By

Nikolai N. Dikov

Translated by

Richard L. Bland

EARLY CULTURES OF

NORTHEASTERN ASIA
EARLY CULTURES OF

NORTHEASTERN ASIA

By

Nikolai N. Dikov

Translated by

Richard L. Bland
ii

SHARED BERINGIAN HERITAGE PROGRAM

Asia and North America were once joined by a massive “land bridge” in a region now

popularly called “Beringia.” In order to promote the conservation of the unique natural

history and cultural heritage of this region, the governments of the United States and

Russia have proposed the establishment of an international park agreement between the

two countries. The Shared Beringian Heritage Program of the National Park Service

recognizes and celebrates the contemporary and historic exchange of biological

resources and cultural heritage in this region. The program seeks local resident and

international participation in the preservation and understanding of natural resources

and protected lands and works to sustain the cultural vitality of Native peoples in the

region. To these ends, the Beringia Program promotes the free communication and

active cooperation between the people and governments of the United States and

Russia concerning the Bering Straits region.

© The Russian text of Drevnie kul’tury Severo-Vostochnoi Azii (Aziia na styke s Amerikoi v drevnosti) by N.

N. Dikov (Moscow: Nauka, 1979) was translated into English by Richard L. Bland of the Museum of Natural

and Cultural History, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, and published by the U.S. Department of the

Interior, National Park Service, Shared Beringian Heritage Program, Anchorage, Alaska, by one-time permission

of the author’s estate. June 2004.
iii

Table of Contents

Translator’s Introductions................................................................................................................ v

Preface .................................................................................................................................................... 1

Paleolithic of Extreme Northeast Asia

Environmental Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 5

The Problem of the Initial Settlement of Northeast Asia and America ..................................................10

The Early Ushki Upper Paleolithic Culture of Kamchatka and the Hypothesis About

Its Role in the Initial Settlement of America ..................................................................................20

The Late Ushki Upper Paleolithic Culture of Kamchatka ......................................................................37

The Early Holocene and Final Paleolithic of Kamchatka ......................................................................58

From the Paleolithic to the Neolithic on the Upper Kolyma

The Problem of the Mesolithic .............................................................................................................61

The Siberdik Culture ............................................................................................................................69

The Maltan Complex............................................................................................................................76

The Neolithic of Kamchatka

The First Ushki “Mesolithic” or Early Neolithic Culture ........................................................................83

The Second Ushki “Late Mesolithic” or Neolithic Culture .....................................................................88

The Tar’in Culture of the Late Neolithic ................................................................................................93

The Stone Age and Undeveloped Bronze Age of Chukotka

The Earliest Late Paleolithic Traces of People in Chukotka ............................................................... 101

The Late Neolithic North Chukotkan Culture ...................................................................................... 105

The Ust’-Belaia Culture ...................................................................................................................... 110

The Appearance of Sea Mammal Hunting and the Problem of the Origin of the Eskimos .................. 127

The Wrangel’ Paleo-Eskimo Culture .................................................................................................. 130

Northeast Asia During the Period of the Undeveloped Iron Age

and the Remnant Neolithic

The Okvik Culture .............................................................................................................................. 135

The Old Bering Sea Culture ............................................................................................................... 146

The Birnirk Culture ............................................................................................................................. 170

The Punuk and Thule Cultures........................................................................................................... 173

The Cultural Complexes of the Lower Anadyr’ and Kanchalan Rivers

and the Northeast Coastal Areas Adjoining Them ....................................................................... 180

The Anadyr’-Main (Vakarevo) Culture ................................................................................................. 184

The Old Koryak Culture ..................................................................................................................... 189

The Northwestern Bering Sea (Old Kerek) Culture ............................................................................. 204

The Middle Kamchatkan (Nikul’skaia) Variant of the Old Itel’men Culture ......................................... 208

The South Kamchatkan (Nalychevo) Variant of the Old Itel’men Culture ............................................ 216

Common Regularities and Basic Features of Historical

Development in Extreme Northeast Asia ............................................................................... 223
iv

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 229

Appendix: Index of Distribution of Similar Forms of Stone

Artifacts in the Archaeological Sites of Kamchatka,

Chukotka and the Northern Okhotsk Coast.......................................................................... 231

References ......................................................................................................................................... 267

Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................... 329
v

Translator’s Introduction

This book was originally published as Drevnie kul’tury Severo-Vostochnoi Azii (Aziia na styke s

Amerikoi v drevnosti) [Early Cultures of Northeast Asia (Asia at the Crossroads with America in

Antiquity)] (Moscow: Nauka, 1979).

This work contains many archaisms. I have assumed that it will be the specialist who reads this

book and that he or she will know how to deal with, for example, the Sandia point. To adequately

annotate this work would take a book in itself. Therefore, I have left it as an artifact of the past

containing an enormous amount of primary data, which is, in fact, what we study. One note of

caution: in this book, as in others by Professor Dikov, the citations to illustrations seem to get a bit

confused. As before, I have tried to correct these where possible. Otherwise I have left them as they

appear in the original.

I would like to thank Anna Gokhman for her usual excellent job of proofreading the

translation, Lynne Ertle for great editing, and Sue Roberts for a fine job of layout. I owe a deep debt

of gratitude to Bob Gerhard, director of the Beringian Shared Heritage Program, Peter Richter,

its manager, and Katerina Wessels, whose help I couldn’t have done without. We all must thank them

for their continuing support of translation through the Beringian Shared Heritage Program. Finally,

we owe a special debt of gratitude to Professor Margarita Alexandrovna Dikova for permitting the

National Park Service to make available in English her late husband’s book.

—Richard Bland

Preface

The study of archaeology in extreme Northeast Asia has at present a special urgency. It is very

significant not only for reconstruction of the distinctive historical past of this distant and severe

region but also for resolution of the problem of the initial settlement of neighboring America, which

took place in the Paleolithic from Northeast Asia through ancient Beringia, which joined the two

continents during the glacial epoch (Chard 1960a, 1960b, 1960c; Debets 1951a, 1951b; Hopkins

1959, 1967, 1972).

The scope of the archaeological problems of Northeast Asia includes not just the discovery of

common regularities and features. Here at the crossroads of Asia and America, the thesis of

convergent historical development in America, after its initial settlement and isolation owing to its

closure by ice sheets in Canada, is being adopted by an increasing number of adherents and can be

examined. If the Paleo-Indian population did in fact develop at this time under conditions of full

isolation and nevertheless arrived at the same economic, socioeconomic, and technicaltechnological forms as in the Old World, then this, consequently, as some scholars are inclined to

suggest, is a striking “experiment” of independent, convergent development set up by nature itself.

The New World in this case would be a kind of “different planet,” with regard to the Old World,

where the historical process occurred entirely independently beginning with the initial Upper

Paleolithic, that is, during the course of all history of rational mankind (Homo sapiens). The power

of convergence would be amazing if it resulted, both in the Old and New Worlds, in the emergence

of common economic, socioeconomic, cultural, and technical-typological forms. The development of these common forms would increase the possibility of broader convergence in the

historical development of rational beings even beyond the bounds of the earth and would inspire

the hope of a more successful outcome in the search for extraterrestrial civilizations. Convergence

can be sufficiently and convincingly proven by the archaeological and paleogeographic data based

on the indispensable condition that the natural “experiment” through isolation of the historical

process in America is pure.

With regard to careful examination of the absolute isolation of the American continent that

many researchers are postulating, as well as ultimate clarification, the question is: was the continent

completely isolated during the last glaciation, or was there no such isolation at all (and,

consequently, would then the similarity of historical development in the Old and New Worlds result

not so much from convergence as from cultural connections)? The solution to this question is one

of the most important objectives of archaeological research in the Asiatic Northeast since it is

defined by a sense of a special world view. Finally, with these questions in mind, all the early cultures

that lived here, beginning in the Paleolithic, must be revealed as completely as possible and their

relationship with known American cultures must be analyzed.

We would like to remind the reader that for the first time the objective of broad archaeological

study of Northeast Asia has two basic aspects—(1) the Paleolithic and the problem of the initial

settlement of America,1

 (2) the Neolithic and the problem of the origin of peoples of the Northeast.

1

S. N. Zamiatnin, in a special report, points out the urgent necessity of studying the Paleolithic of the northern USSR, including

its Asiatic part, suggesting that in this enormous territory, which has not been investigated archaeologically at all with regard to

the Paleolithic, the most unexpected discoveries may be made (Zamiatnin 1961:26).
2 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

This objective was set up by the Laboratory of Archaeology, History, and Ethnography of SVKNII

DVNTs AN SSSR2

 as early as 1960 and was soon thereafter reflected in the scholarly literature

(Dikov 1960a, 1964a, 1964b, 1967c). Then (approximately since 1965) Yakutian archaeologists,

who prior to this time were occupied with local matters within the boundaries of the Viliui and

Aldan, became interested in these issues (Mochanov 1966a). However, in relation to the problems

mentioned, the huge territory of Yakutia is poorly studied.

Our preceding book (Dikov 1977) was dedicated to the archaeological sites investigated by

our Northeast Asian interdisciplinary archaeological expedition of SVKNII DVNTs AN SSSR and

is a historical source base for this second book, which has the same subtitle Asia at the Crossroads with

America in Antiquity.

In the first book the supporting stratigraphy was substantiated and the sites of Kamchatka,

Chukotka, and the upper Kolyma were generally classified. Simultaneously, the most important

type sites of the Northeast—the Ushki multi-component sites—were proven to have

irreproachable stratigraphy. It is now clear that the first doubts about the lowest Paleolithic level

(Cultural Layer VII) of these sites, with its unique stemmed arrow points, have been surmounted

and, with few exceptions, specialists now give complete recognition to this unusual and very

informative culture. The same is true of its dating.

This book contains new materials: some that were previously known but were not included in

the first book, and some that have been discovered recently. New sites, discovered by the Northeast

Asian Archaeological Expedition of SVKNII DVNTs AN SSSR in 1977, include late Paleolithic

sites on the Inas’kvaam River in Chukotka (found by Yu. A. Koliasnikov); Early Neolithic and

Mesolithic sites on Lake Tytyl’, on the upper reaches of the Malaia Aniui River, also in Chukotka

(discovered by M. A. Kiriyak); and an early site of sea mammal hunters at Cape Nizkii, north of the

mouth of the Anadyr’ River (found by V. D. Kichanov and investigated by N. N. Dikov).

It should be kept in mind that some positions and conclusions in this book were reflected in

the works of other researchers and in a manuscript (and abstract) of my dissertation, defended in

1971 at the Institute of History, Philology, and Philosophy SO AN SSSR in Novosibirsk. These

sources contain conclusions about the ethnic differentiation in the northeastern USSR from the

earliest times to the seventeenth century (Dikov 1964, 1971; Gurvich 1975); about the

progressiveness of historical development in the Northeast, in particular in Kamchatka, in the

Paleolithic (Dikov 1967c:30, 1971a, 1975a, 1976a; Mochanov 1977); about problems of the origin

and cultural connections of early Eskimo cultures—for example, the Asiatic effect on the Old

Bering Sea culture and its Northeast Asian inner-continental origins, including Ust’-Belaia ones

(Dikov 1971a:33, 1971b:367, 377, 1972:112–115; Vasil’evskii 1973:212, 1974:28); about the

transformation of the Okvik culture under the influence of Chukotkan cultures (Dikov 1971a:33,

1971b:115, 376, 377; Vasil’evskii 1973:212, 1974:28); about the role of the northern, narrow neck

of the Kamchatka Peninsula as the shortest migration route and connection of maritime cultures

from the Pacific coast with the northern Okhotsk coast and the reverse (Arutiunov and Sergeev

1975:195; Dikov 1971a:34, 1971b:396; Vasil’evskii 1973:202); about the Old Koryak living on

both the eastern and western coasts of northern Kamchatka (Dikov 1971a:35, 1971b:407–410;

Vasil’evskii 1971:48, 1973:147, 1974:23, 29); about Kamchatka as a distinctive “dead end” or

“pocket” where relict cultures were preserved for many years (Dikov 1969b:107, 1971b:191;

2

For abbreviations, see Table of Contents.—Trans.
Nikolai N. Dikov 3

Vasil’evskii 1973:35); about the social division of labor in the Northeast where deer herding and

sea mammal hunting emerged; and about some comparability in the role of the latter to agriculture

(which could not develop there because of the extreme severity of natural conditions) in this first

social division of labor (Dikov 1969a:235, 1971b:452, 453; Vasil’evskii 1975a:129).

The object of this research, as is evident from the subtitle of the book, is the archaeological

cultures of the Northeast (within the bounds of Kamchatka, Chukotka, and the upper Kolyma) in

their presently comprehensible chronological range—from the Upper Paleolithic to the first

Russian explorers of the seventeenth century.

I consider the primary goal of my research to be the summarization of all old and new materials

on the archaeology of the Northeast within the named geographic boundaries, including the

determination of general tendencies, regularities, and features of the ethnocultural, economic,

technological, and, if possible, socioeconomic development of its early pre-Russian population

during a period of time embracing almost 15,000 years.

To achieve this goal, I have identified and tried to resolve a series of problems. Foremost

among the problems is the challenge of acquiring from all angles a view of the characteristics of the

archaeological cultures at the source level, which was partly done in the first book. Other challenges

include determining the ethnicity of the archaeological cultures, resolving the problem of their

origin and interconnection with surrounding cultures, reconstructing the economy, and revealing,

where possible, the social structure, religious ideas, and features of art.

The most acceptable definition of archaeological culture is a stable society represented by

archaeological types and complexes of features and artifacts of material culture (houses, burials, and

so on) in time and space with the condition of the presence in it of essential characteristics of

difference from other known societies of this kind (Grigor’ev 1972; Kamenetskii 1970; Klein 1970;

Masson 1974:15–21; Zakharuk 1964). Thus, culture is viewed as a dynamic unity of traditions and

innovations (endogenic and exogenic). Culture can be of short duration (a few centuries or even

decades) or long (several millennia). It may occupy a large area or a very small one (including as few

as two sites). Based on the discovery and examination of new sites of a culture, its boundaries, as

a rule, are subsequently made more precise and in some cases expanded. However, until the sites

are completely exposed, the researcher has the right to treat such a society, even if it is represented

by only two sites, as an early culture under the auspices of an archaeological fact being reconstructed

(Zakharuk 1977:35–39). The definition of an archaeological culture should be precise and

sufficiently flexible to be suitable for systemizing and interpreting archaeological materials at the

different levels of studying them with minimal dependence on their quantitative representation. At

the same time, it must always be based on complexes of types and not on their isolated traditions.

The investigation of cultures in two aspects—cultural-economic and ethnocultural, proposed

by V. N. Chernetsov (1973)—seems to us the most productive, though we confined ourselves

primarily to the archaeological aspect and tried in all of the cultures we investigated to reveal first

of all its traditional elements and innovations, both endogenic and exogenic, in the way that

ethnographers do. This does not mean, of course, that the cultural-economic and ethnocultural

aspects were given no attention.

Two monographs that were published recently—by Yu. A. Mochanov (1977) and I. P.

Laricheva (1976)—have the most direct relationship with our theme. They contain mutually
exclusive interpretations of new archaeological materials on the Paleolithic of northern Asia and

North America, and express mutually exclusive concepts of the settlement of America. Mochanov

starts from the proposition of the introduction into America from Yakutia, by bearers of the

Diuktai culture, of the technology of making biface points. Laricheva considers this Diuktai culture

and its possible migration into America as substantially later than Mochanov does, and not

spreading farther than Alaska—and her opinion is supported by other researchers (Abramova

1973, 1975; Grigor’ev 1973; Haines 1976; Powers 1973). Giving unjustifiably too much significance

to the initial settlement of America by the Diuktai culture, Mochanov at the same time without

foundation underestimates the significance of the early Ushki (Cultural Layer VII) Paleolithic

culture of Kamchatka and furthermore subjects to doubt the Ushki stratigraphy without

substantiation. The reader will find here a full analysis of the criticism of our materials.

In Laricheva’s book there is a very interesting preface by S. A. Arutiunov, entirely supportive

and even somewhat sharpening and strengthening her conclusions, and in particular sharing her idea

of convergent development of the biface tradition in America. However, we are nevertheless forced

to disagree with the assertion of the allegedly sufficient evidence for this position.

To the problems of the Paleolithic in Northeast Asia are also dedicated a survey work by W.

R. Powers (1973) and a small interesting book by R. S. Vasil’evskii (1973), which we will challenge

with a series of questions on proto-Eskimo-Aleut and Old Koryak history.

The clear and original history of Asia at its crossroads with America, its most urgent

archaeological problems, and its most distinctive and influential archaeological sites and early

cultures (for example, the Old Bering Sea and Punuk ancestors of the Eskimos, Old Koryak, Ushki

Paleolithic, and others) are still little known to specialists.

In this book are tables of artifact assemblages for each culture, which are used based on

preliminary systematization and indices of similar forms of stone artifacts. The tables of these

similar forms of artifacts are in the appendix.

The author considers it his pleasant duty to express thanks to the artist L. N. Korshkova, who

executed all the graphic illustrations of the book; S. I. Vasil’eva, who carried out the photographic

work; and A. V. Lozhkin, who, by radiocarbon dating, has determined the absolute age of the

majority of archaeological sites in Northeast Asia.

By this labor the author today gives the late distinguished scholar Professor Mikhail

Illarionovich Artamonov, director of the Department of Archaeology at Leningrad State

University, who always manifested great and sincere interest in the broad development of these

investigations in the extreme Northeast of our native land, his due.

4 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia
The Paleolithic of Extreme

Northeast Asia

Environmental Conditions

The aggregate of presently available archaeological, paleo-anthropological, paleogeographic, and geological data permits sufficient basis to suppose that people were living in

Northeast Asia by the second half of the Pleistocene. However, up to now the most precise time

and route of the initial settlement of this territory by people remain unexplained and have not

been discussed.

It is now possible to consider as generally accepted that, for the resolution of such questions,

a complex approach to them is necessary; many factors must be considered, among them, the

inescapable natural conditions of a given zone during the period being examined.

In this regard, substantial work both by our Russian and by foreign, predominantly American,

scholars, has already been conducted for the determination of the ecological conditions of people

in Northeast Asia, but it is necessary to produce a synthesis of the now available data, as we have

recently obtained some additional facts.

The natural conditions and ecology

of early people (the interconnection of

factors of nature with factors concerning

human behavior) represent in Northeast

Asia, as they do, by the way, in other

regions of the world as well, a dynamic

aggregate of many factors: paleogeographic (including orographic and

hydrological, glaciological, and hydrographic), paleo-climatological, paleobotanical, faunal, and some others.

In the neo-Pleistocene, extreme

Northeast Asia (the Kolyma basin,

Chukotka, and Kamchatka) experienced

two periods of mountain valley glaciation:

the Zyriansk (70,000 to 50,000 years ago)

and the Sartan (27,000 to 10,000 years

ago), and two large interglacials: the

Kazantsev, which preceded the Zyriansk

glaciation, and the Karginsk (50,000 to

27,000 years ago) (Fig. 1). Each of the

named periods is characterized by

Figure 1. Stages of development of glaciation and the forming of

Beringia (according to Müller-Beck). 1—end of Karginsk Interglacial;

2—beginning of the Sartan Glaciation; 3—maximum of the Sartan

Glaciation; 4—end of the Sartan Glaciation.
6 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

nonuniform advance or retreat of the glaciers, which are accompanied by equally irregular zigzaglike fluctuations of temperature and ice cover of the surrounding seas and shifts of climate of the

mainland. The changes in all these factors are mutually caused and are interrelated, but they are not

always strictly synchronous. We will view this dynamic paleo-geographic picture in a generalized

way; that is, we will discuss only those details that may have the most significance for us clarifying

the time and possible routes of the initial spread of man through extreme Northeast Asia.

During the period of the Kazantsev, the warmest interglacial, when the neo-Pleistocene of

Northeast Asia began, the climate there was somewhat warmer than today. In Chukotka during this

time, swampy tundras, forest-tundras, and coniferous forests of larch and pines predominated,

while in Kamchatka the landscape probably consisted of pine-fir forests with birch (Giterman and

Golubeva 1965:373). The most characteristic representatives of the animal world here at that time

were an elephant (Elephas trogontherii) and a mammoth of an early type (Mammuthus primigenius), which

had inhabited these regions even earlier, in the middle Pleistocene (Sher 1969, 1970). In the opinion

of some geologists, particularly S. F. Biske, during this time the Kamchatka Peninsula was probably

separated from the mainland by a narrow strait (Biske, personal communication). The transgression

of the sea is also shown in its flooding of the lower reaches of the Anadyr’ River and substantial

territory surrounding its mouth, as well as vast parts of the northern, eastern, and southern Chukchi

Peninsula (Gasanov 1970).3

During the Zyriansk mountain valley glaciation, which advanced about 70,000 years ago, a full

or partial drying of the shelf regions of the seas that wash Chukotka and Kamchatka occurred as

a consequence of the sea regression. The result of this was the complete union of Asia and North

America either by means of the so-called Bering Land Bridge, or “Beringia” (this term was first

introduced by N. P. Sushkin, though the most general idea of the Bering Land Bridge emerged

substantially earlier, with S. P. Krasheninnikov) (Baranova et al. 1968:Fig. 24; Flint 1963; Hopkins

1959; Krasheninnikov 1949:175, 179; Nalivkin 1960; Péwé, Hopkins, and Giddings 1965:355–

474), or by means of an archipelago of islands located close to each other. L. A. Portenko (1970)

turned his attention to the high probability of the latter. Regardless of the exact nature of the

connection, an intensive exchange of flora and fauna took place between North America and

northern Asia by this complete or broken Bering Land Bridge. In Chukotka during this time,

judging by the edible types of faunal remains in the alluvial deposits of a stratotypical profile on the

right bank of the Kolyma between the mouths of the Omolon and the Aniui, lived the following

tundra-steppe animals: mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius), woolly rhinoceros (Coelodonta

antiquitatis), horse (Equus caballus), bison (Bison priscus crassicornis Rich), northern deer (Rangifer

tarandus), red deer (Cervus elaphus L.), elk (Alces alces L.), muskox (Ovibos pallantis Ham.-Smith.), and

others. It was during this time that mammoths, bison, rhinoceroses, and northern deer (caribou)

spread from Northeast Asia into North America (Sher 1969:9). At the same time, the elephant

(Elephas trogontherii) also penetrated into America through Chukotka (Chard 1967). This elephant

was not an Arctic form, and judging by this fact, the climate in Northeast Asia was not very severe

during the Zyriansk period. Indeed, it is possible that this warmth-loving animal penetrated into

North America along the southern edge of Beringia from northern Kamchatka across the drying

Okhotsk shelf (Baranova et al. 1968:Fig. 24; Flint 1963:Fig. 129; Lindberg 1965) during the

regression of the sea in the south near Priamurye. That the southern edge of Beringia approached

3

In the opinion of geologists, during the Kazantsev Interglacial the sea left traces that are located at elevations of 30 to 35 m on

the Chukchi Peninsula (Baranova et al. 1968:117).
Nikolai N. Dikov 7

the shores of Kamchatka during the Zyriansk period is indirectly attested by the fact, established

by geologists, of the union of Karaginskii Island with Southern Peninsula on the northeastern shore

of Kamchatka (Skiba and Khoreva 1966).

More than 20,000 years after the Zyriansk Glaciation, a relatively warmer climate was restored

during the so-called Karginsk Interstadial, and again Bering Strait was completely reformed. Again

the tundra and steppe were replaced in Chukotka, northern Kamchatka, and on the Kolyma by

sparse forests and in southern Kamchatka by true evergreen-larch forests. The bones of deer have

been found (Cervus cf. elaphus L.) in deposits of early alassy (depressions in the permafrost) of this

time (Sher 1969).

The final Sartan, the coldest period of the upper Pleistocene (27,000 to 10,000 years ago), is

better studied than the preceding ones. This period was not so glacial as it was severe in cold. The

mountain valley glaciers occupied a substantially smaller part of the territory of the extreme

Northeast but nevertheless determined its geography in a significant way. In the west, the glacial

zone completely partitioned off Chukotka from the Lena valley, leaving only a passage along the

dry shelf, and in the south, glaciers descended to the present coastline of the Sea of Okhotsk (Flint

1963:426, Fig. 129; Vas’kovskii 1963). Some geologists suggest that the mouth of the Anadyr’ River

was completely broken by glaciers, obstructing passage to North America along the Anadyr’-

Penzhina “corridor” at this time (Baranova et al. 1968:117; Vas’kovskii 1963). However, this

opinion is still being debated and is subject to further examination. And if there had not been the

regression of the sea caused by glaciation, Chukotka and Kamchatka would have been completely

isolated from the interior regions of Siberia and from Alaska. However, the Beringian union

(complete or in the form of an island archipelago) of Chukotka and Alaska was created again by

regression of the sea (Flint 1963; Hopkins 1959; Péwé, Hopkins, and Giddings 1965; Portenko

1970). In addition, more or less broad strips of dry land emerged along the shelf for this same

reason. They formed two low-lying corridors between the sea and the glaciers. One of them,

comparatively narrow, led from the basin of the upper Lena, the Aldan, and southwestern

Priokhotye to northern Kamchatka (Chard 1967; Flint 1963; Lindberg 1965). The other, often

called the “Arctida” and many times broader (no less than 500 km wide), went from the Taimyr to

Alaska, including in it the Novosibirsk Islands and Wrangel Island (Baranova et al. 1968:118;

Vas’kovskii 1963:51).

