ・高瀬克範 2008 『ナルィチェヴォ9遺跡発掘調査報告書
Pезультаты раскопок на Налычево-9 (2006–2007 гг.).』 国立カムチャツカ大学
Reimer, P.J., E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J.W. Beck, P.G. Blackwell, C. Bronk Ramsey, C.E. Buck,
H. Cheng, R.L. Edwards, M. Friedrich, P.M. Grootes, T.P. Guilderson, H. Haﬂidason,
I. Hajdas, C. Hatté, T.J. Heaton, D.L. Hoﬀmann, A.G. Hogg, K.A. Hughen, K.F. Kaiser,
B. Kromer, S.W. Manning, M. Niu, R.W. Reimer, D.A. Richards, E.M. Scott, J.R.
Southon, R.A. Staﬀ, C.S.M. Turney, & J. van der Plicht. 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13
radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4): 1869–
1887. doi: 10.2458/azu_ js_rc.55.16947
Sasaki, S. 佐々木史郎 2015. Torii Ryūzō ga deatta hoppō minzoku: Chishima Ainu ｢鳥居龍蔵が出会った北方民族： 千島アイヌ｣ (Northern peoples Torii Ryūzō encountered:
Kuril Ainu). In J. Kreiner (ed.) Nippon toha Nanika 『日本とは何か』, pp. 78–96.
Tokyo: Tokyodo.
Schnell, I. 1932. Prehistoric ﬁnds from the Island World of the Far East, now preserved in
the Museum of the Far Eastern Antiquities, Stockholm. Bulletin of the Museum of Far© Japanese Archaeological Association

22

TIME PERIOD DETERMINATION OF THE KURIL AINU ’ S MAJOR WITHDRAWAL FROM KAMCHATKA

Eastern Antiquities 4: 15–104.
Shubina, O.A. 2017. The Kuril collection of Sten Bergman in the Museum of Far Eastern
Antiquities (Stockholm, Sweden). Bulletin of the Sakhalin Regional Museum 24: 3–20
(in Russian).
Steller, G. 1774. (Translated by M. Engel & K. Willmore in 2003) Steller’s History ofKamchatka. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press.
Takase, K. 2013a. Chronology and age determination of pottery from the Southern
Kamchatka and Northern Kuril Islands, Russia. Journal of the Graduate School ofLetters (Hokkaido University) 8: 35–61.
Takase K. 高瀬克範 2013b. Kōno Collection (Asahikawa Shi Hakubutsukan shūzō) no Naiji
doki ｢河野コレクション（旭川市博物館収蔵）の内耳土器｣ (Naiji pottery in the Kōno
Collection housed in Asahikawa City Museum) Hokudai Shigaku 『北大史学』 53:
1–16, 21. (with English abstract)
Takase K. 高瀬克範 2015 Kamchatka hantō nanbu shutsudo Daiji doki to sono Chishima
Ainu shijō no igi ｢カムチャツカ半島南部出土内耳土器とその千島アイヌ史上の意義｣(Naiji pottery from the Southern Kamchatka Peninsula and its implications for thehistory of the Kuril Ainu). Ronshū Oshorokko 『論集忍路子』, 4: 17–45. (ｗith English
abstract).
Takase K. 高瀬克範 2017. Chishima rettō shinshutsu shūdan ni okeru kyojū han’i no hen’i tosono haikei 「千歳列島進出集団における居住範囲の変異とその背景｣ (Change in the
distribution of human groups expanded to the Kuril Islands and its background). In M.
Anzai 安斎正人 (ed.) Riron Kōkogaku no Jissen, Vol. I (Riron Hen) 『理論考古学の実践 I 理論篇』, pp. 370–394. Tokyo: Doseisha.
Takase, K. 2018. Pit dwellings of the Nalychevo Culture in Southern Kamchatka and theNorthern Kuril Islands. Journal of Graduate School of Letters Hokkaido University
13: 11–33.
Takase, K. 2019. The occurrence and temporal change in habitat of the Kuril Ainu:
perspectives from archaeology. Proceedings of the 33rd International Abashiri
Symposium: 25–32, The Association for the Promotion of Northern Peoples.
Takase, K. & A.I. Lebedintsev. 2016. A study on pottery from Southern Kamchatka in T.
M. Dikova and N. N. Dikov collections. Journal of the Graduate School of Letters
Hokkaido University 11: 9–36.
Takase, K. & A.I. Lebedintsev. 2019 Illustrated Catalogue of Archaeological Materials
from Kamchatka in T. M. Dikova Collection Preserved in the North-EasternInterdisciplinary Scientiﬁc Research Institute, Far Eastern Branch, Russian Academyof Sciences (NEISRI FEB RAS), Magadan, Russia. Sapporo: Archaeology Laboratory,
Graduate School of Letters, Hokkaido University, Japan and The North-EasternInterdisciplinary Scientiﬁc Research Institute, FEB RAS, Russia.
Takase K. 高瀬克範 & K. Suzuki 鈴木建治 2013 Baba Collection no sai-kentō: Kitachishima no tateana jūkyo, doki, sekki no kisoteki kenkyū ｢馬場コレクションの再検
討—北千島の竪穴住居・土器・石器の基礎的研究｣. Bulletin of the Graduate School of© Japanese Archaeological Association

23

TAKASE Katsunori

Letters, Hokkaido Univesity 『北海道大学文学研究科紀要』, 140: 1–56.
Torii, R. 鳥居龍蔵 1903 Chishima Ainu 『千島アイヌ』 (The Kuril Ainu). Tokyo:
Yoshikawa-Kōbunkan.
Torii, R. 1919. Études archéologiques et ethnologiques: les Aïnou des îles Kouriles. The
Journal of the College of Science, Imperial University of Tokyo 42: 1–337 (in French).
Yamaguchi, B. 山口 敏, H. Ishida 石田 肇 & H. Matsumura 松村博文 1993 Ko-Hayashi
Kingo Shi Shūshū no Kuril Ainu kokkaku ni tsuite ｢故林欽吾氏収集のクリル・アイ
ヌ骨格について｣ (On the skeletal remains of the Kuril Ainu collected by the Late Mr.
Kingo Hayashi). Memoirs of the National Museum of Nature and Science 『国立科学博物館専報』 26: 151-169.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

24