As a consequence of the greatest isolation of the Arctic basin from the warm currents of the

Atlantic and Pacific oceans during the Sartan period, the thickness of the ice at that time reached,

in the unanimous opinion of specialists, its maximum and is estimated by some of them at

approximately 22 m (at the present time it is 5 m) (Chizhov 1970:74)—a mark of 10 on the scale

of iciness adopted by P. M. Borisov (1970:68). Meanwhile, by this paleography, even with an ice

crust of 10 to 12 m, the Arctic Ocean must have acted upon the atmosphere in practice like icecovered dry land, that is, not at all protecting it against the cold in winter and not creating a variation

of pressure in relation to the atmosphere over the dry land. As a result, the pole of cold was united

with the geographic pole and the temperature in winter over the ice shield of the ocean reached –

40° C (at present it is 25° C). According to this thermal physics concept, above the ice-bound ocean

during the Sartan period, circular easterly winds constantly blew, similar to those in Antarctica.

Through such directed circumpolar atmospheric circulation, the Atlantic moisture was seized and

absorbed by the Eurasian continent, creating a large European glaciation. It was exhausted in

eastern Siberia, as a result of which, in the zone of moisture deficit there, glaciation was significantly

less well developed. It again reached a maximum in North America owing to moisture seized over
8 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

the Pacific by the same directed atmospheric rotation (Shilo, Boichuk, and Tomirdiaro 1969:72, 73;

Tomirdiaro 1969:93–96).

The dust storms created by the same constant, year-round easterly winds contributed to the

deposit of loess in the periglacial area between river valleys in northern Yakutia and in Chukotka.

In the valleys themselves, alluvium was deposited. During the period of glaciation there were no

rivers as such, only torrents, and terraces appeared among them, as S. V. Tomirdiaro suggests, only

in the Holocene. In his opinion, there were also no lakes during the period of glaciation. They

appeared only in the interglacial and in the Holocene as a consequence of thermokarst activity

(Tomirdiaro 1969, 1976). On the unglaciated Arctic dry land of Chukotka, formed by loess

deposits and thick syngenetic subsurface glaciation, stretched a cover of dry and very cold tundra

with a rich mixture of steppe vegetation (so-called tundra-steppe) during this time (Tugarinov

1934). Judging by the faunal bone remains of the Aleshkin suite from the first flood-plain terrace

on the lower reaches of the Kolyma, the Chukotkan tundra-steppes were inhabited during the Sartan

period by a later (but not smaller) type of mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius), relatively small horses

(Equus caballus subsp.), northern deer (Rangifer tarandus L.), bison (Bison priscus subsp.), saiga

antelope (Saiga tatarica), and a multitude of smaller animals (Sher 1969:9). In Chukotka, mammoth

remains in particular are often found (on Aion Island and on the rivers of Anadyr’, Amguema, Malyi

Aniui, Omolon, and others).

Thus, the expanses of Arctic tundra-steppe in northern Chukotka, in spite of their uncommon

severity, were not lifeless and unsuited for humans, and the northern route of the settlement of

Chukotka could pass here over these expanses from the lower Lena. In light of this, finds of split

mammoth bones on the Mukhomornaia River (in the Belaia River basin) in the center of Chukotka,

as well as at another place in Chukotka (unfortunately, with no provenience), are extremely

interesting. They were examined by V. K. Arsen’ev (1948:121) but are not yet fully clarified.4

In Kamchatka during the Sartan period vegetation was probably more abundant than in

Chukotka, and the high-grass tundra-steppes fertilized by volcanic ash alternated there with sparse

forests. The animal world was also undoubtedly abundant there, in particular, large mammal fauna.

The bone remains of mammoths have been discovered in various places in Kamchatka from

the shores of Penzhina Bay and the Parapol’skii Valley southward to the Kamchatka River valley,

where they are especially abundant. There, in 1918, Arsen’ev found the bones of woolly

rhinoceroses and mammoths (Arsen’ev 1948:118, 119), and there our expedition found them in

1961–1965,5 as did a special paleontological expedition of the Geological Institute led by N. P.

Kuprina (1966). Judging by the geography of the mammoth bone remains in Kamchatka, noted

above (and in particular, by A. R. Geptner’s find of them near Tigil’ in 1963) (Geptner, Lupikina,

and Skiba 1966), they were spread across this peninsula, most probably along its western shore from

Chukotka, but also possibly along the northern Okhotsk coastal zone, where mammoth bones are

now being discovered (Vas’kovskii, personal communication). Indirectly corroborating this route

of mammoth distribution along the Okhotsk corridor during the Sartan period are several

mammoth sites discovered on Hokkaido Island by the Japanese geologist Minato (1955), since it

4

The bones were discovered by Brykin and are preserved in the Anadyr’ Regional Museum.

5

We gave these mammoth remains, predominantly molar teeth, to V. E. Garuttu for study at the Institute and Museum of

Zoology AN SSSR.
Nikolai N. Dikov 9

is obvious that mammoths could get there only by the union of Sakhalin Island with Priamurye in

the late Sartan. The route also goes to the north through Priokhotye.

Not to reject the important and perhaps even paramount significance of the Chukotka-Arctic

route of mammoth movement toward Beringia, Alaska, and Kamchatka, which has drawn the

attention of many researchers (Campbell 1963; Chard 1960; Mochanov 1969a; Solecki 1951), it is

nevertheless necessary to emphasize as well the attractiveness for these animals of both the

Priokhotsk Sartan, and before it perhaps even the Zyriansk, coastal shelf along the present

precipitous western and northern coasts of the Sea of Okhotsk to the Parapal’skii Valley in northern

Kamchatka. And this route, differing throughout the whole period by its mild climate, and

consequently also by the diversity of the flora, was, as indicated above, in fact already noted for the

first finds of mammoth bones. So far relatively fewer of them are presently known than in northern

Chukotka or in the valley of the Anadyr’ River. This can be explained by two very understandable

circumstances: the less favorable conditions there for burial of mammoths than in the north and

scant study of northern and western Priokhotye in comparison with the Arctic zone of Northeast

Asia. The recent find of a frozen mammoth near Susuman, much closer to the Sea of Okhotsk than

to the Arctic Ocean, points to the truth of this (Shilo 1978).

Thus, during the climatically severe Zyriansk and Sartan periods, mammoths, bison, and

northern deer could have spread through Chukotka and Kamchatka toward Beringia and North

America by the two main routes available then: the Arctic and the Priokhotsk. The movement of

these animals into North America had begun by the middle Pleistocene and occurred periodically

with the emergence of the Bering Land Bridge (Flerov 1965; Sher 1970; Tugarinov 1934), which

played the distinctive role of cold “filter” for them (Sher 1976:227; Solecki 1951).

The absolute age of the Zyriansk neo-glaciated bridge is presently estimated at various dates,

but the most generally accepted is one of the late dates: between 50,000 and 40,000 years ago,

according to H. Müller-Beck (1966:1191–1210).

The Sartan “bridge” (the broadest) is dated to 28,000 to 10,000 years ago by this researcher,

who turns special attention to the period 28,000/25,000 to 23,000 years ago, during the course of

which there was, simultaneous with this bridge, a passage from Alaska to the southern regions of

North America between the Laurentide and Canadian ice sheets. Later, such an uninterrupted

connection between Asia and America was not resumed until 13,000 to 10,000 years ago. Before

28,000/25,000 years ago and after 10,000 years ago, Northeast Asia was separated from Alaska by

Bering Strait, and during the period 23,000 to 13,000 years ago the Canadian ice barrier was

complete and represented an insurmountable obstacle that separated Alaska and extreme

Northeast Asia, whose connection formed the whole of Beringia, from the remaining regions of the

North American continent (Müller-Beck 1966).

The conclusion of paleo-zoologists on the penetration of mammoths, bison, and northern deer

from Northeast Asia into North America is very important for us, as is our determination of

possible routes of migration of these animals first into Chukotka, Kamchatka, and then into North

America. Now we can suppose that it was by these routes that Paleolithic man, predominantly the

hunter of large grazers, who gradually became accustomed to new hunting grounds, also went into

Northeast Asia during the Pleistocene.
10 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

The Problem of the Initial Settlement of

Northeast Asia and America

The closest approaches to Northeast Asia—the southern regions of Siberia and the Far East—

could be settled by people for the first time from the Urals, Kazakhstan, and Central and Eastern

Asia as early as the second half of the Pleistocene (in the Middle and possibly even in the Lower

Paleolithic), which is indicated, in the opinion of some researchers, by the still possibly problematic

Karginsk sites of the Altai, Pribaikalye, and Priamurye (Ulalinka, Ust’-Kanskaia Cave, the sites of

Igitei and Tarakhai on the 100-meter terraces of the Angara, Filimoshki, and others) (Derevianko

1971, 1973; Okladnikov 1966a; Okladnikov and Derevianko 1973a, 1973b; Rudenko 1960; Tseitlin

1975). However, only traces of Upper Paleolithic people have been absolutely determined and are

indisputable in Siberia and the Far East, beginning primarily with the Sartan period (Abramova

1975; Okladnikov and Abramova 1974). It is the character especially of Sartan cultures of Siberia,

in comparison with much earlier cultures of surrounding territories, that permits evaluating the

earliest ones, going back to the Middle Paleolithic time, the Mousterian (Levallois) sources of the

Siberian Upper Paleolithic. There is no clarity here, and at present the discussion continues about

the origins, stages, and variations of development in the Paleolithic of North and Northeast Asia,

which were rather completely illuminated in W. R. Powers’s large survey (1973). Thus, Z. A.

Abramova, relying on the stratigraphy and dated typological complexes, distinguishes three

cultural areas of the Upper Paleolithic in Siberia: (1) the South Siberian of the upper Yenisei, Altai,

and Zabaikalye (unifying the Afontova, Kokoreva, Srostkina, and Oshurkova cultures); (2) the

Middle Siberian (the Mal’ta-Buret’ culture in Pribaikalye, the Achina site on the Chulyma, and the

Tarachikha site on the Yenisei); (3) and the Northeastern Siberian (Diuktai and other possible

cultures of this region) (Abramova 1975). This investigator objects to the term “Post Mousterian,”

proposed by G. P. Grigor’ev and V. A. Ranov, in the place of “Upper Paleolithic” for Siberia,

correctly maintaining the progressive character of the Siberian Paleolithic in the Karginsk and

Sartan periods (Abramova 1975; Grigor’ev 1968).

Yu. A. Mochanov proposed another systematization for Siberian Upper Paleolithic cultures

(Mochanov 1977:223–240). In his opinion, they reflect two basic traditions of making stone points

and knives: (1) the Mal’ta-Afontova, without bifaces (the Mal’ta, Afontova, Kokoreva, Srostkina,

Oshurkova, and Sannomys’ cultures), going back to the Mousterian-Levallois cultures of Middle

and Central Asia; and (2) the Diuktai, with bifaces (the Lena, Indigirka, Kukhtui, and Kamchatka

basins, and in southern Siberia and the Far East—Nian’gi, Batoiskaia Yama, Sokhatino, Kumary

III, Osinovka, Ustinovka, and others), coming from bifacial Mousterian cultures with the Acheulian

tradition of the southern Urals, Kazakhstan, and other territories adjoining Siberia on the south. He

is inclined to subdivide the Diuktai bifacial tradition into two subtraditions in later times: with

wedge-shaped cores, characteristic for Diuktai Cave, and without them (possibly the presently

undated Kukhtui site on the north coast of the Sea of Okhotsk).

The separation by Mochanov of sites of bifacial and unifacial traditions is a good practice,

which was started by A. A. Formozov (1969) with Eastern European material. It would not have

caused objections by archaeologists (Abramova 1975) if it were not so speculative, confused, and

inconsistent. Mochanov uses the terms “Diuktai tradition,” “Diuktai province,” and “Diuktai

culture” equivalently (Mochanov 1977:236, 239, & others). And with the speculative division of a

“Diuktai subtradition” without wedge-shaped cores, it turns out that only one thing stands for all
Nikolai N. Dikov 11

these—the presence in the cultural complex of bifacial tools, which, of course, is insufficient for an

actual archaeological tradition or culture. It is not without reason that in his survey of the Siberian

Paleolithic, Powers notes that the idea of the so-called Diuktai culture should be used “with certain

caution” (Powers 1973:71). What is more, the question arises, should it be called Diuktai at all if one

considers that bifaces in combination with wedge-shaped cores are known in other late Paleolithic

sites of Siberia and the northern Far East—on Verkhnelenskaia Mountain, on Ushki Lake, and so

on—before Mochanov found them in 1967 (and published them in 1969) (Mochanov 1969b).

The unreasonably high dating by Mochanov of the so-called Diuktai culture, allegedly

beginning 35,000 years ago and continuing without particular changes up to 10,000 years ago

(Mochanov 1977:223–240), is justifiably a subject of criticism. A full 25,000 years of such long

and, consequently, extremely slow, stagnant development of the “Diuktai culture” does not agree

at all with Mochanov’s acceptance of my (Dikov 1971a) and Abramova’s (1975) progressive

character of the Paleolithic in Northeast Asia. However, there is no problem in this

contradiction, since in light of available data the dating itself of the “Diuktai culture” and the sites

representing it do not stand up to criticism. It is based on comparison of several stratigraphic

profiles in terraces of different elevations on the Aldan River, the cultural layers of which are

dated by radiocarbon analysis. However, the sequence of terraces proposed by Mochanov is very

problematic, and in the radiocarbon dates themselves of the earliest sites of the “Diuktai culture”

from the third terrace, either substantial inversion is observed (Ust’-Mil’ II) (Mochanov 1977:35)

or the dates are definitely unreliable (Ikhine II, dates GIN) (Mochanov 1977:40) or they are

entirely absent (Ikhine I, Ezhantsy) (Mochanov 1977:51). It is no wonder, therefore, that the

dating of the named sites to 35,000 to 23,000 years does not agree at all with archaeological

criteria. Nor have wedge-shaped cores and bifacially worked leaf-shaped points been

encountered at so early a time in Siberian cultures, which has been noted by Abramova, I. P.

Laricheva, V. Haynes, Powers, and other archaeologists (Abramova 1972, 1973; Haynes

1976:435; Laricheva 1976a:136, 198; Powers 1973). This is also corroborated by Mochanov’s

observation that in the Diuktai complex at the Verkhne Troitskaia site a Gobi core was

discovered just like at Ikhine I (Mochanov 1977:224) (and, notably, Ikhine is not dated at 35,000

years of age, rather substantially less, by twice as much). In addition, a biface from the Ezhantsy

site is almost no different from oval biface knives in the Upper Paleolithic horizon at Diuktai cave

(Mochanov 1977:223) (likewise, Ezhantsy is not 35,000 years old, but probably close to 13,000

to 14,000 years).

The very methods of excavation at the sites—not sufficiently distinguished by clear

stratigraphy and often disturbed by permafrost formations and the activity of man—obviously also

affected such an unfounded and contradictory dating of the “Diuktai culture” by Mochanov. The

cultural layers at the Aldan sites were not divided by such clear sterile bands as, for example, the

bands of volcanic ash in the Ushki sites in Kamchatka, and are located close to one another, owing

to which, the penetration of cultural remains from one layer into another in many cases could not

be controlled. This is especially true with regard to such sites as Bel’kachi I, Ikhine I, Ikhine II, Ust’-

Mil’, Verkhne Troitskaia, and Diuktai Cave.

Thus, geologists and archaeologists are obviously right in placing the age of the so-called

Diuktai culture within the bounds of the late Sartan period (maximum from 18,000, and more

probably from 14,000 to 10,000 years ago) (Abramova 1972, 1973; Laricheva 1976; Tseitlin

1972:116–125, 1975:34). With this correction, the “Diuktai culture” must be recognized as an
12 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

important cultural-historical stage of the Paleolithic past in the Aldan River basin. There is no

sufficient basis for spreading it as a “tradition” or “province” throughout the Northeast as far as

Japan and America. A tradition, as a historic society, is understood not only as a chronological and

territorial concept, but surely as a genetic one as well. Simplistically dividing all the sites of northern

Asia into two traditions—unifacial and bifacial—without consideration of their origin and

distinguishing between them a so-called contact zone along the watersheds of the Lena and Yenisei

basin and the Selenga and the upper Amur (Mochanov 1977:550), Mochanov does not take into

account the fact that the Far Eastern regions of Northeast Asia, located beyond the other large

watershed (the Kamchatka), belong to a special Pacific cultural zone of the Upper Paleolithic with

their own personal technological traditions, including bifacial and unifacial, often combined in one

and the same site (for example, in Cultural Layer VII at Ushki I) (Derevianko 1973; Larichev 1970;

Laricheva 1976a; Vasil’evskii 1973a), though this zone, by its geographical position, cannot be seen

as a contact zone. A. P. Derevianko (1973) wrote convincingly about the special parallel

development of bifaces from cobble tools in Primorye using the Upper Paleolithic Kumary III site

as an example.

The coexistence of bifacial and unifacial, as well as “cobble” technology can also be traced in

the Sartan period in Alaska, where in the British Mountain culture (also non-contact), along with

unifaces, only very crude and primitive bifaces are known, yielding significantly in quality to the

simultaneous or, according to Mochanov, even earlier bifaces of the Diuktai culture (Laricheva

1976a:123). This fact cannot be explained if one follows Mochanov’s schema about the distribution

of the Diuktai tradition and culture to America, and even in America during the early and middle

Sartan. We evidently have a case in Alaska at this time not of the “Diuktai tradition” but of

convergence, the power of which is manifested with regard to bifaces on our planet, as is well known,

beginning in the earliest times. It is sufficient to recall Formozov’s conclusion that in the Acheulian

tradition the technology of bifaces in Eastern Europe emerged independently almost in every

indogamic community. As a result, this technology was widespread there alternately with a unifacial

one, and both were isolated in each individual site, with each of them thereby presenting its own

tradition (Formozov 1959a:112).6

Thus, the “Diuktai tradition” (or “Diuktai culture”), even if it is imagined by Mochanov as a

community of the first order—a community first and foremost genetic, that is, having its own

source—it was not spread throughout Northeast Asia and America as far as he proposes. In

extreme Northeast Asia (in particular, in Kamchatka), in Alaska, and probably in Priamurye the

Diuktai tradition stands in opposition to other bifacial traditions and cultures: Cultural Layer VII

at Ushki in Kamchatka, the Siberdik culture on the Kolyma, the British Mountain culture in Alaska,

and possibly Kumary III in Priamurye—these having convergent origins independent of the

“Diuktai culture.” Not to agree with this would be to acknowledge the possibility that all other

bifacial cultures and traditions not now considered connected genetically with it, including

“Solutrean” (the position that Müller-Beck occupied), belong to the “Diuktai tradition.” And in

such a case, the necessity for the term “Diuktai tradition” would cease and it would be possible, like

Müller-Beck, to call a bifacial tradition on the Aldan simply a “Solutrean” tradition.

In light of new archaeological materials, distinctiveness is very evident in the Paleolithic

cultures of Kamchatka and the Kolyma, the earliest of which, the early Ushki Cultural Layer VII,

6

N. D. Praslov (1965:16) rejects total convergence of stone-working during the Mousterian.
Nikolai N. Dikov 13

is fundamentally different from the Diuktai, and the later, Siberdik culture differs from the

Sumnagin. It is also evident that the Ushki culture, and not the Diuktai, could have played a certain

role in the settlement of pre-glacial America even before influence could have spread through

Chukotka to Alaska from the Diuktai culture.

One should briefly remember the basic hypotheses of settlement of America in the works of

foreign and Russian scholars—our predecessors and contemporaries.

It became almost generally acknowledged that America was settled from Northeast Asia by

people of modern appearance—Homo sapiens (Alekseev 1969, 1972, 1973; Chard 1969; Debets

1951; Okladnikov 1955b; Roginskii 1969; Zubov 1963). Therefore, the problem of initial

settlement of America, as well as the northeastern extremity of Asia, is closely related (by a very

similar connection) to the problem of the origin of modern people, in particular with the dilemma

of its poly-centric or mono-centric resolution.

If one accepts the mono-centric hypothesis and acknowledges that modern people first

appeared in the western Old World, and then from there settled eastern Asia, assimilating with

or forcing out the indigenous paleo-anthropos, then it is clear that in such case a longer time must

have passed before their expansion into the extreme Northeast and into America than if their own

cradle of sapientation was in eastern Asia, in accordance with the poly-centric hypothesis

(Weidenreich 1938).

Acceptance of the poly-centric hypothesis would give migrants to the Northeast a “starting”

advantage in the thousands-of-miles route and, consequently, at least a few millennia in time.

However, if one agrees with a later variant of poly-centrism, more precisely, di-centrism—

drawing together two sources in the framework of northeastern Africa and Southwest Asia

(Zubov 1970), then this advantage is very insignificant.

Thus, even accepting poly-centrism in its last, most probable variant, we see how important

the route remained from the eastern cradle of sapientation in Southeast Asia to Bering Strait. Of

course, by itself it does not resolve the chronological aspect of the problem of settlement of

America, though it gives some objective representation of the lower boundary of the date of the

earliest movement into this continent by people of modern form, which, as we see, is directly

dependent on the date of their origin. The latter, unfortunately, is still very much discussed and

fluctuates over a rather broad range: from 50,000 to 54,000 years B.C. (Yakimov 1972) and even

70,000 years, which is very questionable (Reshetov 1965), to 40,000 years (Ivanova 1965). The

youngest of the named dates is sufficiently corroborated by reliably factual data and coincides both

for Central and Southeast Asia (Boriskovskii 1971). Therefore, based on this minimal estimation

of age of the first people of modern appearance, the first settlement by them of America could

probably occur no earlier than 40,000 to 35,000 years ago. The supposition of an earlier settlement

of America (50,000 to 100,000 years ago) (MacNeish 1971) inevitably leads to the contradictory

(from the point of view of modern anthropology) conclusion that America had its own initial cradle

of sapientation. In addition, it should be considered that people found themselves in Northeast

Asia, and then on the American mainland, only after they learned to adapt to a cold climate by

inventing warm clothing and houses. This most probably occurred in the Upper Paleolithic, not in

the Lower.

The incompleteness of anthropological and archaeological data places serious limitations

on the resolution of this problem. No traces in eastern and northern Asia up to the present
14 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

of an initial Upper Paleolithic culture of Amero-Asiatics have been discovered together with

paleo-anthropological remains from which the earliest Paleo-Indian culture could directly have

emerged, be it with bifacially worked stone points (bifaces) or without any points.

The problem of the antiquity of the penetration of man from Asia into the Americas is being

resolved by intensive archaeological investigations both in North and South America. Interpreting

the radiocarbon determinations of the age of archaeological remains difficult; scholars ascribe the

appearance of man in the Western Hemisphere to different times. By the strictest estimation of

geologists, this event belongs to the thirteenth to fifteenth millennia from the present to the very end

of the last late Pleistocene (Sartan) glaciation, when a narrow passage to the south between the ice

sheets of North America began to emerge or had possibly already emerged (Gromov 1969; Haynes

1971).7

 To this time belong sites with Sandia and Clovis points, and then Folsom points, which are

indisputably dated (according to the “short” chronology), at least from the point of view of

geologists. Other investigators suggest an age of the presently known earliest archaeological finds

as substantially more—20,000 to 35,000 years (Campbell 1963; MacNeish 1963, 1971; Mochanov

1966, 1977) (and in the opinion of some of them, going even into the Middle Paleolithic) (Laricheva

1966, 1976a). In this regard, the American archaeologist Krieger (1964) distinguishes an earliest

“pre-projectile point” stage, preceding, in his opinion, the specific North American projectile

points of Sandia, Clovis, and Folsom. These stages of points are dated by some researchers by long

chronology: Sandia—26,000 to 17,000 years; Clovis—17,000 to 12,000 years; and Folsom—

12,000 to 10,000 years (Laricheva 1976).

Assigning a substantially deep Upper Paleolithic age to the earliest traces of people is

corroborated by the recent discovery of two well-dated sites. One of them, Wilson Butte Cave in

the state of Idaho, is dated to 15,000 years (M-1410). The other—Tlapacoya near Mexico City—

has, in the opinion of some archaeologists, an even earlier date—23,000 years. Keeping in mind the

age of these two sites and that at that time the ice barrier, which entirely isolated the New World

over the course of 13,000 years, already existed, C. S. Chard concluded that man appeared in

extreme Northeast Asia no later than 23,000 years ago and almost certainly somewhat earlier

(Chard 1968, 1969:142).

H. M. Wormington (1971) takes a more conservative position with regard to the Tlapacoya

site, considering its date not entirely reliable. Nevertheless, this authoritative researcher of the

American Paleolithic (who, in fact, introduced the term “Paleo-Indian,” and then distinguished

five Paleo-Indian cultures within the United States), in a symposium on early man in the North

America in 1970 in San Diego, made a bet with MacNeish that by 1980 the antiquity of the

American Paleolithic would be convincingly established at more than 25,000 years (Wormington

1971). This is all the more significant in that Wormington rejected the “pre-projectile point”

stage and thus reckoned on such an early and absolutely reliable date for the Sandia culture. A

recent find of a bone point at Old Crow in Canada (dating to 27,000 years by C-14), which

Wormington values highly, though A. Bryan doubts its age (he suggests that early people could

have used fossil bone), is a good harbinger of reliable data earlier than 25,000 years (Harington

1975; Wormington 1971). Meanwhile, the early dates of the American Paleolithic (to 40,000 years

and more) are very approximate and will be made more precise based on the appearance of welldated archaeological materials.

7

See Vol. II, Part II, “Archaeology,” as well as the Preface by V. I. Gromov, 1969.
Nikolai N. Dikov 15

The question of the sources of Paleo-Indian culture from the point of view of their makeup is

of definite interest in connection with the theme we touched upon, as well as with regard to the routes

and stages of its penetration through northeastern Siberia into North America. This problem has

its history and Chester Chard plays no small role in resolving it.

Chard was one of the first to attach proper significance to the eastern Mousterian-Levallois

sites of the Old World in connection with the problem of the origin of the earliest Paleo-Indian

cultures of America. He notes features similar to Paleo-Indian (in particular, rudiments of the blade

technique, and in some cases, the presence of bifaces) in the Mousterian-Levallois Dintsun’

complex; in Ust’-Kanskaia Cave in the Altai, investigated by S. I. Rudenko; and in the Mongolian

Mousterian-Levallois sites of Ottson’-Man’t and others, discovered by A. P. Okladnikov (Chard

1959, 1963:115–121, 1969:139–146; Okladnikov 1973; Rudenko 1960).

At the same time, Chard did not limit the problem to the discovery of only this Central Asian

source of Paleo-Indian culture, rather he convincingly showed the presence of another tradition

going back to the cobble industry of Southeast Asia, as well as an Aurignacian influence later (Chard

1969:139–146).

Proceeding from the paleo-geographic conditions of Northeast Asia during the period of

the Sartan glaciation, Chard suggests that there were two routes of human migration to Bering

Strait, which at that time was dry, and farther toward Alaska along northeastern Siberia during

the Upper Paleolithic: (1) from the south along the Okhotsk coast and then along the Anadyr’-

Penzhina lowland, and (2) from the lower reaches of the Lena along the coast of the Arctic Ocean.

Cultures with a predominantly cobble tradition penetrated into North America by the first route.

The Pacific watershed, in Chard’s opinion, separated the Far Eastern Pacific cultural zone from

the inner-continental eastern Siberian zone and was a permanent barrier between them, which

stimulated movement along the coastal zone of the Sea of Okhotsk toward the north in the

direction of Kamchatka and Beringia during the periods of glaciation when this coastal route was

accessible and restricted it during interglacial periods to the Amur River basin and adjoining

areas (Chard 1960, 1967).

As for the stages of settlement of America, Chard adheres to the opinion that earlier than

27,000 years ago there was only the possibility of movement of people in the northern direction to

America, and that during the course of the last 27,000 years Alaska and Beringia could have been

settled uninterruptedly, although intercontinental contacts and access to interior areas of North

America over the course of 10,000 years was prevented by the Canadian ice barrier (from 23,000

to 13,000 years ago) (Chard 1967, 1969:141).

Chard’s hypothesis about the sources, routes, and stages of settlement of America does not

suffer from the one-sidedness that is peculiar to many other hypotheses, which, as a rule, are

“attached” only to those sites and cultures that were investigated in the field by the authors of the

hypotheses themselves. This bold and well-disposed hypothesis immediately attracted attention

and enlivened elaboration of the problem.

The basic aspects of the problem of the settlement of America are also developed and defined

by Campbell, Wormington, MacNeish, Müller-Beck, Borden, Bandi, Ikawa, Malaurie, Laughlin,

Okladnikov, Vasil’evskii, Laricheva, Mochanov, and others.
16 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Thus, with care and reserve in the dates, Wormington (1962:230–242, 1971) derives the

American Paleolithic from the region of Lake Baikal, where, in her opinion, the blade technique of

the Paleolithic of southern Siberia was mixed with the Asian chopper tradition and was spread from

there to Bering Strait, which, she believes, was not an obstacle in the Paleolithic even during the

submergence of Beringia. Fluted points, as she has said for a long time, emerged in glacial America

convergently (she adheres to the short chronology for the Folsom and Clovis cultures in this). It is

curious that P. Bosh-Gimpera also considers it possible to derive the Paleolithic of America from

the Lake Baikal region, though he bases this conclusion on the similarity of petroglyphs there with

cliff illustrations near the Great Lakes, as well as in Patagonia and California (Bosh-Gimpera

1968:175). Other data based on Paleolithic art do not agree with this conclusion: a Paleo-Indian

engraving of a mammoth on a slab from Delaware (an eastern North American variant of the Clovis

culture—Enterlay complex) most probably has, in the opinions of V. E. Larichev and I. P.

Laricheva, a convergent origin independent of the Old World (Larichev and Laricheva 1976:127).

Campbell discovers in the complex of stone artifacts investigated by him from the Kogruk site

(in Anaktuvuk Pass in the Brooks Range of northern Alaska) Levallois typological features, and

derives this complex from Europe, substantiating from all angles the advantages of a northern

tundra route from Europe to Beringia (Campbell 1963).

MacNeish, investigating sites in the southwestern Yukon, uncovered several traditions, the

earliest of which in Alaska—British Mountain—he connected in origin with Mal’ta and Buret’e

(MacNeish 1964:366). However, as Abramova correctly notes, he did not consider the fact that the

Levallois-Mousterian technique was not at all characteristic for these earliest Pribaikalye sites

(Müller-Beck 1966).

Müller-Beck, having summarized vast material, viewed the origin of only two traditions of

Paleo-Indian culture, specifically the tradition with biface points and Aurignacian with unifaces

(though he also acknowledges a “pre-projectile point” tradition or stage). Having subjected the

aggregate of geological, paleo-geographical, and ecological factors to interdisciplinary study, he

maintains a discontinuous settlement for America across the Bering Land Bridge during the

following three stages.

1. First stage: 40,000 to 35,000 years ago—intrusion into Chukotka of a Mousteroid culture of

the Kostenki type (with bifaces).

2. Second stage: approximately 28,000 to 26,000 years ago—penetration of this culture by the

Bering Land Bridge and the Canadian ice-free corridor into the territory of the lower United

States.

3. Approximately 20,000 to 12,000 years ago—interruption in the settlement of northern

northeastern Siberia and Alaska owing to the severe cold of the Sartan glaciation.

4. Third stage: about 11,000 to 10,000 years ago—penetration into Chukotka and Alaska of an

Aurignacian culture meeting a returning movement of the Plano culture from the central

regions of North America. The mixing of these cultures led to the formation of the Eskimo

culture (Müller-Beck 1966).

Concerning this hastily produced imitation of an efficacious hypothesis, the eminent Russian

specialist on the Paleolithic G. P. Grigor’ev responded quite negatively, turning attention to the
Nikolai N. Dikov 17

imperfection in the methods of its argument. Grigor’ev notes that in fact, Müller-Beck’s hypothesis

is doubtful, based as it is on the uncertain similarity, stated by him, of the European Paleolithic

technology and the technology of the Paleo-Indian cultures. As evidence for a “Solutrean”

migration from Europe into America, for example, Kostenki and the Paleo-Indian Plano culture

are equated. But in general, they have only bifaces in common (Grigor’ev 1973:203) (as we saw

above, Mochanov’s method of determining traditions is also characterized by this approach).

Geologist C. V. Haynes, like Wormington, believes that people could have crossed Bering

Strait in summer by water and in winter by ice during the last 30,000 years. Dividing the whole

Paleolithic of America into three Paleo-Indian stages (Sandia, Clovis, and Folsom), he suggests

that using projectile points to hunt large animals was characteristic for all of them. Leaving open

the question of whether the origin of the Clovis culture was indigenous or Asian (which he dates

in the framework of the short chronology), he is convinced that Folsom fluted points appeared

first in Alaska under conditions of isolation and only from there found their way along the icefree corridor (which was opened 14,000 years ago) into glacial America (Haynes 1969:5, 22,

1971:15). However, he is not supported in this by other American archaeologists, in particular,

Wormington (1962). Bryan especially sharply disagrees with Haynes. He does not accept

Haynes’s Paleo-Indian schema and suggests that the Paleo-Indians enjoyed a complex and multilayered economy, not just the hunting of large game. In this regard, Bryan’s concept is more

flexible and broader (Bryan 1975).

E. Borden, investigator of the site with perhaps the most components in the Western

Hemisphere, which is located in the lower Fraser River canyon in British Columbia, gives irrefutable

evidence of early penetration into North America of a cobble tool culture. Similar tools of the

uniface chopper type (among them are also those with a beak-like point, as at Osinovka on the Amur

and at Filimoshki on the Zeia River, discovered by Okladnikov) were found by Borden in the lowest

level of the named site, forming there the so-called Pasik complex, dating to the Two Creeks

Interglacial stage (11,442 ± 350 B.P. by C-14). This complex, in Borden’s opinion, could have

arrived in northwestern North America from Southeast Asia before the Wisconsin Glaciation

(Borden 1970:331–334).

H.-G. Bandi, in his summary work on the early Eskimos, gives great significance to the

mentioned Pasik complex, and like Borden, interprets it as one of the earliest Paleo-Indian

complexes appearing in the Fraser River valley from the south, since from the north at this time

access was still closed by glaciers. Before this the culture had penetrated into the central regions of

North America from Southeast Asia no later than 23,000 years ago (Bandi 1969).

Thus, we see that the Pacific route from Asia into North America is not simply a hypothesis,

but a reality. Other archaeological finds attest to the fact that by this route, just as evidently by

the Chukotka Arctic route, passed migrations or cultural influences to Beringia or Bering Strait,

especially the Hoshino complex with cobble tools: uniface choppers and massive skreblos, and

flakes, similar to Levallois (Ikawa 1968; Serizawa 1970:350–357), as well as the cobble tools with

“beaks,” mentioned above, found by Okladnikov at the Filimoshki on the Zeia River

(Okladnikov 1973:55). Both this and other complexes probably belong to the middle

Pleistocene. Corroborating later contacts in this Pacific zone, in the opinion of the American

researcher Ikawa, is the similarity of large knife-like blades of the Horoka complex (Hokkaido,

16,300 years ago) with knife-like blades of the Clovis type found by Green in Mexico (Ikawa 1968;

Laricheva 1970:Fig. 1). In this connection, I. P. Laricheva recently turned her attention to the
18 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

developed blade and burin technique of pre-ceramic Japanese cultures (Laricheva 1970:150). V.

E. Larichev also pointed to possible contacts of the earliest cultures of Asia and the New World,

noting the early appearance in Japan of the technique of bifacial percussion flaking; the making

of bifaces, spear points, and conical and semi-conical cores; and the grinding of point bases

(Larichev 1970:108). These contacts could have been carried out, of course, only along the

Pacific route.

As if in confirmation of these views, the extremely interesting interdisciplinary historicalecological and paleo-geographical research of J. M. Malaurie appeared. It convincingly testifies to

the great role of the Pacific coast in the spread of the Paleolithic population into Beringia at the end

of the Ice Age. Along the southern edge of Beringia, just as along the northern, the population

spread to America. Providing evidence of this, in his opinion, are the Ushki sites (Cultural Layer

VI) in Kamchatka and the early Aleut site of Anangula (Malaurie 1970). R. S. Vasil’evskii very

quickly took up this idea and in his book vividly reproduced some archaeological materials relating

to early proto-Aleuts by both Russian and American researchers (from the latter, using

predominantly Laughlin’s material on Anangula) (Aigner 1966; Denniston 1966; Dikov 1964b,

1967d, 1969b, 1971a, 1971b; Laughlin and Aigner 1966; Semenov 1963; Vasil’evskii 1973). He

borrowed Laughlin’s idea of a genetic connection of Anangula with a Japanese “pre-ceramic

culture” through the realm of a late Ushki Paleolithic. It is worth mentioning that I have also had

occasion to write about connections between Anangula and the Ushki sites, Cultural Layer VI,

suggesting they were proto-Eskimo-Aleut (Dikov 1967d, 1969).

Russian physical anthropologists have also turned their attention to the problem of the

settlement of America. G. F. Debets, who wrote a large, detailed work on this theme, on the basis

of the study of blood groups, finally concluded that the Indians of America descended from one

small group of the population (Debets 1960). An effective hypothesis was proposed by A. A.

Zubov. He believes that America was settled in at least two stages and that the Eskimos and Tierra

del Fuegans, as well as some Indian tribes from unfavorable regions difficult to access, are relicts

of the earliest Paleo-American ethnic stratum. Their anthropological type is the most archaic, and

they share a whole complex of Paleo-American traits (short stature, head shape, broad nose, thick

lips, wavy hair, dark skin). They are similar also in dermatoglyphics (Zubov 1968). And this, of

course, is the result not only of bipolarity, the adaptation to the same climatic conditions, as V. P.

Alekseev (1967) suggests, but also of the commonality of their origin. The Eskimos, California

Indians, and Tierra del Fuegans are descendants of the earliest Paleo-Americans, the first

discoverers of America. If Eskimos are a product of the mixing of the earliest Paleo-Americans with

a subsequent late Pleistocene and early Holocene wave of migrants into North America, then the

Tierra del Fuegans have preserved the initial anthropological type and some original elements of

culture in the purest form.

Two recently published summarizing books—by Laricheva (1976a) and by Mochanov

(1977)—contain mutually exclusive conclusions on the problems of the settlement of America

from Northeast Asia.

Laricheva conducted a huge source study and historiographic work in order to overcome

needless skepticism and distrust with regard to the earliest sites in North America, and to some

degree she was successful. She convincingly showed that the American Paleolithic (which she dates

by the “long chronology”) is a separate phase of the Upper Paleolithic of the world that developed

convergently under conditions of geographic isolation. Correspondingly, she revised her previous
Nikolai N. Dikov 19

point of view regarding the role of the Japanese Paleolithic in the formation of the American

Paleolithic industry of knife-like blades, burins, and bifaces. All these elements emerged in America,

in her opinion, entirely independently of any kind of influences from the Old World, including the

Japanese Islands. Laricheva’s unconditional acknowledgment of Krieger’s “pre-projectile point”

stage (dating to a period from 50,000/40,000 to 27,000 years ago), from which, in her opinion, the

whole Upper Paleolithic of America (except Denali, its latest culture) developed, lies at the base of

her reconstruction of the Paleolithic past of America. In its main features, this reconstruction

appears entirely logical, though the conclusion about the unique “experiment” of Paleolithic

convergence in America, set up by “nature itself,” is still in need, of course, of strict control to

maintain the “purity” of this experiment. In this connection, it should be mentioned that both

Laricheva and Wormington, and some other researchers, still allow the possibility of the existence

of a land route into glacial America along the Cordillera even during the period of its glaciation,

and they believe Bering Strait was passable during interglacial periods. On the whole, the concept

maintained by Laricheva, and hotly supported by Arutiunov in the preface to her book, is more

fruitful than Mochanov’s opposing hypothesis about the role of the “Diuktai people” in the

settlement of the New World.

Mochanov, as is well known, substantially changed his previous hypothesis of the settlement

of America by an Arctic route from Yakutia and Chukotka by bearers of the the Diuktai (35,000

to 22,000 years ago), “Ikhine” (22,000 to 10,000 years ago), and “Sumnagin” (10,000 to 6,000 years

ago) cultures (Mochanov 1969a), now conceding the possibility also of a Bering Sea route (the

Maiorych site) to North America (Mochanov 1972). But as before, the theoretical base of his

hypothesis is the doubtful ideas of Müller-Beck about the decisive role of bifacial and unifacial

traditions of the Old World in the emergence of the American Paleolithic, the ideas of geologists

about the dynamic system of the “Bering Land Bridge” and the “inter-glacial corridor,” and

Chard’s notions of Asian Middle Paleolithic sources of the American Paleolithic. Proceeding first

from the “long” chronology (Mochanov 1966a) and then from the “short” chronology (Mochanov

1977) of the Sandia and Clovis cultures, postulating a general similarity of the Diuktai with them,

and always categorically rejecting a “pre-projectile point” stage and even the possibility of

subsequent bifacial convergence in America, Mochanov concludes a major role in the initial

settlement of America by mammoth hunters equipped with bifacial spear points (bearers of the

Diuktai culture), the spread of the Diuktai tradition into America beginning seemingly 35,000 years

ago and later, and the subsequent migration of “unifacial Sumnagin people,” who 10,000 years ago

replaced the Diuktai people (Mochanov 1977).

However, this speculative construction by Mochanov does not at all agree with the facts.

Contradicting it is the complete lack of Diuktai wedge-shaped cores in any of the Paleo-Indian

glacial cultures of America, which Abramova, Haynes, Laricheva, Larichev, and other Russian and

foreign archaeologists who did not accept Mochanov’s hypothesis immediately noticed

(Abramova 1973; Haynes 1976:435; Larichev and Laricheva 1976; Laricheva 1976a:136). The

author of this book also noted connections of the Diuktai culture and the Ushki culture (Cultural

Layer VI), which is similar to it, only with the late Paleolithic sites of Alaska (Donnelly Ridge, Healy

Lake, Akmak, Campus, Teklanika East, Teklanika West, Anangula, and others) (Dikov 1969,

1971a). The researchers noted, focusing mainly on the biface technique—allegedly the same for

Diuktai and Clovis—that Mochanov entirely ignored its result—typology (Larichev and Laricheva

1976). Under the pressure of criticism, Mochanov is left to take refuge in the sheer speculative

creation of a Diuktai bifacial subtradition without wedge-shaped cores (earlier than with them). He
20 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

believed that this subtradition had not yet been found anywhere, but if it suddenly was, then the

earliest American Paleolithic could allegedly be derived from it (Mochanov 1977:239). In this

regard Mochanov rested his hopes on the Kukhtui III site, but judging by the material he published

(Mochanov 1977:87, Pl. 28), it turned out to be related not to a Pleistocene Diuktai culture, but

rather to a Holocene culture of the upper Kolyma to which the lower layers of the Maltan site, which

we examined, are affiliated: the same triangular bifacial dart and arrow points, skreblo-like/adzelike tools, leaf-shaped biface knives, and incompletely retouched knives on large flakes (Dikov

1977b:Pls. 194, 195).8

Even if Mochanov finally discovers such a subtradition, it will no longer be Diuktai. It is not

difficult to propose that to this completely independent and entirely non-Diuktai tradition can be

assigned even now, for example, Kumary III, with its bifaces convergent with regard to Diuktai

bifaces and without wedge-shaped cores (Derevianko 1973). It is also possible to assign to it, or

rather, to another independent non-Diuktai bifacial tradition, the early Ushki Paleolithic culture, the

remains of which were preserved in clear stratigraphic conditions in Cultural Layer VII of the Ushki

sites, covered by Cultural Layer VI with artifacts of Diuktai appearance.

It is quite evident that in this complex, problematic situation the Kamchatka and Kolyma

Paleolithic materials, obtained in recent years by the Northeast Asian Interdisciplinary

Archaeological Expedition of SVKNII DVNTs AN SSSR, take on exceptional significance. We

will proceed to examine them.

The Early Ushki Upper Paleolithic Culture of

Kamchatka and the Hypothesis About Its Role

in the Settlement of America

The earliest of the Paleolithic cultures that we investigated in the Northeast is Cultural Layer

VII at the sites of Ushki I and Ushki V. It is absolutely isolated from the Paleolithic layers lying above,

since it is covered by undisturbed layers of rosy-yellow loam and gray sandy loam with bands of

sand, as well as superimposed volcanic ash.

In this layer were discovered traces of hearths that are dated to a time of 13,000 to 14,000

years ago (13,600 ± 250 and 14,300 ± 200 B.P.). Traces of them are preserved on the shore of the

lake at a depth of more than 2 m, which corresponds to 5 to 6 m nearby on the bank of the

Kamchatka River.

At the present time a rather large area of Cultural Layer VII (at Ushki I, 1,320 m2

; and at Ushki

V, about 150 m2

) has been opened, as a result of which two large Paleolithic camps were discovered,

the earliest in the northern Far East. In essence, these are the only Upper Paleolithic sites of such

early age in Northeast Asia (including all of Yakutia) and the Far East that provide fully preserved

remains of many houses and even a burial. The latter, found in 1964 at Ushki I and, as supposed

typical for Paleolithic burials (Grigor’ev 1968:162, 163), was constructed directly in the site

between the large, wholly surface dwellings near early hearths, some of which were covered with

8

See Figures 35–38 in this work.
Nikolai N. Dikov 21

Figure 2. Carbonaceous area of a double Paleolithic dwelling in Cultural Layer VII at the Ushki I site. 1—pits; 2—stone;

3–6—amount of charcoal (corresponding to the density of the sloped lines).

debris from the burial pit. Round in plan (about 2 m in diameter) and deep (to 1 m), the burial was

filled from top to bottom with mixed earth containing charcoal and lumps of red ocher. On its

bottom, in red ocher, was a large number (881 pieces) of flat pyrophyllite and amber beads and

biconically drilled pendants, as well as chalcedony points for making them. Owing to the intensive

water saturation of the cultural layer, only yellowish traces of the bones were preserved in the burial

and, judging by them, the deceased had been laid in the grave probably in flexed form, with bent

legs (Dikov 1967d:22–28, 1969:Fig. 3). A substantial area around the grave (about 50 m2

) was also

richly filled with red ocher.

Especially abundant materials were obtained here in 1971, 1974, and 1975. At that time, at the

Ushki I site large carbonaceous areas were discovered on both sides of the grave (at a distance of

about 25 m from it)—the bases of a double dwellings (Dikov 1977b:Fig. 8)—with a substantial

number of stone bead blanks just like those in the grave, as well as stone flakes and tools (including

numerous stemmed arrow points). At the Ushki V site, in 1975 another double house was

completely excavated (Fig. 2) and initial discovery made of two other such houses. As a result, it

is possible even now to reconstruct some features of the structure of these houses, as well as features

of the village plan.

The most prominent features of the early Ushki houses are their large (more than 100 m2

) size

and doubleness, just like the houses in the upper level at Kostenki IV (Rogachev 1970:Fig. 3) and

Pushkari I (Boriskovskii 1953:Fig. 89), and the lack of stonework around the hearths, of which each

house has several (three hearths in each of the doubled huts). They were scattered in disorder in the

middle of the house (forming a rather complex structure in the large carbonaceous central area),

as in houses of the second type, according to P. I. Boriskovskii’s (1977:41–42) classification. Unlike
22 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

the Kostenki and Pushkari houses mentioned, the frame of the Ushki surface huts was built not of

large animal bones, but probably of wooden poles covered with animal skins. The primitiveness of

the hearth arrangement, without any stone facing, suggests a very archaic appearance for these

dwellings, sharply distinguishing them from the house in the late Paleolithic coastal site of Ustinovka

on the Tadushi River (Derevianko 1971:33; Vasil’evskii 1973:42) and, of course, from the Anangula

pit houses (Vasil’evskii 1973). The appearance of the hearth rather brings them close to PaleoIndian sites without developed points (the British Mountain culture) or to such large Paleo-Indian

living areas as the Debert site in Nova Scotia (McDonald 1966:59–74).

Judging by the thick accumulation of bone and wood charcoal in the complexly structured

hearths of the dwellings in the seventh layer at the Ushki I and Ushki V sites, these houses were rather

long-term. The question of their synchroneity is still not resolved, but even if there were only one

or two houses in the village, its population consisted of no more than six to ten families,

corresponding to the number of “smallest living spaces”9

 (each family with one hearth), which made

up these houses. This adds significantly to the picture of Paleolithic houses that I. G. Shovkoplias

recently sketched. He supposed that late Paleolithic houses were substantially smaller in dimensions

and, incidentally, he did not take the Ushki houses into consideration at all (Shovkoplias 1973:49,

50). The data are presently insufficient for a socioeconomic interpretation of the earliest Ushki

village; thus, the only thing left is to agree in general with P. I. Boriskovskii, V. R. Kabo, and G. P.

Grigor’ev, that a maternal clan community consisting of paired families and carrying out a common

communal household economy most probably lived Paleolithic sites of this kind (Boriskovskii

1977:40; Grigor’ev 1972:12; Kabo 1972:62).

Figure 3. Projectile points from the early Ushki Upper Paleolithic culture (1–16).

9

We borrowed this idea from G. P. Grigor’ev as it seemed very expedient for such estimates (Grigor’ev 1972:12; see also

Gladkikh 1974).
Nikolai N. Dikov 23

At the base of stone-working production in the early Ushki Paleolithic culture was the

technology of producing flakes from amorphous cores and flaking knife-like blades (Fig. 5:10, 11)

from subprismatic cores (Fig. 5:8, 9), as well as probably blades from Levallois cores, which is

indicated by a blade similar to Levallois (Fig. 5:12). Wedge-shaped cores were not at all

characteristic for this culture, though microblades are encountered on very rare occasions (Dikov

1967c:Fig. 6:3, 4). However, as some archaeologists suggest, they could have been obtained as

burin spalls (Hayashi 1968). This is probably even more so as in this culture the burin technique was

very well developed (Fig. 5:1–5). The basis of the Ushki stone industry of this period was made up

of the combination of two basic technological traditions—unifacial (Fig. 4:1, 7) and bifacial, the

latter being prevalent (Figs. 3, 4:2–6).

Figure 4. Stone knives and scrapers from the early Ushki Upper Paleolithic culture (1–20).
24 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Specifically, the stone tool complex of the early Ushki culture consists of arrow and spear

points, knives, scrapers, burins, points and punches, cores, a few knife-like blades, and a large

number of flakes, as well as beads and pendants, and half-burned (with charcoal) loamy “cakes.”10

Almost all the arrow points have a flattened lenticular cross section, the points being worked

on two sides by complete bifacial retouch, and have a subtriangular blade with convex lateral edges

and a stem that is straight or more or less concave along the sides, in some cases having the form

Figure 5. Burins, cores, knife-like blades, and other artifacts from the early Ushki Upper Paleolithic culture (1–12).

10Such “cakes,” but somewhat smaller and flatter, were found at Kostenki and Dolní V stonice.
Nikolai N. Dikov 25

of a button (Fig. 3). Only one point (Dikov 1971a:Table) has a broad leaf-shaped form, while two

others (Dikov 1967c:Fig. 6:1) (evidently still point blanks) are only unifacially worked. One

stemmed point has a more convex triangular cross section (Fig. 3:7). Two biface fragments can be

viewed as spear points; one is a pointed tool (Fig. 3:8), the other preserves the small “button” stem

(Fig. 3:16). The analogs closest in time to the stemmed points, as we have repeatedly noted, are in

the final Pleistocene and Holocene sites of America (Dikov 1967c, 1971a, 1974b), as well as to some

degree in the early Holocene sites of Japan (Tachikawa I) (Morlan 1967:Fig. 23:9), with the complete

lack of them in the Paleolithic and Mesolithic of Siberia.

Knives have predominantly a more or less regular leaf-shaped form and complete bifacial

(Fig. 4:2, 4–6) or complete unifacial (Fig. 4:7) work. There are also knives on flakes that are

worked only by edge retouch (Fig. 4:3). One of them is a pointed tool (Fig. 4:1).

Scrapers of different forms and sizes were made from flakes (Fig. 4:9–20). Sometimes end

scrapers are found.

Burins are diagonal on lamellar flakes (Fig. 5:3) or lateral on flakes (Fig. 5:5). But most often

they were made from other tools—points, scrapers, or knives (Fig. 5:1, 2, 4)—similar to what is

known for the Clovis culture (Laricheva 1976a:Fig. 29). Burin-like points of chalcedony in the form

of elongated rod-like or lamellar spalls were made rather crudely (Fig. 5:6, 7) and represent a very

distinctive type of artifact primarily intended, according to S. A. Semenov, for working stone

plaques, pendants, and beads (Dikov 1967c:28, Fig. 12:6–30).

The last (Fig. 6), except for one pendant (Fig. 6:3), are flat and have traces of rubbing on one

surface, which indicates their having been sewn flatwise to clothing (Dikov 1967c:25–27, Fig.

12:1–5). Two pendants have notches: on one there are three (Fig. 6:3) and on the other there are

seven (Fig. 6:9). The third pendant is in the form of a “horned oval” with one broken horn (Fig. 6:1).

According to A. D. Stoliar’s interpretation of such amulets, it is evidently possible to view it as a

symbolic female image (sign) (Stoliar 1972:203).

It must be assumed that the basis of the complex economy of the earliest Paleolithic inhabitants

of the Ushki camps was not just fishing—they probably settled on the bank of the lake, which has

plentiful fishing even now and never freezes—but also hunting—probably driving reindeer, horses,

bison (the bones of which were preserved in the deposits of higher, Cultural Layers V and VI),

moose (a piece of a moose antler was found in a double dwelling at Ushki I), and possibly even

Figure 6. Stone pendants from the early Ushki Upper Paleolithic culture (1–11).
26 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

mammoths, though the last assumption requires corroboration by investigation of bone remains.

Hunting was most probably done with the bow and arrow. In any case, the stone points that we

found in Cultural Layer VII are very small and would not be of use for equipping spears or even

darts. It should be noted that hunting large mammals was by no means the only economic

occupation of the Ushki people at this time. Besides the mentioned fishing, their diet was

supplemented, of course, by collecting, which is indirectly corroborated by a large, crudely made

grinder of volcanic tuff discovered in the fill of the burial pit in Ushki I (Dikov 1967c:25). We

mention that also in America during this time the economy of the Paleo-Indians, according to the

informed opinions of Bryan and Wheat (Bryan 1975; Wheat 1971), was also complex and did not

consist only of the hunting big game, contrary to the opinions of Haynes and Mochanov.

On the whole, the level of the economy and technology was quite high in Kamchatka (the bow

and arrow and the grinding of stone ornaments) and not at all lower than in the European

Paleolithic, which I have repeatedly stated (Dikov 1967c:30, 1969:112, 1975:51, 1976a:179), and

am joined now by R. S. Vasil’evskii (1973), I. P. Laricheva (1976:141), and Yu. A. Mochanov

(1977:235). The Upper Paleolithic, as has already been noted (Dikov 1969:112, 171:13, 1976a:165),

could not have begun in Northeast Asia essentially any later than in Europe, considering its role in

the initial settlement of America, which could have been carried out only by Homo sapiens well

equipped against the Arctic cold, who had arrived in Chukotka no later than 27,000 to 25,000 years

ago on the eve of the Sartan Glaciation, during the period of the severe Karginsk Interglacial.

The culture characterized above is the first truly Paleolithic one discovered in Northeast Asia.

The Diuktai culture revealed in Yakutia is of a later stage, while in Kamchatka it is an absolutely later

culture. The Sumnagin culture of Yakutia is in essence Mesolithic. At the same time, the early Ushki

Paleolithic culture does not resemble either of the Siberian Paleolithic cultures. Therefore, it is

natural that the first Kamchatka Paleolithic evidence discovered would become an object of critical

discussion and even disbelief.

The stemmed points, very unusual for the Paleolithic of Siberia, in particular provoked

disbelief (Powers 1973). Instead of recognizing their great informational worth (indeed, nothing

similar was actually known in the Paleolithic of Siberia), the very fact that they belonged to Cultural

Layer VII was doubted. Mochanov even indiscriminately rejected the indisputable accuracy of the

stratigraphy of the Ushki sites; while he accepted the presence of these points in Cultural Layer VII,

he ascribed their presence to their having dropped from Cultural Layer III located substantially

above (Mochanov 1977:224).

It is worth saying that the supposition of some mystical displacement of flat stemmed points

from Cultural Layer III—for which they are entirely atypical (the points there are three-sided)—into

Cultural Layer VII through undisturbed ash and other sterile layers, passing Cultural Layers IV, V,

and VI—in which not one such point was found, rather entirely different ones (the points are

rhomboid in cross section in Cultural Layer IV and flat leaf-shaped in Cultural Layers V and VI)—

does not withstand criticism. What is more, practically no other arrow points except stemmed ones

were found in lower Cultural Layer VII—where there were about 30 of them, as is well known—

nor any other items from the upper levels. This is especially true of the knife-like blades and

prismatic cores characteristic for Cultural Layers III and IV and wedge-shaped cores so common

in Cultural Layers V and VI. Also, the “theoretical” base of such an assumption is unacceptable—

that the penetration of points from Cultural Layer III into Cultural Layer VII was the result of pits

being dug by early occupants of the site—inasmuch as with the disturbance of the cultural layer by
Nikolai N. Dikov 27

pits, objects penetrate, as we noted above, not from an upper layer into a lower one, but from lower

ones to the upper ones, from the level into which the pit was dug.

Mochanov’s statements that the stratigraphy of the Ushki sites is not irreproachable, that pits

could lead to the mixing of artifacts in Cultural Layer VII, and that we did not take permafrost

deformation into account, are based on not being adequately conscientious with regard to the

available materials in the stratigraphy of the Ushki sites and on ignorance of the distinctive

stratigraphic conditions in the Kamchatka River valley. Mochanov nowhere considers the role

of the volcanic ash, which is not only a perfect marker and isolator of cultural layers, but also at

the same time provides ideal conditions under which to observe any damage in them, in particular

by permafrost formations. The latter, it is apropos to say, were not at all characteristic and

practically absent from the Ushki deposits that we investigated—in distinction from the Aldan

and Kolyma—as can be seen from our field reports and in the dissertation, with which Mochanov

was acquainted, and by the publication of additional controlled stratigraphic investigations

conducted in cooperation with geologist E. E. Titov in 1974 (Dikov and Titov 1976; Dikov et

al. 1977). Mochanov did not take into account at all the simple fact that if there were any pits

whatsoever in the strata at the Ushki sites it would be impossible not to see them since they would

inevitably have led to very easily noted disturbance—through color contrast—of the ash bands

covering Paleolithic Cultural Layers V, VI, and VII. As I have already remarked, such disturbance

was recorded only in the excavation at Ushki I in 1962 and it led to the mixing there of materials

only in the upper cultural layer owing to the introduction into that layer of wedge-shaped cores

from below (Dikov 1964b)11 and, of course, by no means in the lower Paleolithic layers. Finally,

arguing against the intrusion of artifacts into the lower layers from the upper layers is also the

fundamental fact of the confinement of the overwhelming majority of physical finds—and among

them stemmed arrow points—to the carbonaceous bases (“floors”) of houses covered above by

fill without artifacts and by sterile layers of loam and volcanic ash. This fact also relates to the

majority of artifacts of Cultural Layers V and VI: pure complexes of artifacts were also found

there, which lay in thin carbonaceous layers isolated from above and below, representing

trampled and charred earthen house floors. Such a stratigraphic situation, of course, does not

lead to the possibility of penetration from above into these isolated carbonaceous strata, covered

above by sterile layers, of things from the upper levels, whatever they may be. Meanwhile, it is

these carbonaceous areas of the bases of houses that provide complete and characteristic

complexes of artifacts: with only stemmed points (just one broad leaf-shaped point in 30

stemmed points) in Cultural Layer VII and only leaf-shaped points (with no stemmed points) in

Cultural Layers V and VI (Dikov 1977b:Fig. 9).

While doubting the stemmed points of Cultural Layer VII, Mochanov willingly acknowledges

the leaf-shaped points of Cultural Layer VI, which does not seem logical. Mochanov himself once

acknowledged the baselessness of these doubts in the dating and stratigraphic connection of the

stemmed points.12

The clear and irreproachable stratigraphy of the Ushki Paleolithic, and in particular its lowest

layer, Cultural Layer VII, is actually an indisputable fact, whether one likes it or not. It would be naive

11A detailed analysis of the reasons for the mixing of this part of the upper layer of Ushki I is given in Dikov 1971b:87, 88.

12See materials of the All-Union Conference on Problems of the Ethnogenesis of Peoples of Siberia and the Far East held in

Novosibirsk on 20 December 1973 (discussion on N. N. Dikov’s [1973b] report “The Basic Contours of the Ethnic History of

Northeastern Siberia in Light of the Archaeological Data”).
28 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

to think that the stemmed points are not the most widespread form in many cultures in different

periods (from the Aterian stage and Parpallo to the Late Neolithic). But the fundamental fact is that

these bifacial stemmed points predominate over all other forms of points in Cultural Layer VII of

the Ushki sites and are entirely absent in the above-lying Cultural Layers V and VI, thereby defining

the sharp difference of these two cultural layers from Cultural Layer VII and making them

comparable through the presence of the wedge-shaped cores and leaf-shaped bifacial points in them

with the so-called Diuktai culture. In precisely such stratigraphic context the Ushki stemmed points

give maximum information and naturally do not have a place in old schemas. In this is their

indisputable value as a new historical source that still requires an interpretation.

A large number of investigators (geologists and archaeologists) have already accepted the

dating and the Paleolithic interpretation of Cultural Layer VII of the Ushki sites, together with its

remarkable stemmed points (Boriskovskii 1969; Gurina 1973; Ivanova 1969:37; Jelinek 1971;

Malaurie and Daniel 1971; Hayashi 1968:172; Powers 1973; Sher 1971:137; Simchenko 1976:14,

1975:157; Tseitlin 1975, 1977; Vasil’evskii 1973:34). For example, the American archaeologist

Roger Powers, on the question of the Ushki stratigraphy, considered it more correct to adhere to

our data (Powers 1973). At the same time, there exists the personal opinion that under conditions

of volcanism the radiocarbon dating of the lower layers of the Ushki sites was possibly too high

(Arutiunov and Sergeev 1975:9). However, it is not considered in this that the layers lie substantially

deeper (more than 0.5 m) than the layers of volcanic ash and that primarily all the Paleolithic layers

in the Ushki sites are water-bearing, and impregnation of the hearth charcoal by ground water

lowers, as is well known, the absolute age by radiocarbon (Laughlin 1976a:494). Hence, it can be

seen that there is insufficient basis for suggesting that “the most probable age of the Paleolithic

layers of the Ushki site falls in the interval 12,000 to 10,000 years ago” (Mochanov 1977:220). Giving

such a date for Ushki Cultural Layers VII and VI, Mochanov summarily tries thereby to smear and

mask the primary difference between them in order to include both layers in the Diuktai culture—

in its final stage. Our opinion, which is based on the facts and known to the reader (Dikov 1971a),

is that the culture of Cultural Layer VII at the Ushki sites was fundamentally different from Cultural

Layer VI, which covered it above and which is similar to the Diuktai culture. It is interesting that

Powers noted in his detailed investigation of the Northeast Asian Paleolithic that Ushki Cultural

Layer VII had no basis for being included in the Diuktai culture since, if it were, in his correct

opinion, the Diuktai culture would become too heterogeneous and its concept would cease to be

useful (Powers 1973). At this Powers categorically insisted on the existence of a vast difference

between the complexes of Ushki Cultural Layers VI and VII (Powers 1973).

The tendency not to distinguish Ushki Cultural Layers VI and VII and to view them in

combination is noted sometimes among other archaeologists as well, for example, by A. P.

Derevianko (1971), I. P. Laricheva (1976a), and to some degree, R. S. Vasil’evskii (1973:126) and

A. P. Okladnikov (1977:119), inasmuch as they through some misunderstanding erroneously

consider wedge-shaped cores peculiar to Cultural Layer VII in the same degree as to Cultural Layer

VI. It is possible that the author himself is also guilty of this, having insufficiently clearly defined the

specifics of each of these very different cultures in one of his first works (a popular science one)

(Dikov 1969a:113–115), though he later repeatedly clarifies this (Dikov 1969b:93–109, 1970:19–

34, 1971:14–17, 1973a:124, 1973b:31, 1973c, 1974:157–162, 1975:44, 1976a:175–181). A. P.

Okladnikov’s conclusions should be noted. First, he dated the unusual Ushki stemmed points of

Cultural Layer VII to the Pleistocene-Holocene transition, showing that they continue to exist in the

Neolithic as well, and noting their similarity with points in the pre-ceramic complexes of North and
Nikolai N. Dikov 29

Central America (Okladnikov 1970:174). Later, he focuses attention on the similarity with those

from Anangula in the Village site (dated to 6,000 to 5,000 years ago) (Okladnikov 1977:119;

Okladnikov and Vasil’evskii 1976:107); though based on typological indices they are substantially

different: the Anangula are leaf-shaped/paddle-shaped, with a straight stem markedly narrowing

downward (Okladnikov and Vasil’evskii 1976:109; Figs. 4, 5; p. 110, Fig. 3), while the Ushki are

triangular/paddle-shaped, often with slightly concave lateral sides along the stem (Fig. 3).

Therefore, Okladnikov’s previous comparisons of the Ushki stemmed points with those of North

and Central America are more correct. This is corroborated by new analogies from outside the

glacial areas of America (south of Canada), which is discussed below. No, there is consequently no

reason to doubt the late Pleistocene Sartan age of these stemmed points or, in general, the whole

cultural complex of Cultural Layer VII of the Ushki sites. Their age, based on palynological,

stratigraphic, technical-typological, and radiocarbon data, is strictly determined as being within the

interval 15,000 and 11,000 years B.P.

It was noted earlier that, judging by the isolated position of the early Ushki cultural complex

among the known Paleolithic cultures of Siberia, for which stemmed points are entirely

uncharacteristic, it may be a surviving fragment of some widespread culture in Northeast Asia

without wedge-shaped cores, one possibly earlier than all the known Siberian Upper Paleolithic

cultures with wedge-shaped cores (Dikov 1971a). It is remarkable that Mochanov gives an entirely

inaccurate meaning to this clear statement, as if we suggest that the culture of the seventh layer of

the Ushki sites was one of the earliest in Siberia (Mochanov 1977:224). This view that is ascribed

to us is, of course, disposed of right here. Meanwhile, we noted only that our Ushki culture was

possibly a relict culture earlier than all known cultures with wedge-shaped cores, and, in any case,

earlier than the Diuktai covering it. But these cultures, as is well known, are not the earliest in Siberia.

From the very first moment of discovery of the Ushki Paleolithic culture we definitely believed and

have repeatedly written that it is not the earliest of possible Siberian cultures and not the very first

stage for settlement of neighboring North America, though it could nevertheless have played a

specific role in this process covering many thousands of years.

The problem of the origin of this unique Ushki Paleolithic culture is very complex and must

be resolved with consideration of its distinctive position at the juncture of Asia with America.

One of the generally recognized primary facts for the resolution of this problem is the

separation of the Ushki culture (without wedge-shaped cores) from other Paleolithic cultures of

Siberia—the latter having an absence of any analogies to the Ushki stemmed points or in general

any roots of the Ushki culture (Powers 1973). Another fact is its notable similarity to the pre-ceramic

culture of the Japanese Islands, and especially to such sites as Tachikawa (8000 B.P.), where there are

stemmed points and burins very similar to those at Ushki (Larichev 1970).

It has already become traditional to designate by virtue of this phenomenon a special cultural

sphere of the Kamchatka Paleolithic (Daniel 1971; Laricheva 1976a; Vasil’evskii 1973:127); V. E.

Larichev and I. P. Laricheva have written unequivocally about the spread of the Paleolithic of

Hokkaido to the north into Kamchatka (Larichev 1970; Laricheva 1976a:139). The same position

is generally maintained by R. S. Vasil’evskii (1973:127). However, comparatively recent data from

the Tachikawa III site (8000 B.P.) and other Japanese pre-ceramic sites with stemmed points similar

to those at Ushki (about 8000 to 10,000 B.P.) and a developed technology of wedge-shaped cores

(Yubetsu, Horoka, and Fukui) in earlier (14,000 to 10,000 B.P.) pre-ceramic sites (with which R. S.

Vasil’evskii is inclined to compare Ushki Cultural Layer VII) do not support the notion of a
30 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

southern—from the Japanese Islands—origin of the Ushki culture very convincingly. It would be

most possible to speak of the inhabitants of Hokkaido borrowing stemmed projectile points from

the Ushki people, but not about the spread there of a whole culture of the latter inasmuch as for the

earliest Ushki people wedge-shaped cores were entirely uncharacteristic.

Finally, several connections are noted between the early Ushki Paleolithic culture and the

culture of British Mountain (Daniel 1971; Laricheva 1975:57, 1976a:140), which poses, in this

author’s view, an interesting question for us in the most correct route toward solving the problem

of connections with consideration not only of the Japanese, but also the Alaskan archaeological

materials.

In fact, the British Mountain culture, which corresponds to the transition from a stage without

points to a culture with points, emerged on the technological base of the “pre-projectile point”

stage common for Siberia and America. A cobble technology (cobble tools of the unifacial and

bifacial chopper types and Levallois cores), points of Mousterian type, and unifacially retouched

flakes unite it with Siberian cultures (Laricheva 1976a:140). In Laricheva’s view, it is not at all

remarkable that it has features of similarity with Ushki Cultural Layer VII (microblades split from

cores, similar (?) in type to cores/scrapers, and bifacially, though crudely, worked knives and

artifacts reminiscent of points of primitive stemmed form) (Laricheva 1976a:140).

If our idea is correct that the early Ushki Cultural Layer VII is a relic of a culture earlier than

the Siberian cultures with wedge-shaped cores, then the British Mountain culture can give some idea

about its still unexposed beginning stage. It is known in Alaska by 20,000 to 18,000 years ago, and

one must believe that its area then was broader than is noted by its presently well-known sites

(Kogruk, Senda Creek, and Engigshiak), that it embraced Beringia, reaching Chukotka, and

possibly Kamchatka. The character of the British Mountain culture corresponds to such a

supposition and completely satisfies that base that was most probably found in the early Ushki

culture. We see in the British Mountain culture an entirely probable prototype of the Ushki stemmed

points (Fig. 7:2) (Schlesier 1967:Fig. 3:o, p, g, r) and bifaces (Laricheva 1976a:123, Fig. 32:9, 27,

28; Schlesier 1967:Fig. 60) with a complete lack of wedge-shaped cores.

The British Mountain culture and the Sandia culture have a common source in the cobble

culture without points (in the “pre-projectile point” stage). The opposing advance of the Canadian

and Laurentide glaciers, which separated the British Mountain and Sandia cultures about 23,000

years ago, played a huge role in their differentiation. This source can also evidently be found in the

idea, already conceived, of a stemmed point with lateral indentations, most probably in the first

Figure 7. The earliest stemmed projectile points found in America. 1—Sandia; 2—British Mountain; 3—Trail Creek; 4—Marmes;

5—San Dieguito; 6—Palli Aike.
Nikolai N. Dikov 31

attempts of its realization. As a consequence of this, during the course of the cultural divergence that

was begun on both sides of the glacier, this point remained a long time in Alaska in its initial primitive

form (Fig. 7:2), then later was transformed into the Ushki stemmed point. While in the south of

glacial America, the bifacial Sandia biface (Fig. 7:1), which evolved then into the Clovis bifacial

point, had acquired completely developed features by 23,000 years ago.

It is usually believed that at the beginning of Sartan times, movement of the population went

from Asia to North America. “There is almost no serious objection,” writes Laricheva, “against the

assertion that at precisely that time (when the Sartan bridge had emerged) the second wave of

settlement from Asia into the New World by groups of Upper Paleolithic hunters was begun. And

so it apparently happened” (Laricheva 1976:140). Though at first glance convincing, it is possible

not to agree with this assertion if one takes into account the stated correlations of the British

Mountain culture with the Sandia and Ushki cultures and the role that must have been played here

by the advancing and continually expanding Wisconsinan glaciation.

That the periodically changing glaciation of the huge territory must have influenced the

settlement and direction of human migrations has been known for a long time. But meanwhile, only

the fact that glaciation in North America could either block the route of migrating peoples or open

it up by forming “corridors” between the melting glacial sheets has been noted. Thus, S. A.

Arutiunov has very recently written about the first movement of Paleo-Indians from south to north

after the formation of a passage between the ice sheets, and of the ejection through this corridor

from the south to the Arctic of surplus population (Arutiunov 1976:5). Yes, in fact, nature, as they

say, “does not like a void,” and huge territories, upon release from the glaciers, were sooner or later

settled by the surplus population of neighboring territories. And it fell to us to repeatedly write

about the role of the glacier as a distinctive gigantic valve and pump, drawing the migrating streams

of population through its corridor passages (Dikov 1969). However, up to now the other side of

the influence of large-scale glacial processes—the expelling, repelling role of the glacier with its

advance—on the human settlement has entirely escaped from view and we must now turn special

attention to this. It is easy to imagine how unavoidable expansion of the ice in northern Canada

forced people to abandon previously settled places that were now occupied by the glacier, and it

must have brought on an outflow of the population in various opened directions, including

obligatorily to the north and west—from the territory of northern Canada toward Alaska and

through Beringia to Chukotka and Kamchatka. Finally, the “repelling force” of the glacier reached

its maximum when after complete fusion of the Canadian and Laurentide glacial sheets it became

an absolutely impenetrable boundary. It must be suggested that the waves of migration, as if

blocked by an immense dam, spilled broadly and were turned back, and with the attainment of a

certain critical density of the population could have brought on a return “flow” toward Chukotka.

Thus, it is highly probable that this return outflow of the population went farther, particularly

toward Kamchatka along the gradually expanding Beringian shelf, which was entirely unoccupied

and closed off from other possible migrational streams from the Anadyr’-Penzhin basin by

mountains of the Koryak Range.

Thus, in spite of the supposition of a necessary, total migrational wave from Asia to North

America at the beginning of the Sartan period, a hypothesis of opposite significance appears entirely

possible: that of the episodic movement of North American hunters into Northeast Asia under

pressure of an advancing North American glacier, as a result of which the influence of the British

Mountain culture could have spread into the whole vast Beringian zone from Alaska to Kamchatka.
32 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

And it is very probable that the British Mountain cultural substrate (unifacial-bifacial with a

prototype of stemmed points of Asian-American origin) could have provided the beginning of our

early Ushki Paleolithic culture with stemmed points, which were divergently formed in Kamchatka

based on substantially more primitive British Mountain stemmed points. Thus, our idea about the

relict character of Ushki Cultural Layer VII can be essentially substantiated: this culture is a relic of

one produced from a substrate, in the formation of which the British Mountain culture played a

significant role.

In forming this Kamchatka Paleolithic culture, a southern influence, of course, must also

have played some role inasmuch as it is impossible to deny its proximity to other cultural areas,

including the Japanese Islands. Interaction with the pre-ceramic cultures of Japan was probably

weak at first, and then increasing, resulting in the expansion into Hokkaido (judging by the

Tachikawa III site) of stemmed points similar to the Ushki types, dating to 8,000 to 10,000 years

ago (Morlan 1967:Fig. 23:9).

As for the generally negative attitude of Vasil’evskii toward a statement that we allegedly

expressed about a “not yet discovered earlier Paleolithic culture with wedge-shaped cores that

served as the base for the Ushki Upper Paleolithic culture” (Vasil’evskii 1973:126), this is simply

a misunderstanding. We had always indicated the opposite, precisely, that the beginning phase of

the Ushki culture, not yet revealed, was without wedge-shaped cores and thus the Ushki Cultural

Layer VII was developed on its own base and is a relic of that culture without wedge-shaped cores

that had not yet been found in Kamchatka and that was indisputably earlier than any other culture

with wedge-shaped cores, including Diuktai. We repeat, this agrees well with our supposition of a

Siberian-American British Mountain base for the Ushki culture. And, of course, the pre-ceramic

complexes of Japan cannot, contrary to Vasil’evskii’s (1973) opinion, explain the origin of such

culture because in those cases when the analogies (stemmed points) noted by Vasil’evskii are

observed, they are substantially younger (8,000 years ago) than the Ushki ones. In other cases, these

“analogies” (microblades and wedge-shaped cores) in fact do not pertain to the matter inasmuch

as such things (especially wedge-shaped cores) are entirely uncharacteristic for the Ushki culture.

Such is the problem of the origin of the early Ushki Upper Paleolithic culture, and we see that

finding a satisfactory solution requires a departure from the usual ideas about allegedly unilateral

migrations from Asia into North America since the beginning of Sartan times and the

acknowledgment for the early Sartan of a single Siberian-American cultural region in extreme

Northeast Asia, Alaska, and, of course, the now-flooded lands of early Beringia.

The question of a possible role of the early Ushki culture in the settlement of America arose

long ago, invoked by its geographic and chronological position and by some features of its

similarity with early American cultures, especially the American-like appearance of its stemmed

points. Of course, it is a matter not of the initial settlement of America, but rather the role that this

culture could have played in its settlement at the end of Sartan times, approximately 13,000 to

12,000 years ago, when in North America the interglacial corridor appeared once again, leading to

the interior of the continent from Alaska. In addition, as a possibility for such intercontinental

contacts, it is necessary to keep in mind the hypothetical narrow migration corridor along the

eastern slope of the Cordilleras during the course of a large part of the Wisconsinan. Various

researchers have turned their attention to this, including H. M. Wormington and I. P. Laricheva

(Laricheva 1976b; Wormington 1971), though Laricheva in general maintains the position of

complete isolation of glacial America from any kind of influence from Paleolithic Asia.
Nikolai N. Dikov 33

Figure 8. Probable route of spread into America across Beringia of the technical traditions of the early Ushki culture at the end of

Sartan times. 1—water area in Sartan times; 2—Sartan glacial sheets.

The appearance in America of stemmed points is generally accepted as falling within a very

broad chronological range: they are contemporaneous with the American pre-ceramic period

(Okladnikov 1970:174), with early-Holocene Anangula from the Village site (Laughlin and

Okladnikov 1975:16; Okladnikov 1977:119; Okladnikov and Vasil’evskii 1976:107, 108), with

points from Marmes Rockshelter (Dikov 1970:29, 1976a:177), and even with southern Patagonian

from the final Pleistocene caves of Fell and Palli Aike (Dikov 1969:114). Now, with the occurrence
34 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

of about 30 of these points (Fig. 3) (with almost a complete lack of unstemmed types) in Cultural

Layer VII of the Ushki sites, it is again entirely appropriate to bring forth the most careful

comparison of them with American stemmed points.

The closest (in the spatial and chronological sense) analogy with Ushki stemmed points, as we

have already noted, is in the lower cultural layer of the flood plain in front of Marmes Rockshelter

in the state of Washington in the northwestern United States (Fryxell et al. 1970).

The Marmes Rockshelter site is distinguished by clear stratigraphy. The lower cultural layer,

dating from 13,000 to 11,000 years ago (Fryxell et al. 1970) or slightly more than 10,000 years (Irwin

1971), belongs to the so-called Windust phase with stemmed bifacial points—the first of six phases

in the prehistory of the northwestern United States. It was replaced in the seventh millennium B.C.

by the Cascade phase with leaf-shaped bifacial points belonging to the Old Cordilleran tradition

(the upper strata of the Marmes Rockshelter site, the DiRi-3 site, and others). The Windust phase

is characterized by the hunting of large animals (in particular, moose) and probably fishing (which

is attested by finds of leisters). During the Cascade phase a transition occurred to hunting small

animals. Judging by the physical anthropological remains (the most firmly dated so early are in the

New World), the population of the Windust phase shows almost no difference from modern

Indians (Irwin 1971:57, 58).

The Marmes Rockshelter site can probably be assigned to the earliest stage of the Old

Cordilleran culture of the northwestern United States, subsequent stages of which were

characterized chiefly by leaf-shaped points (Lerma). However, in some of the early sites of the

second stage of this culture (for example, DiRi-3), not to mention Marmes Rockshelter, stemmed

points were encountered along with leaf-shaped ones. Later, this tradition of stemmed points

transforms into the San Dieguito culture of the southwestern United States, which was formed as

a result of a mixture of the Old Cordilleran and Folsom cultures. It is very important to note that

the Ushki points have some—only the most general, it is true—similarity with many points of the

San Dieguito culture (Fig. 7:5) (Laricheva 1976b:Fig. 41:12, 15).

The fact that the above-cited series of stemmed projectile points can be compared—the

earliest being the Ushki and the latest being stages of the Windust (Marmes) and the San Dieguito

culture emerging in western glacial North America only after the formation of the glacial corridor—

permits the assumption of the first penetration of stemmed points from the Ushki culture from

Northeast Asia either immediately after the formation of the glacial corridor (13,000 to 11,000

years ago) or possibly even earlier along the hypothetical Cordilleran passage considered by

Wormington and Laricheva. Meanwhile, there is only one intermediate vestige of this migration of

Ushki type points and it consists of a rather dubious fragment of a bifacially worked—judging by

the fragment—stemmed point (Fig. 7:3) from the Trail Creek site, found by H. Larsen and dated

to the thirteenth millennium B.C. (Larsen 1968:Fig. 3:i).

The delay of the stage without developed point forms in Alaska and the western United States

created a favorable environment for the penetration there of distinct new technological influences,

in particular those new types of points from Northeast Asia. As a result, cultures syncretic in the

highest degree—the Old Cordilleran and San Dieguito—arise here, having besides their own

American roots a Northeast Asian source, a circumstance to which insufficient attention has been

directed at present (it is proper to mention that Laricheva never finds material about connections

of the Old Cordilleran culture with the North Asian) (Laricheva 1976a).
Nikolai N. Dikov 35

Figure 9. Paleolithic and Mesolithic sites in Northeast Asia. 1—Paleolithic sites; 2—presumed Paleolithic sites; 3—Mesolithic sites;

4—presumed Mesolithic sites; 63, 64—Osinovskaia Spit; 74—Chikaevo; 168—Siberdik; 169—Kongo; 392—Maiorych;

393—Shilo Creek.
36 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

By virtue of their syncretic nature these cultures are the least specialized (unlike the Folsom

culture) and therefore, having great possibilities for adaptation, could quickly expand ever farther

into South America. In any case, the less specialized, handy, and simple stemmed points of these

cultures could be taken up with much greater success by South American peoples, who still lived

in a stage without developed forms of points, than the highly specialized Folsom points. It is not

by accident that we have such an overwhelming distribution of them in the western United States

and in South America as far as Patagonia during the Folsom period, and then in the remaining

territory of the United States during the Archaic period, when Folsom points completely disappear

there. It is thus not by accident that the Ushki Paleolithic points suddenly appear revived in very

typical form in late Holocene sites of the eastern United States, in particular at the Lamoka and Hart

sites (McNeish 1952:Fig. 12:A, B; Wright and Morlan 1964:Pl. I:Fig. 1).

Earlier the proposition was stated of a genetic relation between stemmed points (with stems

in the form of a fish tail) from Fell and Palli Aike Caves (8760 ± 300 B.C.) and the Ushki stemmed

points, and correspondingly of the spread of the Ushki culture to the American continent in its early

stage, still not revealed, but not later than the beginning of the Sartan glaciation (Dikov 1977:15).

We connected such a proposition with A. A. Zubov’s hypothesis of the commonality of the origin

of the Eskimos, Tierra del Fuegans, and California Indians, which are descendants (according to the

named hypothesis) of the earliest Paleo-Americans, who retained the most archaic physical

characteristics (Zubov 1968). Then we added a correction to our proposition, having turned

attention to the striking similarity of Ushki points with Marmes points and limiting our analogies

to Ushki points with western North American cultures of the Clovis period (Dikov 1973a:123,

1973b:31, 1973c:265). Later, almost simultaneously, the possibility of direct genetic connections

between Ushki and Patagonian points was subjected to doubt by Vasil’evskii (1973:128) (though

we never actually spoke precisely of direct genetic cultural connections between the Ushki site and

Fell and Palli Aike Caves). Vasil’evskii provides as the single argument against a connection

between Patagonian and Ushki points only the fact that most American archaeologists consider

these south Patagonian points a derivative of Clovis (Vasil’evskii 1973:127). This fact (that is, the

opinion of some American archaeologists) is generally known, and we noted it earlier (Dikov

1971a:162). However, it is questionable, and problems in science do not get resolved by vote. In

any case, an American specialist on this problem, A. L. Bryan, not to mention many other specialists,

categorically object to the assertion that points with stems in the form of a fish tail (Fell and Palli

Aike), as well as intermediate larger points from Pakhian [Paiján?] in Peru, could derive from Clovis

points. It would be necessary to prove, he writes, even if Clovis fluted points were known to appear

sufficiently early in the Andes. And meanwhile, in the southern central part of North America,

Clovis points are no older than 11,500 years (Bryan 1975:157; Ossa and Moseley 1971:1–16).

Another leading archaeologist, C. V. Haynes, argued for this date. The age of Fell Cave is firmly

dated to 11,000 years ago (9500 years B.C.) (Bird 1970; Wormington 1971). Thus, the difference in

time (500 years) between it and the earliest Clovis sites in the southern United States is clearly

inadequate for traversing the route of these points to Tierra del Fuego. Besides, the intermediate

points from Paiján in Peru turn out to be generally earlier (8645 ± 370 B.P. to 12,795 ± 350 B.P.) than

the Clovis ones in the southern United States (Ossa and Moseley 1971:1–16).

But even if we acknowledge South American points as derivative of Clovis, they are

nevertheless stemmed, consequently, deriving from stemmed variants of Clovis points and

becoming in their turn stemmed, probably having undergone influence from western American

cultures with developed forms of stemmed points, in the production of which, as we showed,
Nikolai N. Dikov 37

influence could have been rendered from the Kamchatka Paleolithic. And this is moreover

probable by the fact that the latter, as many researchers note, possess some features of similarity with

Clovis cultures (similar are the burins, knife-like blades, and the developed bifacialness of the tools)

(Hayashi 1968:172; Jelinek 1971). Ultimately, it is completely impossible to exclude some, even

though remote, influence of this Asian culture on the culture of the North American continent.

Nevertheless, the question is not resolved—don’t such outlying regions of the Americas as

California or southern Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego turn out to be refuges not only for archaic

and relict, as Zubov suggests, physical anthropological features, but also archaic cultures of the

Paleolithic, which were left for a long time without developed forms of points, and then adopted

their later stemmed versions as a result of diffusion of cultural influences from Asia through the

western, relatively uninhabited archaeological province of North America.

And finally, there is another consideration. Between cultures of Sandia and Clovis is a hiatus

of 10,000 years. The culture of Ushki Cultural Layer VII is somewhat similar to the British Mountain

culture and probably arose on its foundation. At the same time, the Ushki culture has some similarity

also with Clovis, especially with its western variants. Therefore, is not this Kamchatka Paleolithic

culture in a certain sense a link between the cultures without developed points and Clovis? Is it not

an intermediate link, which was developed convergently on the Asian side, and then came in contact

with the Clovis culture on its western periphery, where traditions of the stage without developed

points were preserved longer?

The Late Ushki Upper Paleolithic Culture of Kamchatka

Unmixed Cultural Layers V and VI of the Ushki I, II, IV, and V sites found and excavated within

an area of about 2,000 m2

 belong to the second, later culture of the Kamchatka Paleolithic. In

addition, a wedge-shaped core, a ski-shaped spall, and a fragment of a leaf-shaped point can

probably be assigned to it. These were discovered in 1977 by Yu. A. Koliasnikov in evidently mixed

sites on the left bank of the middle course of the Inas’kvaam River in southern Chukotka (Dikov

1969:Fig. 16; Dikov and Koliasnikov 1979). A wedge-shaped core (Fig. 10) from the mixed

Chikaevo site on the Anadyr’ River can probably be assigned to this culture as well.

On the whole, the culture being examined is sharply different from the one investigated in the

deeper Ushki Cultural Layer VII. There the methods of working stone were completely different—

small cores of distinctive wedge-shaped form were very widely used, from which the thinnest knifelike blades were split.

Figure 10. Wedge-shaped core and

other tools from the site on the

Inas’kvaan River (1–3).
38 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Figure 11. Plan of the upper layer of the late Paleolithic dwelling in Cultural Layer VI of the Ushki I site (see Figure 13 for symbols).
Nikolai N. Dikov 39

We will first examine the early, Pleistocene stage of this culture, represented by Cultural Layer

VI of the Ushki sites, dated to 10,860 ± 400, 10,760 ± 110, and 10,360 ± 345 B.P.

13

Judging by the remains of spores and pollen, the climate still continued to be cold. Woody

plants were few and open grassy tundra-steppe with rare bushes of procumbent cedar, alder

thickets, and birch predominated. The cold of the Sartan glacier continued.

Through excavations an ever more complete picture of Paleolithic camps with different kinds

of dwelling have gradually emerged here. Nineteen have already been discovered in Cultural Layer

VI of the Ushki I, IV, and V sites. The remains of the largest, not yet completely excavated,

Paleolithic site were preserved at Ushki I. Here in an area of about 1,700 m2

, 16 individual dwellings

were opened prior to 1977, which exceeds in number of houses the Mal’ta site—the largest,

according to A. A. Formozov (1976), Paleolithic site in the world, which has been completely

excavated and where 15 dwellings were discovered in an area of 1,148 m2.

No particular regularity in the arrangement of the dwellings has been discovered yet in Cultural

Layer VI at the Ushki I site. Here, only the predominance of comparatively small dwellings arranged

alternately with larger ones is evident, as well as the various orientations of the entryways of the

houses, where preserved and noted (Dikov 1977b:Fig. 11). Each of them was constructed

somewhat differently from the rest. Especially remarkable is the presence among them not only of

relatively shallow semisubterranean dwellings with a corridor-like entryway, but also wholly

surface, tent-like dwellings. In the middle of each of them was the stone ring of a hearth (as in the

Clovis culture) or only a charcoal-ash burned spot.

Some dwellings had two or even three layers with stone hearths arranged one on top of the

other. One of the houses (Figs. 11–14) has the burial of a dog near the hearth in the middle layer

(Fig. 13) and a bison scapula (for divination) in the upper layer (Fig. 11), which probably belonged

to a sorcerer. The dog, of the wolf type (determined by N. K. Vereshchagin), was buried on its left

side with the paws placed under the muzzle. By its back in a spot of red ocher were an obsidian knife

and a scraper, as well as a sandstone whetstone (Fig. 15). In this same middle layer, on the southeast

side of the house by the corridor-like entryway (“on the shoulder” of the opened base of the pit

house), fragments of scorched grass bedding were preserved (Fig. 13).

In another house, the hearth stones of which were spread out, we found the remains of a human

burial, most probably of a child, in a special pit with ocher and a large number of stone tools and

ornaments.

Similar to many southern Siberian houses of this time, the living structures here were of

comparatively small size in most cases. Most were slightly sunken into the ground and seven of them

had corridor-like entryways. It is by these elements that this building tradition, of very great

antiquity, is characterized in Kamchatka; these elements were preserved there over the course of

subsequent millennia and discovered in the eighteenth century by S. Krasheninnikov. At the same

time, the distinctiveness of the layout and construction of the hearths of the Ushki pit houses should

13It should be kept in mind that during the course of field investigations the numbering of the Upper Paleolithic layers of the

published profile of the Ushki sites was made more precise (Dikov 1969b:Fig. 2, 1977b:Fig. 6). Two horizons were

distinguished in what was previously designated as Cultural Layer V: Va and Vb. Cultural Layer VI now corresponds to

Cultural Layer Va (10,360 ± 350 B.P.—Mo–345), and in several cases it falls into two horizons: VIa (formerly Cultural Layer V)

and VIb (formerly Cultural Layer VI).
40 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Figure 12. Cross section through the multi-layered dwelling in Cultural Layer VI of the Ushki I site. 1—sand; 2—gray-yellow

loam; 3—yellow loam corresponding to Cultural Layer VII; 4—grayish-ocherous colored loam with bands of sand; 5—yellow loam;

6—gray-yellow sandy loam; 7—stones in the profile; 8—bone hearth mass; 9—hearth charcoal and ash; 10—band of volcanic ash;

11—carbonaceous bands of the house floor.

Figure 13. Middle layer of the Paleolithic dwelling in the Ushki I site (Cultural Layer VI). 1—stone knife; 2—ski-shaped spall;

3—core; 4—wedge-shaped core; 5—green stone; 6—flake; 7—knife-like blade; 8—sandstone slab; 9—red ocher stain.
Nikolai N. Dikov 41

Figure 14. Lower layer of the Paleolithic dwelling (Cultural Layer VI).

be noted, as well as their essential difference from the semisubterranean house style contemporary

to them with an oval framework, found in the sixth layer with wedge-shaped cores at the Ust’-

Timpton site in Yakutia and dating to 10,650 ± 80 B.P. (Mochanov 1977:Fig. 33).

A house, as is well known, is an element of culture having substantial significance for the

reconstruction of the way of life, and in some degree even social relations. Large, wholly surface,

tent-like houses of irregular oval form with several fireplaces were preserved, possibly through

tradition, from the preceding period, each made up of a few “minimal living spaces.” At the same

time, the small sizes of most houses attest to some new tendencies in the development of the clan

community, to its increasingly complex structure, and to the striving in the community toward

separation of the comparatively small family production groups, probably paired families, into

small dwellings. It is possible that this was brought on by a crisis situation in the transition from

hunting primarily large pachyderms to smaller, herd animals—reindeer, bison, and horses, as well

as moose, the bones of which (predominantly teeth) were found in Cultural Layer VI (determined

by N. K. Vereshchagin and E. V. Alekseeva). This circumstance apparently also explains the clear

signs of seasonality of settlement on the shores of Ushki Lake, represented by numerous

carbonaceous bands separated by sterile sand in the hearths of some dwellings (Fig. 12).
42 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

The domestic dog was already a reliable aid to man in the hunt, its very early taming in

Northeast Asia being attested in Kamchatka by the dog burial in a house at the Ushki site, mentioned

previously. Taking the circumstances into account, the dog here was domesticated earlier or, in any

case, no later than in the Near East, where the remains, so far considered the earliest, have been those

of domestic dogs of the Natufian culture belonging to the ninth and eighth millennia B.C. (Masson

1964). Consequently, there is now rather definite confirmation of the domestication of the dog in

the late Paleolithic in Northeast Asia, which earlier could only be conjectured, based on the very

indefinite finds of bones of domesticated wolf in the late Paleolithic of northern Asia (Bogoliubskii

1959:515).

The abundance of burned bones of salmon and other fish in the hearths of the houses speaks

eloquently of the important role of fishing among the inhabitants of the Ushki Paleolithic houses.

Figure 15. Burial of a domestic dog in the dwelling of the late Ushki Upper Paleolithic culture (sketch).
Nikolai N. Dikov 43

Figure 15a. Burial of a domestic dog in the Paleolithic dwelling of Cultural Layer VI in the Ushki I site.
44 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

The complex of stone artifacts from Cultural Layer VI of the Ushki sites consists of numerous

wedge-shaped cores (IV–2–714; Fig. 16:1–10), some of which are large (Fig. 16:13); knife-like

blades split from them (Fig. 18:7) and ski-shaped spalls (Figs. 16:11, 12; 18:6); very rare, crude

prismatic and conical cores (I–2; Fig. 16:14, 15, 16), including uniface blades split from them, and

amorphous cores; crude striking tools and skreblo-like tools (Fig. 17), in some cases flaked like

biface choppers, but often indistinct from crude cores; points of spears, darts, and arrows of leafshaped oblong form (I–1c, I–3b; Fig. 18:9–14), as well as broader ones (Fig. 18:15); knives of

Figure 15b. Illustration of a Paleolithic dwelling on a sandstone slab and poly-iconic and mammoth-like figures from the Paleolithic

Cultural Layer VI of the Ushki I site.

14Here and on the following pages the indices of the varieties (types) of stone artifacts is given by affixing a Roman numeral

based on the appendix (see Tables 1–10).
Nikolai N. Dikov 45

Figure 16. Cores of the late Paleolithic Ushki culture (Ushki V, Cultural Layer VI) (1–17).
46 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Figure 17. A biface and crude

striking/skreblo-like tools of the

late Ushki Upper Paleolithic

culture presumably from Cultural

Layer VI of the Ushki I and II

sites (1–5) (2–5 surface material).

Figure 18. Burins, gravers,

punches, and projectile

points of the late Ushki

Upper Paleolithic culture

(Cultural Layer VI of the

Ushki I site) (1–15).
Nikolai N. Dikov 47

various types (Fig. 19)—leaf-shaped bifaces worked bifacially by pressure retouch (II–1; IV–1),

asymmetrical bifaces with a beak-like end (IV–1), semi-lunar bifaces with an oval working edge

(VI–1, 2, 3), knives on thin and broad blade flakes with a straight (VII–2, 3), curved (VII–4), or

pointed (VII–5, 6) working edge, and knives in the form of ground slabs of argillaceous slate

retouched along the edge or without retouch (III–4, 19, 23); an inset blade retouched on one edge

(I–8)15; scrapers and skreblos of different sizes and various forms, but predominantly end types

(I–6, 11, 18; II–3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 18, 19, 22, 24; III–1; IV–7; V–6; VII–1, 4, 9, 10; IX–1, 2, 5, 16,

17, 18; X–9; XI–2; XII–3; XIII–1, 2; Fig. 20); two dihedral burins on flakes (Fig. 18:1–2) and

punches (Fig. 18:3, 4); and edge spalls and flakes, as well as grooved (?) grindstone slabs of

volcanic tuff (Fig. 19:10, 11).

Figure 19. Knives and

polishing stones of the late

Ushki Upper Paleolithic

culture (Cultural Layer VI

of the Ushki I site) (1–11).

15Investigation has shown an error in our previous supposition of the presence among the knives in the Ushki Cultural Layer

VI of the Japanese Kiridasi knife type (Dikov 1967d).
48 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

This whole set of artifacts, forming part of the complex of Cultural Layer VI, was made from

the most different kinds of stone, but predominantly from gray and green siliceous slate, brown and

yellow flint, chalcedony, volcanic tuff, and varieties of obsidian, basalt, and argillaceous slate.

Especially soft kinds of stone, such as steatite, went into making pendants and ornaments. One of

them, of mushroom-like form (Fig. 21:6), and another, of oval form (Fig. 21:5), were found among

the remains of House 3.

An interesting artifact was made from soft sandstone—a slab with a cross-shaped design

(made by seven? pits in each branch of the cross)—is possibly one of the earliest lunar calendars

(Fig. 21:10). On another oval sandstone slab an image was quite visible (Fig. 22) that illustrates a

conical tent-like structure and probably a forest around it (presumably of coniferous trees).16 With

a certain amount of imagination one can see here not just one tent but three. Of course, the remaining

two were applied by the early artist very sketchily and fragmentarily (Fig. 22). A similar illustration

Figure 20. Skreblos and scrapers of the late Ushki Paleolithic culture (Cultural Layer VI of the Ushki I site) (1–14).

16There are also possibly elements of the landscape on a Berelekh disk with an image of a mammoth—the first, if such is the

case, piece of Paleolithic art of this kind (Bader 1972, 1975).
Nikolai N. Dikov 49

is found in the cultural layer of the late Paleolithic Mezin site on a bone mattock-like “tool with

decoration,” as Z. A. Abramova (1962:Pl. XXXIV:13) interprets it. If attentively examined, similar

images of tents can be clearly distinguished in many other Upper Paleolithic illustrations, for

example, on a bone plate with so-called “macaroni” at Dolni Vestonice in Czechoslovakia

(Abramova and Graziosi 1976:Fig. 7).

Figure 21. Stone pendants, labret-like artifacts, a “lunar calendar,” and striated slabs from the late Ushki Upper Paleolithic

culture (1–10).

Figure 22. Image of a tent-like dwelling on a sandstone slab from the Ushki I site (Cultural Layer VI).
50 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Some items of stone have either an anthropomorphic-zoomorphic appearance, as, for

example, an artifact of soapstone dotted with strokes reminiscent of a man sitting en face or the

head of an animal (Fig. 23), or a zoomorphic image, as, for example, a flat sandstone pebble

reminiscent in its outline of a mammoth, its similarity being emphasized by several strokes drawn

from one of its edges as if denoting the tail of the animal (Fig. 15b). Of the bone artifacts in this

complex, only paddles of Kostenki appearance are represented, and their domestic assignment

is not entirely clear (Fig. 24).

The complex of stone artifacts from Cultural Layer VI differs only very insignificantly from the

complex of superimposed Cultural Layer V, which represents the final stage of the late Ushki Upper

Paleolithic culture.

The sharp distinction of the Cultural Layer VI complex from the cultural remains of earlier

Cultural Layer VII immediately strikes the eye. Similar, but by not necessarily related, elements that

transferred from the preceding culture are found in only very uncharacteristic skreblos with a

slightly convex working edge (IX–1) and end scrapers on flakes (X–9; II–15), as well as bifacial leafshaped knives. The sharp difference in the most characteristic items—arrow points and cores—is

probably a consequence of the membership of both cultures to entirely different ethnic

communities with separate technical and technological traditions.

Figure 23. Poly-iconic image from Cultural

Layer VI of the Ushki I site.

Figure 24. Bone paddle from Paleolithic Cultural Layer VI of the Ushki I site.
Nikolai N. Dikov 51

We will examine the essential analogies to individual elements of this cultural complex in

order to finally determine its genetic and cultural connections. Similarities with the surrounding

contemporaneous cultures are evident in many respects.

The connections, evidently predominantly of genetic character, chiefly with Upper

Paleolithic sites earlier than this complex, are manifest in the Aldan basin and in the AngaraYenisei cultural district.

The closest analogy to wedge-shaped cores of the elongated type (IV–5), broad bifaces (II–3),

and elongated leaf-shaped points (I–2c) were obtained in very recent times through excavations by

Yu. A. Mochanov on the Aldan, at Diuktai Cave (Mochanov and Fedoseeva 1968).

Short, wedge-shaped cores (IV–3) have analogies in late Paleolithic Yenisei sites of Tashtyk,

Kokorevo IV, and Krasnyi Yar (Abramova 1962a:Fig. 4:1–3), while wedge-shaped cores with a

sloping platform (IV–4) are analogous to artifacts of such type from Horizon II of Verkholensk

Mountain in Pribaikal’e (Aksenov 1966b:Fig. 8:6, 9).

In the same place, in Layer II of the Verkholensk Mountain site, elongated types of cores (IV–

5, 6—so-called Gobi cores) were also encountered (Aksenov 1966:Figs. 8:8; 9:24). The latter were

also found in Layer VI of the Krasnyi Yar site, which evidently belonged to a substantially earlier

time (Medvedev 1966b:Fig. 8:1, 2, 5), as well as at Cheremushnik and in Layer VI at Ust’-Belaia,

which are dated to the eleventh and tenth centuries B.P. (Aksenov 1966a:Fig. 6:3; Medvedev

1966a:Fig. 2:19).

Arrow points of narrow elongated form (I–2c) have no precise similarities in any of the

Siberian Paleolithic cultures, except the Diuktai on the Aldan. But broad, leaf-shaped biface

knives (II–1, 3) are now known in late Paleolithic sites not only on the Aldan, but substantially farther

away: at Cheremushnik, in the second horizon at Verkholensk Mountain, and on the first flood-plain

terrace at Ustinovka village on the Tadushi River in Primor’e (Aksenov 1966a:Fig. 10:3, 11;

Okladnikov 1966c).

The same can also be said about semi-lunar biface knives, which have analogies in artifacts of

Horizon III at Verkholensk Mountain and among artifacts from Diuktai Cave on the Aldan.

Many types of scrapers and skreblos from Cultural Layer VI of the Ushki sites are also

encountered in sites of the late Siberian Paleolithic, at times quite far from Kamchatka. Pear-shaped

end scrapers (II–11) have their earliest analogies among scrapers from the Mal’ta site (Gerasimov

1958:Fig. 8:e). Scrapers close to this type (I–11; II–10), as well as crude skreblos (IX–1, 2), were

found in the later site of Krasnyi Yar (Abramova 1962a:Figs. 4:8; 5:12), and small scrapers (VII–

4) were found in Layer III at Verkholensk Mountain (Aksenov 1966b:Fig. 5:3, 4). In Horizon II of

this site, skreblos similar to those at Ushki (IX–5, 16) were found (Aksenov 1966b:Fig. 8:13, 15).

These also have some similarity to the oblong skreblo-like tools of XIII–2 (Aksenov 1966b:Fig.

8:13, 15). Skreblos with a round working edge were encountered also at a late Paleolithic-early

Mesolithic site of Cheremushnik (Aksenov 1966a:Fig. 6:2, 3, 15).

Wedge-shaped cores of Mongolia are similar to those at Ushki (IV–3, 5, 6). Judging by the

stratified sites of Bulun-Khudzhir and Mol’tyn-am, investigated by A. P. Okladnikov together with

geologist S. L. Troitskii, these cores-scrapers (IV–3) are no older than the chronological boundary

between the Mesolithic and Paleolithic (Okladnikov and Troitskii 1967:Fig. 12:1).
52 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Completely comparable in age with the Kamchatkan culture being examined is the earlier

tradition of making wedge-shaped cores in Primor’e, where they are known now not only in the socalled Mesolithic complex of the Tadushi site, but also in its undoubtedly Upper Paleolithic

complex of the lower terrace (Okladnikov 1966c:Pl. V:4, 7). The Tadushi cores are comparable to

Type IV–6 and were made by the Horoka technique, which was widespread from the seventeenth

to twelfth millennia B.C. in the Japanese Islands (Morlan 1968).

In the same place, at Ustinovka village on the Tadushi River, we also found analogies to other

late Paleolithic Kamchatka stone artifacts: semi-lunar biface knives (VI–2) (Okladnikov 1966c:Pl.

VII:6), end scrapers on large massive blades (XIII–1) (Okladnikov 1966c:Pl. VI:3), and lateral

scrapers with a concave working edge (XII–3) (Okladnikov 1966c:Pl. VII:3).

Almost all analogies of the late Ushki Paleolithic culture that we find in the Japanese Islands are

present as well in the continental part of northern Asia, while in Japan we do not find many forms,

especially skreblos and scrapers, that we note in Siberia. Also essential to note is that items similar

to ours in the Japanese Islands are dated, as a rule, to an earlier time than in Kamchatka. More rarely

they are synchronic, and only in very rare cases is it possible to consider them later. In general, they

are placed in the broad chronological range of the so-called pre-ceramic cultures of early Japan

(15,500 to 9000 B.C.).

Elongated wedge-shaped cores (IV–6), made by the Horoka technique, are known on

Honshu Island in the Araya site, in Layer IV of Fukui Cave (on Kyushu Island), and in some other

sites of the pre-ceramic period of the Japanese Islands (Serizawa 1967:Fig. 2:20, 1968:5; Sugihara

1970:Fig. 13). Oblong wedge-shaped cores, made in large part by the Yubetsu technique, similar

to the Kamchatka oblong type (IV–5), are found on Kyushu Island in Fukui Cave and on

Hokkaido Island at Sirataki 30, at Sakotsu, Towarubetsu, and at the Tachikawa and Tagashita

sites (Morlan 1967:Figs. 12:2, 3; 15; 18:3; 21:13; 30:5; Sugihara 1970:Fig. 4:16), which does not

exhaust the entire list of sites with such artifacts. This catalog has been rapidly increasing in

number in recent years in Japan. Wedge-shaped cores (IV–4) with a sloping front edge for flaking

off blades, formed by the Yubetsu technique, are known on Hokkaido at Sirataki-Hattoridai and

on Honshu Island at Nakato (Jidai and Sugihara 1965:Fig. 54:3; Morlan 1968:Fig. 2; Sugihara

1970:Fig. 10:15), while cores having a working edge with a vertical front, made by the Yubetsu

method (IV–2, 3), were found at Okedo-Adzumi, Shirataki 32, and other locations on Hokkaido

Island (Morlan 1967:Fig. 14:2, 1968:Fig. 2; Sugihara 1970:Fig. 7).

Knife-like blades retouched along the edge (I–7) also have rather close analogies in the Horoka

complex (14,300 B.C.) at the Horokazawa I site on Hokkaido Island (Ikawa 1967:Fig. 4:e, f; Morlan

1967:Fig. 56:8).

Narrow, oblong biface projectile points (I–2) are known from Takei II on Honshu Island in

Gumma Prefecture (their age is about 15,000 years) (Serizawa and Ikawa 1960:1–3, Fig. 11).

Broader, leaf-shaped biface points (I–1) have been noted at Magarikawa on Hokkaido Island

and in the south-central regions of Honshu Island at Kamisisiba and Uenodaira, where they are

dated to about 15,000 B.P. (Morlan 1967:Fig. 20:1; Sugihara 1968:4, 5).

Symmetrical, bifacially worked, broad, leaf-shaped knives (II–1) have their analogs in

Magarikawa on Hokkaido (Morlan 1967:Fig. 20:2) and in the upper layer of Takei II on Honshu
Nikolai N. Dikov 53

Island (Serizawa 1967:Fig. 17:1; Tozawa 1965:Fig. 47:1). Asymmetrical bifaces of similar kind

(II–3) are a very early form in Japan, evidently going back to the twenty-fifth millennium B.P. at

Iwajuku I in the Kanto valley on Honshu Island, and are known later in the pre-ceramic period

on Hokkaido Island in Sirataki 33 and Toma (Toma H), where their age is determined to be

15,200 to 12,150 B.P. (Ikawa 1970:Fig. 3:e; Serizawa 1967:Fig. 15:7).

Among end scrapers are also types in the Japanese Paleolithic close to the Kamchatkan: at

Magarikawa on Hokkaido, at Yanagimata, in complexes at Araya and Sinnari-tipu (I–6) (Morlan

1967:Fig. 20:6; Serizawa 1967:Fig. 12:24; Serizawa and Ikawa 1960:Fig. 8:b; Tozawa 1965:Fig.

60:6), and in the Nakato complex (II–10) (Nakamura 1965:Fig. 51:1). Finally, dihedral burins

encountered there at Sirataki 33 and at Kitaiama (Serizawa and Ikawa 1960:Figs. 4:A, 5:A, 3) are

also close to the Kamchatkan Paleolithic type (IV–4).

The connection of the late Ushki Paleolithic culture with cultures of the American Arctic and

Subarctic that are comparable in time is reflected in the similarity of wedge-shaped cores and

bifacially worked points and knives, as well as some kinds of scrapers. In distinction from

connections with Siberia and the Japanese Islands, where the analogies as a rule are earlier than

Kamchatkan specimens, similar items in America are in general relatively younger than in Japan and

belong predominantly to the end of the Sartan glaciation and to the beginning of post-glacial times.

This fact has substantial significance for clearing up the direction of spread of the early culture of

Upper Paleolithic Northeast Asia toward America.

As in the Kamchatkan late Paleolithic, stone artifacts in North America belong to that

transition from Pleistocene to Holocene culture that was discovered there long ago in the Campus

site near Fairbanks, but for a long time was erroneously considered comparatively late Mesolithic.

Only several other analogous sites recently discovered in Alaska—Donnelly Ridge, Teklanika, and

Healy Lake—permitted correct estimation of its age and assignment of all the named sites

tentatively to the thirteenth to eighth millennia B.C. On the whole, these early Alaskan sites can be

assigned, in our view, as we noted in 1971 (Dikov 1971a), to a single culture, which is characterized

by almost the same complex of stone artifacts as in Cultural Layers VI and V of the Ushki sites in

Kamchatka. This culture, following in time the British Mountain culture, has now been named the

Denali culture (Laricheva 1976a).

Wedge-shaped cores similar to Kamchatkan types (IV–3, 5, 7) (Bandi 1969:Fig. 15:2;

Hadleigh-West 1967) have been known for a long time at the Campus site. At Denali Ridge they

are represented by narrow and oblong types (IV–4, 5) (Hadleigh-West 1967:Figs. 4:f; 6:a, e), and

they have also been found at the Healy Lake (McKennan and Cook 1970) and Teklanika (HadleighWest 1967) sites. At the Teklanika site there were also bifaces similar to symmetrical and

asymmetrical leaf-shaped types (II–1, 3) (Hadleigh-West 1967:Fig. 9:d, g). Projectile points,

narrow and oblong leaf-shaped, worked by retouch on two sides (I–2e), are very similar to such

points from the complex at Healy Lake in Alaska recently investigated by McKennan (McKennan

and Cook 1970). Forms similar to them, but often wider—approaching the North American

Lerma type point—are encountered in the following, Cordilleran culture of the sixth and fifth

millennia B.C. (Beregovaia 1967:Fig. 2:1; Butler 1961). For this same culture, pear-shaped, as well

as limande scrapers of the Kamchatkan late Paleolithic types are also common (II–11; I–18). They

are known, for example, from sites of Kaiyuk at Anaktuvuk Pass (Campbell 1962:Pls. 2–18) and

in the complex of Flint Creek named above (Beregovaia 1967:Fig. 2:12, 15).
54 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Definite, though weaker similarity can be traced also with the Akmak complex of the Onion

Portage site in Alaska, which is similar in many ways to the Denali culture, differing from it chiefly

by special bifacial cores that are not found in the Denali culture. In the Akmak complex one finds

the same broad bifaces, wedge-shaped cores, ski-shaped spalls, and microblades (Anderson

1970:Figs. 21, 24, 25:10, 15) as in Cultural Layer VI of the Ushki sites. There is even something

similar to the core-like biface of the almost-Akmak type (Fig. 17:1) from our excavations in 1961

at Ushki I (from a test trench in a mixed layer of fill from a Remnant Neolithic pit house that cuts

through the sixth cultural layer) which also strengthens this similarity with Akmak (Anderson 1970).

The similarity that we have repeatedly noted between the late Ushki culture (Cultural Layer VI)

and complexes of the Denali and Akmak is acknowledged by leading specialists of the Paleolithic

of Siberia, in particular Abramova (1973:26). However, Vasil’evskii’s own very contradictory and,

in our view, erroneous position should be noted. He categorically rejects the similarity of the Ushki

culture to complexes of Denali and Akmak of Northwest Alaska and at the same time acknowledges

their similarity to the Diuktai culture, which by the same indices of similarity is close also to our

Ushki culture. In doing this, Vasil’evskii does not take into account the principal heterogeneity of

the combination of Akmak-Campus-Kobuk being designed by him, and mixes two different

traditions: the American Paleo-Arctic (Akmak, Kobuk, and Layer 2 at Trail Creek) and Denali

(Vasil’evskii 1973:129, 130).

The typological analogies to some components of the complex of finds from Cultural Layer

VI, noted above, by no means show an absolute identity with any of the mentioned cultural

complexes. It is possible to speak of the relative similarity to surrounding cultures only in some

features, though on the whole Cultural Layer VI gravitates more toward the Aldan and south

Siberian late Paleolithic, especially the Angara-Yenisei. Analogies with Angara-Yenisei provide

significant dating opportunities for Cultural Layer VI. Its close similarity to such sites as Kokorevo

III on the Yenisei and the Fediaevo site on the Angara, which belong to the very end of the Sartan

glaciation (Abramova 1966:15, 16), permits assigning the concluding stage of development of the

Kamchatkan Pleistocene Paleolithic, noted in Cultural Layer VI of the Ushki sites, to this time. This

agrees well with palynological data of the Ushki profile and with radiocarbon dating of Cultural

Layer VI—10,760 ± 110 and 10,360 ± 350 B.P. (Vinogradov et al. 1966). At the same time, this

forces one to doubt the paradoxical result of an age determination of another charcoal sample—

2110 ± 900 B.P. (GIN–186)—from Cultural Layer VI. We have already noted that the too-late

age of this specimen is explained by its distinctive location in immediate contact with a layer of

volcanic ash.

The closest typological connection of the late Kamchatkan Paleolithic with the Diuktai on the

Aldan must be assessed to be, in this author’s opinion, partially genetic. It testifies to the significant

role of east Siberian sources in the composition of the late Paleolithic culture of Kamchatka.

However, contrary to Mochanov’s opinion (Mochanov 1977), it is impossible to trace its origin

only to the migration to Kamchatka of the Diuktai culture. The role of the preceding indigenous

culture of the Ushki Cultural Layer VII, in which we have already noted several analogies, must be

taken into account. At the same time, one cannot overstate, as does Vasil’evskii (1973), the role of

such early pre-ceramic cultures in the Japanese Islands as Sokkotsu-Araia and Sirataki-Tawarubetsu,

which are substantially earlier than the late Ushki culture, and not connected with it chronologically

or typologically, and thus could not have served as its source. Their role could have had some effect

only on the composition of the culture preceding Cultural Layer VII of the Ushki sites. However,
Nikolai N. Dikov 55

we have already noted above that even then a different cultural base, close to the British Mountain

culture, predominated in this regard.

Connections of Kamchatka with Japan at the time, it must be suggested, were not direct, since

the Kurile Islands—which are separated by the very deep straits—contrary to Vasil’evskii’s opinion

(1973:130, 1976:513),17 could not have served as a bridge between Japan and Kamchatka, which,

owing to this, was a dead-end region in Asia. The similarity of some elements of the late Kamchatka

Paleolithic with the pre-ceramic cultures of Japan is not as strong and comprehensive as with late

Paleolithic sites on the Aldan and in southern Siberia (including Zabaikal’e), and probably reflects

only contact connections between the Asian continent and the Japanese Islands.

The population of the Japanese Islands, which penetrated there in part through Sakhalin along

the dry Pleistocene “land bridge,” soon—at the beginning of the Holocene—found itself in

isolation on the islands. Spreading to the south along the Japanese archipelago, this population

developed a technical tradition of bifacial projectile points of the Uenodaira and Tachikawa types

(their earliest forms are dated to 15,000 B.C.) and these types survive up to the Neolithic and later

in Japan, in distinction from southern Siberia, where similar points for this period are not typical

and are known only in the late Paleolithic site of Verkholensk Mountain and in Zabaikal’e (Morlan

1967; Okladnikov 1961:Fig. 6; Sugihara and Tozawa 1960).

The problem of the origin in the Japanese Islands of the earliest biface points is still not

resolved. It is possible to hypothesize their introduction into the Japanese Islands from the

northwest, from Primor’e, where in recent years cultures of the Tadushi type (Ustinovka) have been

discovered and investigated. The investigator, A. P. Okladnikov, views these earliest Primorian

cultures as the initial base for the origin of the earliest pre-ceramic cultures of Japan (Okladnikov

1966c). However, it is possible that biface points were invented in the Japanese Islands (Larichev

1970) and appeared in Kamchatka owing to later diffusion.

Be that as it may, the late Paleolithic narrow leaf-shaped biface points, which spread on the

Aldan and in Kamchatka, give the Northeast Asian late Paleolithic cultural region a certain

originality, notably distinguishing it among other cultures of the north Asian cultural zone.

The late Kamchatka Paleolithic differs by its notable originality also from the Japanese preceramic cultures contemporaneous with it. In Kamchatka, in distinction from Japan, the Paleolithic

blade industry is comparatively weakly developed and, as a consequence, there are almost no

transverse burins like those in Japan. The late Kamchatka Paleolithic is also distinguished in that

slate knives are associated with it (in Cultural Layer VI). The uniqueness of the Kamchatka

Paleolithic culture was caused by its isolated geographic location, the difficulty of access to this

region, the early settlement (evidently from Karginsk times), and the relative sedentism of its

population, which we stressed long ago.

Considering the analogies cited previously in this work in the Denali culture and in the Akmak

complexes, the late Paleolithic Ushki culture can be reliably considered to have spread to Alaska

at the end of the Pleistocene. Also important is the fact that this culture attained limited Subarctic

and Arctic distribution there, coinciding on the whole with the area of early Eskimo cultures.

17Correctly iterating my stance, that Kamchatka was a distinctive geographic “blind alley” in which the migrants settled, R. S.

Vasil’evskii (1973:130) falls into the contradiction of suggesting the presence of intensive cultural connections between

Kamchatka and Japan through the Kurile Islands and even the penetration along these islands into Kamchatka of a pre-ceramic

population from Japan.
56 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Figure 25. Route of penetration of Siberian cultural influences into America and Japan along the dry continental shelf at the end of the

Sartan glacial period. 1—glaciers; 2—route of cultural penetration; 3—northern forest boundary; 4—sites: Ushki (1), Sirataki (2),

Tadushi-Ustinovka (3), Diuktai Cave (4), Ikhine (5), Berelekh (6), Inas’kvaam (7), Anangula (8), Akmak (9), Healy Lake (10);

5—outline of the early mainland.
Nikolai N. Dikov 57

The physical anthropological difference of the Eskimos from the Indians made many

investigators think for a long time that this late migration must have been a migration of the earliest

American proto-Eskimos-Aleuts.

In this connection, Okladnikov (1941) was one of the first to turn his attention to Mesolithic

cores-scrapers of Mongolia and Alaska as evidence of southern sources, specifically for the

Eskimos. Then later these cores-scrapers acquired an earlier late Paleolithic date, but nevertheless,

Laughlin (1963), Müller-Beck (1966), Bandi (1969), Chard (1969), and Malaurie (1970) connected

them with so-called Aurignacian industry proposals of migration of proto-Eskimos and protoEskimos-Aleuts into America from Asia at the end of the Pleistocene.

There are more grounds for interpreting this migration as proto-Eskimo-Aleut if one

considers that among the Aleuts and Eskimos there is a common linguistic stock (Swadesh and

Marsh 1952) and that the division of their languages occurred together with their specialization in

sea mammal hunting, which could occur only after the migration of their common ancestors into

Beringia and Alaska. Many other specialists adhere to this position as well (Arutiunov and Sergeev

1969:30, 1975:195; Simchenko 1976).

In this connection, Vasil’evskii’s attempt to equate the late Paleolithic culture of Cultural Layer

VI of the Ushki sites with the proto-Aleut culture of Anangula Island (Aleutian Islands) and based

on this to “give proof” of the separation of the Aleuts from the Eskimos as early as the late

Paleolithic in Kamchatka looks very unconvincing (Vasil’evskii 1973). Close examination of the

analogies cited by Vasil’evskii indicates they do not fully correspond with reality. It sounds

reasonable when Vasil’evskii attempts to derive unifacial Anangula from Ushki and explains that

Ushki bifaces are the result of influence from the Diuktai culture (Vasil’evskii 1973). But, as

everyone knows, they can be traced back to the Ushki Cultural Layer VII and consequently they have

a local origin in Kamchatka. Such “influence” of Diuktai is equivalent to its presence. But it should

be kept in mind that there has never been enough evidence to support deriving the Anangula

unifacial culture from the Diuktai bifacial culture (the same could be said for the Ushki).

There is even less basis for deriving the later Aleut stemmed points of the fourth millennium

B.C. (the Village site) from the earliest Ushki Cultural Layer VII of the thirteenth millennium B.C. Here

the chronological profile is disproportionately great. It is filled in Kamchatka by cultures with other,

very different points, and the points do not have, as we have already noted, sufficient similarity.

Meanwhile, the culture of Ushki Cultural Layer VI is in fact very close to the Denali culture and

the Akmak complex on the basis of its major features,18 which can probably be viewed as protoEskimo-Aleut. In Alaska their divergence led, on the one hand, to the proto-Eskimo Denbigh

complex and, on the other, to the proto-Aleut Anangula complex. This divergence was connected

with the early Holocene development of sea mammal hunting among ancestors of the Eskimos on

the shores of the frozen seas and among the ancestors of the Aleuts on islands in the sea, completely

free from ice.

18Z. A. Abramova (1973:26) also agrees with this.
58 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

The Early Holocene and Final Paleolithic in Kamchatka

At the beginning of the Holocene, approximately 10,000 years ago, after the melting of the

glacial cover, Asia’s land connection with America ceased to exist, the Bering Sea and Sea of

Okhotsk reached their present contours. The climate, at first still cold, gradually began to become

warmer. Instead of fertile, dry tundra-steppe, wet, swampy tundra began to be widespread, and as

a consequence of this large grazing animals—mammoth, then bison, and finally horses—became

extinct. Finally, by the mid Holocene only the reindeer, as the most adapted to new, more severe

conditions for grazers, remained in Northeast Asia. From then on reindeer became the primary

object of land hunting in northern Siberia and the Far East. As a result, hunting in the Holocene

continued to preserve Paleolithic features in these regions for a long time.

On the sea coasts at this time, immediately after the melting of the glaciers, very favorable

conditions were created for sea mammals and they multiplied here in huge quantity. Thus,

preconditions were created for an entirely new kind of economic activity by people, connected at

first with collecting on the shore of the sea and then with the active hunting of seals, bearded seals,

walruses, and later even whales (Malaurie 1970, 1972). A similar picture can also be seen on the

opposite, Atlantic side, in the high-latitude zone of the Old World, where transition to sea mammal

hunting also began in the Mesolithic (Matiushin 1976).

Thus, nature compensated man for the post-glacial decrease in large land procurement with

an abundance of sea fauna, no less rich. But in consequence of this, the general orientation of the

most progressive economic activity of man was redirected from land to sea.

In the center of the Kamchatka Peninsula at the beginning of the Holocene 8,000 to 9,000 years

ago, the Ushki Paleolithic culture nevertheless continued to develop, reaching its final character

here. Its remains can be clearly traced in Cultural Layer V (in the lower part of the brownish-yellow

sandy loam, to a depth of 1.3 to 1.5 m) in the sites of Ushki I, II, and V.

Here, traces of surface dwellings were preserved that in essence are the same, but simpler, like

those in the sixth cultural layer (the second and third types). A total of six of them have been

investigated. Their round or oval carbonaceous area with hearths, constructed of two or several

stones, had been conserved. In one case (Ushki I) the hearth was obviously a masonry ring, but was

not preserved in its original form. The burned stones were spread out, with one of them—the largest

(to 0.6 m in length)—having a flat surface and possibly serving for cooking fish (in the fire area were

many burned fish bones). In all these dwellings, which, judging by everything, appear to have been

of brush or skin tent construction, the usual artifacts for Cultural Layer VI were encountered:

bifacial leaf-shaped stone points, scrapers, biface knives, wedge-shaped cores, various types of

knife-like blades, and flakes (Fig. 26). The difference consists only in that substantially fewer artifacts

appeared in Cultural Layer V and, along with previous types of narrow and high wedge-shaped

cores (Fig. 26:2), a new type of core with a rib on the striking platform appears (Fig. 26:3).

Vasil’evskii (1973) turned his attention to this, but we do not agree with his findings because

supposedly at the same time wedge-shaped cores without such rib on the striking platform no

longer continued to be used by the inhabitants of the Ushki sites of this period.

Vasil’evskii proposes that the culture of Cultural Layer V of the Ushki sites can probably be

viewed as proto-Itel’men (Vasil’evskii 1973). However, one must keep in mind its organic

connection with the preceding Cultural Layer VI, which is either proto-Aleut, as he suggests
Nikolai N. Dikov 59

(Vasil’evskii 1973), or proto-Eskimo-Aleut, as we suggest. Meanwhile, nothing specifically Itel’men

can be seen in this culture. However, we cannot completely reject the idea that this culture had some

role as the substrate in the later formation of the proto-Itel’men culture and ethnic group. In this

sense, the earlier Paleo-Indian substrate, represented in Kamchatka by Cultural Layer VII, and the

subsequent proto-Eskimo-Aleut culture of Cultural Layer VI, can also be considered in some

degree as forerunners for Itel’men ethnogenesis.

The two upper Pleistocene and one early Holocene cultural complexes that we examined here

embrace in general complexity the last 4,000 to 5,000 years of the glacial and early post-glacial

periods. Despite the difference between them in types of dwellings, projectile point styles (at first

stemmed, then narrow leaf-shaped), and generally in technique, they both (not only by their

chronological position but also by the character of the dwellings, their burial custom, and their stone

industry) are typically Paleolithic, in that understanding of Paleolithic as it was formed for the upper

Paleolithic of Eurasia.

The cultural remains from the superimposed Cultural Layer IV of the Ushki sites belong to an

entirely different, later cultural-historical period. Before proceeding to their characteristics, we

need to touch on the debatable problem of the so-called Mesolithic and its relation to the Paleolithic

and Neolithic and examine the available materials on the transition from the Paleolithic to Neolithic

in the Kolyma.

Figure 26. Stone

artifacts from the final

Paleolithic stage of

the Ushki culture

(Cultural Layer V)

(1–13).
60 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia
From the Paleolithic

to the Neolithic on

the Upper Kolyma

The Problem of the Mesolithic

The concept “Mesolithic” is invested by archaeologists, as is well known, with different

meanings, and comprehending it often depends on the understanding of two related terms—

“Paleolithic” and “Neolithic.”

Some archaeologists, supposing that the Paleolithic ends with the Pleistocene, are inclined to

consider any culture beginning in the Holocene as Mesolithic, treating the Mesolithic thereby as a

purely chronological idea. Thus, some of them assign the Mesolithic period in northern Europe to

the tenth through fifth millennia B.C. (Krainov and Briusov 1961), while others assign it to the eighth

through fourth millennia B.C., leaving a place in post-glacial times for a Holocene Paleolithic

(Rogachev 1966).

M. V. Voevodskii, reflecting the view of the phasic nature of historical development prevailing

in his time, understood the Mesolithic as a stage in the development of primitive society, which was

later adopted by other archaeologists, in particular Yu. A. Mochanov (1969b).

The idea is more accurate, in our view, when the stress is not on the socioeconomic aspect of

historical development, but on the historical-cultural and historical-technical aspects. This point of

view, dominating Soviet archaeology, is most clearly expressed by O. N. Bader: “The Mesolithic

is a definite stage in the development of the material culture of the Stone Age. It is transitional from

the Paleolithic to the Neolithic but chronologically heterogeneous in different territories, and in

particular in ones distant from each other” (Bader 1966:194). A. P. Okladnikov formed his

understanding of the Mesolithic simultaneously, its specific historicity being especially valuable.

Okladnikov reminds us that “the term Mesolithic in its broadest and most general concept means

the transition time from the Old Stone Age, flaked stone tools, to the New Stone Age, ground tools”

(Okladnikov 1966b:213). At the same time he also allows an Epipaleolithic as an individual

possibility—“a relict Paleolithic culture in several regions at that time when in other areas a more

progressive culture had already been formed” (Okladnikov 1966b:213). Such a remnant Paleolithic

(Epipaleolithic) existed, in Okladnikov’s opinion, in Siberia and eastern Asia immediately before

the Neolithic. At the same time he writes about the Mesolithic of the Far East (in particular, about

the Ustinovka site seventeen to twelve millennia old), assigning it to the pre-ceramic period in a

broad chronological framework embracing not only the Holocene but several millennia of the late

Pleistocene, thus following the terminology of Japanese archaeologists (Okladnikov 1977:116).

Okladnikov’s multi-plan position evidently conforms with P. I. Boriskovskii’s conclusion about the

necessity of more fractional local periodizations for all the periods of the Stone Age after the Early

Paleolithic (Boriskovskii 1954).
62 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

At the end of the 1960s in the Institute of Archaeology AN USSR two doctoral dissertations

were equally successfully defended, each of which in essence approached identical late Pleistocene

and early Holocene cultures with treatments that were diametrically opposed: Yu. A. Mochanov

interpreted the Sumnagin culture of the eighth–fifth millennia B.C. as Holocene Paleolithic

(Mochanov 1969), while G. I. Medvedev assigned the generally significantly earlier Angara sites with

wedge-shaped cores and often with bifaces—Verkholensk Gora, Ust’-Bel’aia, Kamenka I–III, and

Uliakha—to the Mesolithic (Medvedev 1968, 1971). Mochanov “proved” the Paleolithic character

of the Sumnagin culture by the lack in it of bifacial stone artifacts. Medvedev defended the

Mesolithic in Pribaikal’e as a transitional period from Paleolithic to Neolithic on the basis of a

consistently evolutionary principle: “If it were not the Mesolithic it would not be progress.” Such

a paradoxical mutual exclusion of valuations could of course confirm that the main thing is not in

the terms but rather in the very essence, in the specific picture of the development of culture in each

of the regions. But cultures exactly identical in their indigenous technological essence might be

interpreted in equal measure as being Mesolithic, and, in our view, only the lack of definite criteria

for setting off the Mesolithic is the cause of such a paradox. But how is it possible to speak of the

Mesolithic, whenever one attempts to isolate it, if there are no common criteria for its isolation? And

especially if at times there is not even clarity in what distinguishes it from the Neolithic?

For Medvedev the basic criteria of isolation of the Mesolithic, as a transitional period from the

Paleolithic to the Neolithic, are the appearance in the cultural complex of Neolithic stone and bone

tools and more complicated forms of economy in connection with the extinction of herd animals

and a transition to fishing (Medvedev 1968, 1971). We will turn our attention to that favorite

argument of many: the increased complexity of forms of economy. Many archaeologists use it not

only for characterization of the Mesolithic but for the Neolithic as well.19 As an example, the recent

attempt by L. P. Khlobystin to separate the Epipaleolithic and the pre-ceramic Neolithic on the

basis of economic characteristics of the cultural deposits of Ulan-Khada can be noted, an attempt

that turned out to be unsuccessful since the economic base of each of the named periods (hunting

and fishing) could not be qualitatively distinguished by anyone (Khlobystin 1965).

According to Mochanov, there is no Mesolithic on the Aldan: after the late Holocene

Paleolithic the Neolithic immediately began. We do not object to his conviction of the lack of a

Mesolithic on the Aldan, though we are interested in which feature he uses to develop the boundary

between the Holocene Paleolithic and the Neolithic on the Aldan. It turns out that the deciding

criteria for it is the indispensable presence of ceramics in the Neolithic. Mochanov confirms that

in Siberia there are no Neolithic sites without ceramics. Polemicizing with Khlobystin he writes: “To

any specialist it is well known that in Siberia there are no such sites” (Mochanov 1969b). Khlobystin

himself, supposing like Okladnikov the presence of an Epipaleolithic in Siberia, postulates a preceramic Neolithic in Ulan-Khada following it (Khlobystin 1965:276).

We stress: there is no Mesolithic, but rather a pre-ceramic Neolithic. However, it does not

stop Khlobystin from writing in the same place about a period transitional from the

Epipaleolithic to the New Stone Age, that is, in other words, about the Mesolithic (Khlobystin

1965:262). Anticipating the ideas that we set forth below, we note that in Khlobystin’s models

there is nevertheless a “grain of truth”—the recognition of a pre-ceramic Neolithic in principle.

In spite of this we cannot agree with the basic (in Khlobystin’s opinion) economic criteria of

19For example, Merpert. See his criticism concerning V. S. Titov’s report (Titov 1962).
Nikolai N. Dikov 63

isolation of all these periods: the Epipaleolithic, pre-ceramic Neolithic, and the Neolithic itself

(Khlobystin 1965:278).

Beginning in the 1950s we have repeatedly expressed our opinion that the single basis of

archaeological periodization can be only on the development of technology and not on the

economy or social structure, for which a special periodization is necessary. In May 1970 the basic

positions of this section of the book were discussed as part of a dissertation (Dikov 1971b), in

particular the principle of having a single aspect of archaeological periodization, in a session of the

branch of archaeology at the Institute of History, Philosophy, and Philology of the SO AN USSR.

The positions were then reflected in a special article by the author on the three principles of

archaeological periodization (Dikov 1976c).

G. P. Grigor’ev came to a similar conclusion independently of us, having noted that underlying

archaeological periodization is the development of technology, and not production, and that the

“development of tools goes according to its own norms and laws” (Grigor’ev 1970:62). He

correctly does justice to the formation of a concept similar to A. N. Rogachev’s, who explained the

transition from one step of the Upper Paleolithic to another not by a change in economy, but by

a change in the archaeological culture itself (Grigor’ev 1970:43; Rogachev 1966). A. A. Formozov

also came to a similar conclusion, who before had adhered to a cultural-historical criterion, having

compared the Mesolithic ultimately to the highest degree of savagery (Formozov 1959b:67).

Having categorically come out in favor of preservation of the term “Mesolithic” and against all of

its equivalents, including “pre-ceramic Neolithic” (he suggests “ceramic-less” as better),

Formozov proclaimed himself against the introduction of sociological characteristics as a basic

element in archaeological periodization, correctly giving reasons for this by pointing out that there

is not complete conformity of typological and sociological changes, but a somewhat oversimplified

cause for this very discrepancy, which in his opinion is supposedly that “material culture reflects the

evolution of the economy and society with some delay” (Formozov 1970:10).

At a conference on the problems of the Mesolithic, which took place at the Leningrad branch

of the Institute of Archaeology AN USSR in December 1974, no unified opinion could be reached

on the criteria for distinguishing the Mesolithic, but nevertheless the predominating significance of

typology in this respect was pointed out (Gurina 1977:6, 21, 22; Telegin 1977:33). Again views were

expressed on the deciding role of ecological and economic changes (in particular, of the appearance

in post-glacial times of forest animals instead of herd animals, of increasing complexity in hunting,

and of the development of fishing) in the rise of Mesolithic technology, the idea itself of the

“Mesolithic” being closely connected with these changes (Dolukhanov 1977; Ermolova 1977:19).

However, the critique of Formozov by P. M. Dolukhanov, the creator of the Mesolithic eco-social

system—a critique that points out that at the base of Formozov’s archaeological periodization are

physical objects and not a type of economy or social structure and that takes Formozov to task for

his refusal to see the connection between the change of appearance in the stone inventory and

changes in the natural environment (Dolukhanov 1977:13)—is not convincing and proves only that

the argument really proceeds at different levels of investigation. The problem of archaeological

periodization is source work, the study of types (A. A. Formozov), and the problem of the

connection and the correlation of this or another period with the ecology and type of economy in

archaeological periodization (P. M. Dolukhanov) is an entirely different level—that of

interpretation. And finally, there is no need to combine these levels of investigation in the fashion

Dolukhanov does (Dolukhanov 1977:13). Formozov’s position seems to me more correct, though
64 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

unfortunately he is not sufficiently consistent, since for his typological argument he still sometimes

seeks confirmation in the development of the economy (Formozov 1970:8–10). And he is still so

vague that he is ready to recognize Verkholenskaia Gora as Mesolithic, following Medvedev,

inasmuch as at this site traces of fishing are seen, as well as the Bel’kachi I site, in spite of Mochanov,

since fishing was also noted there (Formozov 1970:8–10).

The negative position in respect to the idea of a direct connection of typology with ecological

changes is also held by N. N. Gurina, who correctly turned her attention to indications that

several elements of Mesolithic technical development arose in the early phases of the Paleolithic

(Gurina 1977:22.).

Finally, a specialist on the Mesolithic, G. N. Matiushin, came to the conclusion that the most

characteristic features of the Mesolithic are standardized lamellar technology and settled living

(Matiushin 1976.). V. P. Stepanov, it seems, is not fully in agreement with that, but rather

understands the Mesolithic as a multiple aspect idea to which typological, cultural, and economic

criteria are applicable (Stepanov 1976:301).

From what has been said it is obvious that at the present time in archaeological science there

is a lack of generally accepted periodization of the last stages of the Stone Age based on united

principles, and that various attempts to surmount this intolerable position can be seen. Rogachev

sees the course of resolution of this problem in the elimination of the idea of a Mesolithic as an

independent, middle period of the Stone Age, changing it to late Holocene Paleolithic (Rogachev

1966:13). Bader, Formozov, Gurina, and others consider its preservation necessary, however, with

some substantial reservations to its only chronological approach (Bader 1966:196–205; Formozov

1970; Gurina 1977). Okladnikov suggests using the term “Mesolithic” only for the western part of

the Old World, and for the eastern, including Siberia, suggests use of the term “Epipaleolithic”

(Okladnikov 1966b:213, 214). For the Far East he uses in practice the new term “Pre-ceramic

Epoch” (Okladnikov 1977). L. P. Khlobystin constructs a new stage, the “Pre-ceramic Neolithic,”

transitional from the Epipaleolithic to the Ceramic Neolithic (Khlobystin 1965:277–279). As a

result, three basic approaches to the distinction of all these stages are noted: (1) with indispensable

consideration above all of a socioeconomic base (M. V. Voevodskii, Yu. A. Mochanov); (2) on an

economic (G. A. Medvedev) or a generally ecological-social base (P. M. Dolukhanov); (3) only on

a historical-cultural or historical-technical base (A. P. Okladnikov, O. N. Bader, G. P. Grigor’ev,

A. A. Formozov, N. N. Gurina, G. N. Matiushin, and others).

It seems to me that the last of the three approaches is the most justified since it corresponds

more to the essence of archaeological periodization based on the change of the fundamental

technological materials and on the development of a technology for the preparation of tools20 (and

in general not the historical-cultural, the economic, and especially not the socioeconomic).

However, even in this, in my view, most reasonable approach there is at times an insufficiently clearly

determined object and criterion for periodization, such that its followers often use criteria that

clearly pertain to economic development and not to the technology of manufactured tools.

I am convinced that a satisfactory resolution to the problem of periodization of the Stone Age

is possible only under the condition that one does not require from it multiple aspects. Its object

20It is noteworthy that the term “Mesolithic,” introduced, as G. N. Matiushin (1976) recently reminded us, in 1894 by Hansen,

had a purely technological significance at the beginning and only later (with V. G. Childe and T. Clark) began to acquire a

historical-economic implication.
Nikolai N. Dikov 65

is the history of the material culture, and more precisely the history of technology, namely the

technology of the manufacture of the basic tools of work.

This principle, the same as “principium divisionis,”21 is quite necessary, since the idea of the “Stone

Age” in opposition to the Bronze and Iron Age signifies only the fact that in this period stone tools

were in use. With regard to the economy and social structure, by virtue of inequality of development,

tools are extremely different among different ethnic communities in one and the same stage of

archaeological periodization, especially at the end of the Stone Age. Both the social structure and

the economy, of course, should be considered by archaeologists as basic factors, but special

parallels of periodization should be worked out for them, since Marxist socioeconomic

periodization always remains the defining and leading system of socioeconomic forms and their

stages that supersede each other. All the other periodizations reflecting some aspect of the

development of culture, technology, economy, etc., should permanently correlate with it, and

finally, depend on it.

The non-observance of this principle or any attempts at synthesizing, or more precisely, mixing

in a single common archaeological periodization all the eclectic aspects of historical development

will inevitably destroy it and add confusion, since the other aspects, while they do develop in parallel

and coincide with it in general in the direction of development, they do not coincide chronologically

in their level at critical moments and at critical boundaries as a result of inequality of specific historic

development. As a result, attempts to create a single complex periodization of different historical

processes are futile and inevitably lead down a blind alley, which ultimately might happen with

archaeological periodization if it is built on the principle of an eclectic union of various aspects.

Issuing from what has been said and considering our article on the principles of periodizaton

(Dikov 1976b), the Mesolithic has to be examined not as a universal and general intermediate period

between the Paleolithic and the Neolithic, but rather as a indigenous variant of one of the stages of

the transition period at the end of the Stone Age. The most common technological feature uniting

the Mesolithic with other stages of this general revolutionary period is the imminently emerging

industry of knife-like blades and the technique of insetting. The most characteristic and almost

exclusive feature of the developmental stage of the revolutionary period, the Neolithic, is the mass

grinding of some stone tools, predominantly axes and adzes. Ceramics, in spite of their great

significance in the development of the material culture, are not an exclusive and compulsory sign

of the Neolithic (here we agree with Khlobystin) (Khlobystin 1965:278, 279). Sometimes they are

absent in the Developed Neolithic, for example, at Ierikhon (Kenyon 1957; Masson 1958) or at

Zabaikal’e (Grishin 1977; Khlobystin 1965:279), on Kamchatka and Chukotka, and at times they

even occur in the Mesolithic. Ceramics of great antiquity, bordering on the Pleistocene, appear for

a long time in Japan in cultures that by all other technological features are Mesolithic (Chard 1964).

If ceramics are considered, as before, compulsory for all regions of the land as a criterion for

separation of the Neolithic, and their absence is a feature of the Mesolithic, then the ceramic

Neolithic in Japan begins in the ninth millennium B.C., whereas in the valley of the Kamchatka River

and in some inner-continental regions of Chukotka, the ceramic-less Mesolithic with ground axes

and a complete tool kit of other typically Neolithic items as it were continues up to the seventeenth

21With regard to the third principle of periodization, which we proposed, and the periodization’s dialectical nature (Dikov, N.

N. 1976b:218–224), the introduction of the principle would require essential restructuring of the whole concept of

periodization, which is not undertaken here in full measure.
66 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

century A.D. It is consequently more correct to speak of a “Ceramic Mesolithic” of Japan and a

“Ceramic-less Neolithic” of Kamchatka and Chukotka.

Further, the definitions of the Neolithic and Mesolithic that we have accepted do not take into

consideration the historical-economic aspect. Attempts to see in some forms of economy a

universal feature of the Mesolithic or Neolithic are in many cases doomed to failure since these

periods are combined in different territories with different types of economy. In the Near East it

was farming and livestock breeding that began with the Mesolithic, on the sea coasts of northern

Scandinavia it was Mesolithic sea mammal hunting (the Komsa culture), and in many areas of the

Old and New World up to the end of the Neolithic the economy never passed from the stage of

hunting and fishing, though in a purely technological respect the economy went through the

Neolithic period. We are not of course denying that a progressive development in the economy

occurred in the Mesolithic and Neolithic, but are rather only stress that this development took place

in the most different, incomparable forms (individualization of hunting or the transition to fishing

or to farming and livestock breeding, etc.). This phenomenon does not allow the possibility of

establishing a general direct link between the examined periods of archaeological periodization and

a certain type of economy.

This is also related to attempts to establish a simple universal association between the level of

development of Mesolithic technology and an economic base. The increased inequality of historical

development in the Mesolithic resulted in the most varied combination of household economies

and in technology and the economic base (Matiushin 1976:26).22 The chief determining factor in the

general development of technology in the Mesolithic and Neolithic is not the level of stone-working

technology by itself, but rather the number of surplus products, the latter determined not so much

by the level of the stone-working technology of the Mesolithic and Neolithic as by the character and

condition of leading branches of the economy, that is, the general level of development of the

production forces. By the end of the Neolithic the development of livestock breeding and farming

led to the formation of a class society in the Near East, while in Siberia even in the early Iron Age

the original social structure was still preserved.

This line of thought prompts one more conclusion. It is with regard to the “Neolithic

revolution,” about which many people write and speak, following Childe (Childe 1952; Masson

1969). By “Neolithic revolution,” they mean the transition in the Neolithic, beginning with its preceramic phase, that is, essentially in the Mesolithic, to production types of economy (farming and

livestock breeding) and ultimately to the working of metal, trades, and urban culture. What Childe

had in mind took place not so much in technological as in household economic and socioeconomic

periodization under the more optimal natural conditions of a comparatively restricted region. The

Neolithic (and Mesolithic) period during the development of technology in the Stone Age, which

caused the transition to metal in a broader territory, including northern Siberia, has a completely

defined but narrower, purely technological content. At the same time it is universal since it reflects

the most general regularity in the development of culture that is caused in significantly less degree

by the natural environment. All the ethnic groups of the world, including Northeast Asia,

completely or partially passed through the Neolithic period of archaeological periodization. Only

some of them experienced the “Neolithic revolution” in the narrow meaning of the word

22Following Matiushin, Yu. A. Mochanov (1977:253) wrote on the most clearly manifested inequality of historical

development of society, which began with the early Holocene.
Nikolai N. Dikov 67

(according to Childe). Those were the ones in favorable conditions for development of the most

highly productive types of economy—livestock breeding and farming.

With regard to the specific criteria for distinguishing the Mesolithic period of technical

development from the preceding Paleolithic in the area of Northeast Asia that we are examining,

the border between the Paleolithic and Mesolithic ought to pass between the cultures with wedgeshaped cores (Paleolithic) and the superseding cultures without these cores. We are prompted by

the fact that wedge-shaped (end) cores are peculiar to cultures of very early Sartan age and are also

encountered in such undoubtedly Paleolithic sites as Afontova Gora, the Kokorevskie sites,

Diuktai Cave, and others. It is possible that these sites mark the beginning of the revolutionary

period of the Stone Age, the beginning of the use of inset technology on a base of mass

standardization of knife-like blades. Another important element arises: these sites mark a special

stage in the development of Paleolithic technology, which culminates at the end of the Pleistocene

or in other places in the early Holocene, that is qualitatively distinct from the subsequent one when

wedge-shaped cores everywhere are superseded by pencil-shaped, conical, thin, and regular

prismatic cores.

Adhering to such criteria we are inclined to assign the Verkholenskaia Gora site, the lower

levels of Ust’-Belaia site, and other so-called Mesolithic sites of Pribaikal’e (Uliakha and Kamenka

I–III) (Medvedev 1971) with wedge-shaped cores, as well as the Ustinovka “pre-ceramic” site in

Primor’e (Okladnikov 1966c), to the final or late Paleolithic, and the so-called Sumnagin culture of

the “Holocene Paleolithic” (Mochanov 1969b) basically to the Mesolithic. The advantage of such

attribution of the named sites is evident: the technological principle, the only one being used for

archaeological periodization, will be maintained the most consistently; the border between the

Paleolithic and the Neolithic will become clearer and more objective; it defines the single

technological criterion in the whole vast expanse from the Pamir to Japan, from Central Asia to

Alaska; and owing to this, cultures will be objectively compared by the level of their technology

within the framework of generally accepted archaeological (that is, historical-technological)

periodization. The inequality of technological and cultural-economic development becomes even

more obvious.

The problems of our investigation prompt us to dwell in more detail on the question of the socalled Sumnagin culture.

Based on his schema of two traditions, Yu. A. Mochanov assigned Sumnagin to a unifacial

tradition and defined it as a culture of the Holocene Paleolithic (Mochanov 1969, 1977). One cannot

completely agree with either of Mochanov’s positions.

The erroneousness of assigning the Sumnagin culture to the Holocene Paleolithic has already

been noted by Formozov, who quite correctly interpreting it as being largely a fishing culture,

assigned it to the late Mesolithic (Formozov 1970). Mochanov’s (1977) subsequent explanation was

not sufficiently convincing: actually, signs of fishing among the Sumnagin people (sinkers, fish

bones, lack of arrow points) are irrefutable. Laying aside the question of the an economic criterion,

it should be recognized that the Sumnagin culture is not Paleolithic, based on our technicaltypological indicators: microlithic tools predominate among its artifact complexes, with

characteristic Mesolithic “parallelograms” repeatedly found among them (Mochanov 1977:Pl. 85)

and wedge-shaped cores are completely lacking (in all layers of the Sumnagin site). The latter are

found only in the lowest layers of the Ust’-Timpton site (in VI, V–b, and degenerate ones or blanks
68 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

in Layer IV–b) and Bel’kachi I (Layers XVIII–XIX) (Mochanov 1977:Pls. 48:4; 66:3; 67:26).23 In our

opinion only the Holocene Paleolithic of the Aldan is bracketed in these layers. But the culture,

represented by these very deep, recently found layers dating by radiocarbon to between 8060 ± 70

and 10,650 ± 80 B.P. (Mochanov 1977:103, 149, 191) can be correctly evaluated and called not the

Sumnagin culture, but rather the Ust’-Timpton, since in the later Sumnagin site no traces of the

Sumnagin culture were preserved in any of the cultural layers. In addition to wedge-shaped cores

and unifacial stone tools, bifacial technology, contrary to Mochanov, is characteristic of the knifelike blades of the Ust’-Timpton culture as well (Mochanov 1977:190, Pl. 69).24 “Parallelograms”

are completely lacking in the material complex of this culture.

All above-lying cultural layers of the Ust’-Timpton and Bel’kachi I sites, as well as a whole suite

of cultural layers of the Sumnagin I site, have no basis for being assigned to the Holocene Paleolithic,

and the culture uniting them should be considered Mesolithic, keeping its previous name—

Sumnagin. Inasmuch bifacial technology is not completely foreign to it (having in mind stone chisellike tools: an axe and an adze from Layers IV–b and IV of the Ust’-Timpton site worked by

complete flat bifacial retouch) (Mochanov 1977:Pls. 56:5; 57:5, 7; 63:3), we are right in not agreeing

with Mochanov’s view of a migration of a Sumnagin unifacial tradition to the Aldan from

somewhere outside, for example, from the Yenisei, as he suggests (Mochanov 1977:Pls. 56:5; 57:5,

7; 63:3). It is also possible to start from the opposite concept of autochthonous origin of the

Mesolithic from the Paleolithic, which is more justified in our view, and, in particular,

autochthonous growth of the Sumnagin Mesolithic unifacial tradition in the indigenous Ust’-

Timpton Holocene Paleolithic on a base of late Paleolithic Diuktai culture. Genetic connections can

be distinctly observed between all these cultures (Diuktai, Ust’-Timpton, and Sumnagin) even in the

position of the cultural layers in one and the same sites, in the technology of knife-like blades and

in bifacial technology in general. The lack of biface knives and points in particular in the Ust’-

Timpton and Sumnagin cultures can be easily explained by the use of inset tools instead and by the

general rationalization of secondary work of stone artifacts under the conditions of transition from

Paleolithic to Mesolithic technology, and does not need the far-fetched explanation of migration.

However, we leave the final decision of this question to the acquisition of new materials from the

territory of Yakutia, still very poorly studied archaeologically.

Keeping in mind the above-stated concept of the Mesolithic and Neolithic and the criteria of

the difference between themselves and between them and the preceding Paleolithic in Northeast

Asia, we proceed now to the specific examination of the available archaeological data on the post

Paleolithic cultures of the Kolyma, Kamchatka, and then Chukotka.

23Blanks or unclearly expressed wedge-shaped cores (Mochanov 1977:Pls. 54:24; 56:2).

24See the axe, bifacially worked by flat retouch, from Layer VI of the Ust’-Timpton site.
Nikolai N. Dikov 69

The Siberdik Culture

Owing to investigations in recent years,25 the transitional period of the Paleolithic to the

Neolithic is represented more fully and convincingly on the upper Kolyma than in Kamchatka and

Chukotka. It is filled with cultural remains at the well-stratified sites of Kongo, Siberdik, and Maltan,

the cultural layers of which gave a well-dated succession of cultural development from the final

Paleolithic to the Early Neolithic. The beginning stage of the Siberdik culture is the earliest in this

succession, coming directly from the Paleolithic and in some measure still being in it. A later stage

is characterized by the Maltan cultural complex.

The concept of the “Siberdik culture” began to emerge as early as following the first

excavations of the Siberdik site (168), when along with small flint knife-like blades, large cobble

tools—uniface choppers—were found. Afterward the earliest stage of this culture was discovered

in the bottom layer of the Kongo site (169), dating to 1,000 years earlier than the bottom layer of

the Siberdik site. The latter, together with the upper layer of the Kongo site, is now assigned to the

second period of the Siberdik culture, in essence still Paleolithic.

The earliest stage of the Siberdik culture, represented by the remains from the bottom layer of

the Kongo site, is dated by C-14 at 9470 ± 530 B.P. (Kril–314). It is characterized by a combination

of small blade tools (Fig. 27) and large cobble tools (Fig. 28) (Dikov 1977b:Pl. 192).

25The reference here is to five years of investigations primarily in the pool area of Kolymsk hydroelectric reservoir, where in 1971 an

expedition of SVKNII DVNTs AN SSSR found the multi-component Kongo and Siberdik sites. Archaeological testing, which

was conducted there before this (in 1970) by Yu. A. Mochanov and S. A. Fedoseeva (from the Institute of Language, Literature,

and History of the Yakutia branch of SO AN SSSR), made no finds within the boundaries of the area of the pool. Only

insignificant late Paleolithic material was collected beyond its boundaries—in the dispersed Maiorych site (Mochanov 1972).

Figure 27. Stone artifacts from the lower layer of the Kongo site (early stage of the Siberdik culture) (1–11).
70 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Figure 29. Uniface choppers from the late stage of the Siberdik culture (1–2).

Figure 30. Uniface choppers from the late stage of the Siberdik culture (1–2).

Figure 28. Uniface choppers from the early stage of the Siberdik culture (lower layer of the Kongo site) (1–2).
Nikolai N. Dikov 71

Cobble tools in the rather primitive form of uniface choppers make up a group of traditional

Paleolithic artifacts consisting of large heavy pebbles trimmed on only one side along one edge or

small cobbles of keratinized slate.

Among the small tools, flint knife-like blades predominate, sometimes retouched along the

edge (Fig. 27:5, 6, 8–11), and lateral burins on rather massive lamellar flakes are also in evidence

(Fig. 27:2–4). A conical core (Fig. 27:7) and a very distinctive micro-artifact of boat-like form

(Fig. 27:1) were encountered as well. If the knife-like blades and core are not considered, then

all these artifacts have a very archaic appearance, especially the burins.

For the subsequent, later stage of the Siberdik culture, judging by the finds in Layer III (the

bottom) of the Siberdik site and in Layer II of the Kongo site, the combination of knife-like blades

with cobble tools—uniface choppers—is also characteristic. The latter is represented here by more

elaborate and more carefully formed specimens (Figs. 29, 30). The knife-like blades are also small,

many of them retouched along the edges (Fig. 31:1–5). Some of them were evidently split off wedgeshaped cores—a very small one of “Gobi” form was in a work area in Layer III of the Siberdik site

(Fig. 31:9). The burins here are entirely different. They are not on large lamellar flakes as in the early

stage of this culture, but rather on thin knife-like blades (Dikov 1977b:Pl. 192:4). Of course, there

is also among them a small polyhedral burin (Fig. 31:8). Blades with a beveled transverse edge

blunted by retouch (Dikov 1977b:Pl. 192:5) and a lateral notch (Dikov 1977b:Pl. 192:7) are also

characteristic items of the complex.

Figure 31. Stone artifacts from the late stage of the Siberdik culture of the Remnant Paleolithic (lower layer of the Siberdik site).
72 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Figure 32. Projectile points, scrapers, and knives from the late stage of the Siberdik culture of the Remnant Paleolithic (1–12).
Nikolai N. Dikov 73

Figure 33. Artifacts from Neolithic Layers I (A:1–3) and II (B:1–10) of the Siberdik site.
74 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Arrow points are all elongate/leaf-shaped, retouched on both sides (Fig. 32:1, 2). They are similar to

those from Ushki Cultural Layers V and VI. Biface

knives and unifaces, partially retouched along the edges,

as well as various skreblos and scrapers, among which

are also end scrapers (Fig. 32:9, 10), are less significant

and diagnostic, but there are also some among them

generally like Ushki types (Fig. 32:8, 9, 10). Large end

scrapers on massive lamellar flakes are very

characteristic (Fig. 32:7), such as were found on Shilo

Creek in 1970 (Fig. 34).26 Knives made from large

oblong lamellar flakes retouched along one side,

forming a working edge (Fig. 32:5); large massive

skreblos, in some cases with a “beak” on the working

edge (Fig. 32:10); and pick-shaped gigantoliths of the

Novgorod-Seversk type should be assigned to other

distinctive Siberdik forms. Finally, large and quite

distinctive subtriangular flake-points (Fig. 32:4) are very

characteristic for this stage, just as for the previous one

(Dikov 1977b:Pl. 193:2).

From the enumerated artifacts some may well serve for dating, specifically wedge-shaped

cores and leaf-shaped arrow points of the Ushki final Paleolithic type. They permit assigning a final

Paleolithic age (on the scale of Kamchatka archaeology) to the second stage of the Siberdik culture,

which agrees well with the radiocarbon dates of 8655 ± 220 B.P. (MAG–196) on charcoal from the

upper layer of the Kongo site and 8480 ± 200 B.P. (Kril–249) and 8020 ± 80 B.P. (Kril–250) on

charcoal from a fire pit in the bottom layer of the Siberdik site. The presence in its Cultural Layer

III of subaerial pseudomorph-frost cracks from the thawing of ice veins also confirms a similar date,

since it permits assigning this layer to a period preceding the beginning of warming in the early

Holocene, probably to the very end of the Sartan glaciation or to the very beginning of the

Holocene.

Judging by the character of the material remains at the Kongo and Siberdik sites, the inhabitants

of the upper Kolyma were occupied predominantly by hunting at this time of intensive retreat of

the glaciers and, more probably, no longer hunting mammoths, but rather primarily reindeer and

horse, the bones of which were found repeatedly in the lower layer of the Siberdik site. These

aboriginal hunters meanwhile left their traces only in campsites with surface dwellings of hut or tent

type, where abundant remains of stone working activity were preserved, especially at the Siberdik

site with its large and very significant work areas. The remains of horses’ teeth together with red

ocher possibly indicate the existence of a cult of this animal among the Siberdik people.

Figure 34. Flint scraper (presumably Paleolithic)

from Shilo Creek on the upper reaches of the

Kolyma River (4/7 natural size).

26We interpret this end scraper as the first late Paleolithic find in the basin of the Kolyma, in particular comparing it with

analogous scrapers from Cultural Layer V of the Ushki sites (Dikov 1971:186, 1974b:23). Yu. A. Mochanov called into question

the final Paleolithic age of this scraper (Mochanov, Yu. A. 1977:94), though in the same work (Mochanov, Yu. A. 1977:205) he

unconditionally considers similar end scrapers on massive flakes that he found in mixed lower Kolyma sites as one of the

clearest indicators of the Sumnagin culture, which he assigns to the Holocene Paleolithic.
Nikolai N. Dikov 75

Later development of the Siberdik culture, as it is coming to an end, probably runs to the

threshold of the Early Neolithic. This can be confirmed by the radiocarbon date of 6300 ± 170 B.P.

(Kril–248), which represents this stage of Cultural Layer II of the Siberdik site.

Characteristic for this stage is an industry of knife-like blades and small tools combined with

large cobble tools-uniface choppers. The distinctive artifacts of flattened-conical cores

transformed into tools become widespread (Dikov 1977b:Pl. 189:1, 2). Often only the spalls from

their working edges are encountered (Fig. 33B:4, 5) (Dikov 1977b:Pl. 190:1, 3). The remaining

stone artifacts basically continue the tradition of the previous stage: elongate/leaf-shaped arrow

points (Fig. 33B:1) (Dikov 1977b:Pl. 190:4, 5), oblong lamellar knives retouched along the edge

(Fig. 33B:10), end scrapers on massive lamellar flakes, and other less significant forms of scrapers

(Fig. 33B:9). Burins look somewhat different now—lateral and dihedral on flakes (Fig. 33B:2).

Uniface choppers remain the same in principle. Decorations meanwhile consist of only one

pyrophyllite bead (Fig. 33B:3).

Thus, no sharp change can be observed in stone working technology during the course of

development of the Siberdik culture. This succession can be seen in several elements of the

technology even in the later Neolithic stage, judging by the finds of oblong lamellar knives in the

upper-most layer of the Siberdik site (Fig. 33A:1).

Nevertheless, the wedge-shaped core from Cultural Layer III of the Siberdik site (Fig. 31:9)

adds a definitely Paleolithic character to the first two stages of the Siberdik culture, though at

present nothing can be said with confidence about its last stage. Considering the early Holocene

(absolute) date of these first two stages, it is entirely possible to assign them to the relict (Holocene)

Paleolithic, which changes along with the dying technology of wedge-shaped cores of the late, third

stage of the Siberdik culture into a very weakly reflected Mesolithic, and perhaps even immediately

into the Neolithic (depending on later finds in the upper layers).

Discoveries of the Siberdik culture in the upper Kolyma basin fills the existing gap in the

Paleolithic map of the Northeast and forces a reconsideration of Mochanov’s incorrect ideas about

the spread of the Diuktai culture (Mochanov 1977:236), and then even the Sumnagin (Mochanov

1977:241) culture, to the coast of the Sea of Okhotsk and Bering Strait, not to mention Kamchatka.

In fact, although there are a few similarities with the earlier Diuktai culture (bifacial leaf-shaped

projectile points, wedge-shaped cores), the Siberdik culture remains sharply different from it in

everything else. It has somewhat different burins, different and more massive skreblos, and no

bifacial knives at all. But above all, in the Siberdik complex are many quite specific triangular flakes

(points, large skreblo-like instruments, and uniface choppers), and the latter, as Mochanov

recognizes, are completely uncharacteristic for the Pleistocene and early Holocene sites of the

Aldan (Mochanov 1977:223).

The Sumnagin culture, including the final Paleolithic Ust’-Timpton stage as well, almost

completely coincides in time with the Siberdik culture, but it differs from it even more sharply than

the Diuktai. The difference here is not only in the weak development of the cobble industry (uniface

choppers) among the Sumnagin people, but in the complete lack among them of bifacial arrow

points, which are very typical for the Siberdik culture, as well as in a somewhat different economic

base: the Sumnagin people occupied themselves with fishing and hunted reindeer and moose, while

the Siberdik hunted reindeer and horse, being not at all occupied with fishing, judging by presently

available data.
76 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

For a reconstruction of the cultural connections of the Siberdik people, the most notable tools

are, of course, their uniface choppers and large—sometimes weighing several kilograms—stone

cleavers made from large pebbles and small cobbles trimmed along one edge of one side. These

coarse cobble tools immediately bring to memory the famous—earliest on the planet—and, of

course, even more primitive choppers of South and East Africa, and South and Southeast Asia

(Boriskovskii 1971). It is true, these tools are many hundreds of thousands of years old there, while

the Siberdik are hardly more than 10,000 and are assigned, judging by the stratigraphy and

radiocarbon dates, to the very end of the glacial period or to the very beginning of post-glacial

times. They are most similar to cobble tools of Priamur’e, where they were used for a long time,

from the very earliest stages of the Paleolithic known there, and of America, especially in the

Northwest where they are most often encountered in British Columbia. And if the age of the latter,

for example in the purest Nesikep complex (about 12,000 years) (Borden 1970:331–337), is

compared to the one in Priamur’e at Kumary III (25,000 to 30,000 years) (Derevianko 1971), then

it can be demonstrated that the choppers found on the Kolyma are precisely the missing link

between Asian and American tools of such kind, which for so long no one was able find in extreme

Northeast Asia.

This technological tradition was able to penetrate into America, in particular into British

Columbia, from the Kolyma only up to when the route was covered by Canadian ice sheet, that is,

no later than 20,000 to 23,000 years ago.

Therefore, the choppers found at the Siberdik site are a comparatively late relic of the Kolyma

chopper industry (just as in British Columbia) and attest to the unusual stability of this earliest

technological tradition of cobble tool manufacture in the far eastern region of northern Asia, and

about the important role this region played in its spread to America.

Thus, it can be said now with confidence that on the Kolyma, as a result of investigations by

the Northeastern Archaeological Expedition in 1971–1973, the original early Siberdik culture of

the relict Paleolithic was discovered. It is essentially different from the Diuktai and Sumnagin

cultures, and, like Kumary III in Priamur’e, it unites the early cobble industry of choppers with the

young industry of knife-like blades, bifacially worked stone knives, and leaf-shaped projectile

points. This culture of distinctive, previously unknown appearance, represented on the Kolyma

already by two sites—the bottom layer of the Siberdik site and the site on Kongo Creek—occupies

an intermediate position between the Paleolithic cultures of the southern Far East and America and

therefore is very significant for solving the problem of the settlement of America.

The Maltan Complex

At the Maltan site (170) two cultural layers were found that reflect a very distinctive

technological evolution, beginning without ceramics somewhat earlier than the second period of

the Siberdik culture (7490 ± 70 B.P., MAG–183) and terminating in the ceramic Neolithic (4450 ±

50 B.P., Kril–247; 3690 ± 50 B.P., Kril–246). The distinctiveness of this cultural evolution consists

of the many special features in the stone inventory when compared with that from Siberdik, which

developed right beside it, and above all in the complete absence of cobble tools (uniface choppers)

so characteristic for the Kongo and Siberdik sites. It might even be possible to speak of a separate

Maltan culture, but rather than do that, we will just evaluate the uniqueness of the Maltan site. It is
Nikolai N. Dikov 77

more expedient at present to examine the material collected there only as an unusual cultural

complex in its development from the lower to the upper layer.

In its early stage it is typically pre-Neolithic, without ceramics and ground tools. A large part

of the tools were made from silicified ashy tuff, but artifacts of both gray and black siliceous slate

are found, as well as very rarely of yellow flint and chalcedony. Cores at this stage are conical and

prismatic with two platforms (Dikov 1977b:Pl. 194:1–4). Some of them, chalcedony, are very

broad and preserve cobble cortex on one of their platforms (Dikov 1977b:Pl. 194:3). Knife-like

blades have more or less regular geometric outlines and vary from small to sometimes very large:

some of them are retouched along the edges (Fig. 35:10, 12, 13) (Dikov 1977b:Pl. 194:5–14). One

Figure 35. Core, arrow point, burins, knife-like blades, and blade flakes from the early Maltan cultural complex (1–13).
78 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

large knife-like blade has a sharpened end and is modified on the back by flat retouch so that it might

serve as a knife (Fig. 35:6). Arrow points are all of gray siliceous slate, very thin and flat in cross

section, extended triangular in form, with a straight truncated base (Fig. 35:2). Dihedral burins are

on flakes (Fig. 35:4, 8), many of them having the appearance of gravers retouched on the dorsal side

(Fig. 35:3, 5). Knives are represented by leaf-shaped bifaces, a large part having irregular form and

coarse trimming by heavy retouch predominantly only along the edges (Fig. 36:7) (Dikov 1977b:Pl.

195). One handaxe-like tool of yellow flint was found. The most characteristic artifacts are

combination tools in the form of skreblo-like adzes, completely unground, rather coarsely flaked,

often partially retaining the cobble cortex (Fig. 36:1–5). They are rather massive and could have

easily served as the equivalent of earlier Neolithic adzes, which in this Late Neolithic stage are

entirely absent.

At present ground tools are still unknown for the later facies of the Maltan complex and

skreblo-like flaked adzes are still characteristic (Fig. 37:6, 7). But now ceramics appear—a single

fragment that was found in the upper layer at the Maltan site. It is burned inside and decorated along

the rim by a ribbed ridge (Fig. 38:12).

Figure 36. Stone skreblo-like/adze-like tools and knives from the early Maltan cultural complex (1–9).
Nikolai N. Dikov 79

For this late Maltan stage chalcedony artifacts, flakes, and spalls typically predominate. Cores

are now more amorphous, though a tendency for them to be prismatic is still preserved (Fig. 38:1).

Knife-like blades become smaller (Fig. 38:7–9). Points of arrows now acquire an indented base

(Fig. 38:2, 3). Burins, as before, remain dihedral (Fig. 38:4, 5) and, as before, gravers are retouched

(Fig. 38:10, 11). Also, knives preserve their previous form of more or less crudely worked, leafshaped bifaces and more indefinite forms (Fig. 37:1–3, 5). Scrapers, made from chalcedony, are

meanwhile end types, rather insignificant in form and finish.

Thus, in the development of the Maltan complex a notable coarsening in the technology of

finishing tools can be observed, but the types of tools remain basically the same as before. The

transition to Maltan’s evidently late Neolithic phase occurs here without notable technological shift,

if we don’t consider the appearance of clay vessels and the remains of some surface dwellings (part

of the foundation of one was found in the upper layer of the Maltan site in 1975). By now the

important historic place of the Maltan complex among the other sites of Northeast Asia can be seen.

Above all, its connection with the complex of stone artifacts from the lower layer of the

Kukhtui III site, near the city of Okhotsk, can be clearly identified. Similar are biface leaf-shaped

Figure 37. Knives and skreblo-like/adze-like tools from the ashy tuff of the late Maltan cultural complex (1–7).
80 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

knives (Figs. 36:7; 37:5) (Dikov 1977b:Pl. 195:4, 5, 8; Mochanov 1977:Pl. 28:8, 10, 11),

subtriangular biface arrow points (Fig. 35:2) (Mochanov 1977:Pl. 28:5), and massive three-sided

blades, retouched like knives (or, as Mochanov suggests, spear points) in the Kukhtui complex

(Mochanov 1977:Pl. 28:9), while in the Maltan complex such blades did not undergo such treatment

and probably served only as blanks for analogous tools (Fig. 35:6, 7). Skreblo-like/adze-like tools

similar to those of the Maltan complex (Fig. 36:3–5) are seen in the Kukhtui artifact that Mochanov

presumably considers a knife blank (Mochanov 1977:Pl. 28:12). Only the absence of knife-like

blades and prismatic and conical cores at the Maltan site, which are very characteristic for the lower

layer (Fig. 35:1, 12, 13) (Dikov 1977b:Pl. 194), prevents complete similarity between the Maltan and

Kukhtui complexes. However, the presence in Kukhtui of the mentioned knives on blades

(Mochanov 1977:Pl. 28:9) permits suggesting sufficient development there of the technology of

removing blades from prismatic cores, and their absence in the Kukhtui complex can meanwhile

be explained by the fact that it has still been only very superficially studied by Mochanov.

It goes without saying that the Maltan complex has almost nothing in common, in technicaltypological regard, with the synchronic Sumnagin culture. The Maltan’s clearly reflected bifacial

nature is not comparable to the predominantly unifacial nature of the Sumnagin stone artifacts. The

subtriangular arrow (or dart) points, similar to those of Kukhtui, have nothing at all in common with

the incompletely retouched, lamellar stemmed points (Mochanov 1977:Pl. 86) that Mochanov

prefers to ascribe to the Sumnagin culture, which so far completely lacks any kind of reliable

projectile points. Thus, it becomes evident that in post Paleolithic times, on the threshold of the

Neolithic on the upper Kolyma, another Mesolithic culture developed, in addition to the Siberdik

culture, that was also sharply different from the inner-continental Sumnagin culture in Yakutia.

Figure 38. Stone artifacts and a fragment of ceramics from the late Maltan cultural complex (1–12).
Nikolai N. Dikov 81

Thus, Mochanov’s (1977:Pl. 86) scheme—that the so-called Sumnagin unifacial culture, like the

Diuktai, spread to the Pacific Ocean, reaching northern Priokhot’e—cannot be confirmed by the

facts. R. Powers turned out to be correct, having suggested that the Sumnagin culture had not

spread so far into the Northeast (Powers 1973).

At the same time, available materials on the archaeology of post Paleolithic Chukotka,

especially the Osinov-Krasinsk complex, have something principally in common with the Maltan

complex in the technique of manufacture of crudely worked skreblos and bifacial leaf-shaped knives

that are found together with knife-like blades (Dikov 1977b:Pls. 86–88). With regard to the several

sites on the lower reaches of the Kolyma that are assigned to the Sumnagin culture (Panteleikha I–

VIII, Pirs), their being dated to pre-Neolithic times by Mochanov is based on such “clear”

indicators as the lack of ceramics among the finds and in the similarity of end scrapers on massive

lamellar flakes with ones of Sumnagin (Mochanov 1977:203–206, Pl. 75:11–18, 22) One is not

instilled with much confidence in this date if one recalls Mochanov’s observation (in connection with

an analogous scraper from the Shilo River) that such scrapers were used “in the early Iron Age as

Figure 39. Neolithic cultures of eastern Siberia and the Far East. 1—Lower Lena; 2—Middle Lena; 3—Angara; 4—Zabaikal’e;

5—Middle Amur; 6—Lower Amur; 7—Primor’e; 8—Sakhalin. I—North Chukotka; II—Ust’-Belaia; III—Tar’ia; IV—North

Okhotsk (Cultures 1–8, according to A. P. Okladnikov).
well” (Mochanov 1977:94). (We can add to this that such scrapers, even with sharpened “ears,” were

found in such comparatively late sites as the Chini cemetery, Cape Sivuiskii in Kuril’skoe Lake,

Kavran, and others [Dikov 1974]).

Finally, connections are now noted between the Maltan complex and the Kamchatka postPaleolithic culture—with such recently found sites as Kisun I and Lopatka IV—the similarity being

in the bifacial working of knives and in types of distinctive gravers and middle burins (Dikova

1973:198, 1978; Ruban 1978).

Thus, the very definite impression is formed that the early Maltan complex of the upper

Kolyma area, just as the Siberdik culture, is part of the North Pacific Ocean (Far Eastern) sphere

of basic technological traditions, and not that of the Yakutian Sumnagin. In contrast to the

predominantly unifacial Sumnagin, the Maltan complex is bifacial. It is completely Mesolithic in

technical-typological regard also and can be placed entirely within the interval between the final

Paleolithic Cultural Layer V of the Ushki sites on Kamchatka and their late Mesolithic or Early

Neolithic Cultural Layer IV. The following discussion is devoted to examining Cultural Layer IV.

82 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia
The Neolithic of

Kamchatka

The First Ushki “Mesolithic”

or Early Neolithic Culture

The end of post-glacial warming (the so-called climatic optimum) coincides in Kamchatka with

the spread there of the Early Neolithic hunting-fishing culture represented by archaeological

remains in the form of traces of burials and hearths in Level IV of the Ushki sites (1, 2, and 4) (Dikov

1977b:60, 61, 69, 70). and at present some finds on the western coast of Kamchatka (Fig. 40) (Ruban

1977:238, 1978).

According to the palynological data of Level IV of the Ushki sites, this period corresponds

to significantly greater afforestation than in Levels V–VII lying below (Shilo, Dikov, and Lozhkin

1967:38).

This evidently partially accounts for the reduction of areas of sites beginning with Level IV and

above at Cape Kamen’ (Ushki I) in comparison with Levels V–VII.

From the local Paleolithic culture the extremely weak tradition of use of prismatic cores is

retained in the culture being examined in Cultural Layer IV, in particular unifacial cores (Fig. 41:3).

Also in evidence are more or less regular knife-like blades of various sizes, apparently used chiefly

without reworking. The manufacture of leaf-shaped bifaces that reached large dimensions at times

was continued (Fig. 41:24). As before, bifacially retouched, oblong arrow points, which became

broader (Fig. 41:10, 11), were still occasionally used, while their narrow prototypes completely fell

from use. The use of scrapers on broad blades was still preserved, reworked on all sides by edge

retouch (Fig. 41:32), as well as end scrapers on flakes (Fig. 41:29). On the whole, very little of the

Paleolithic traditions remained in the industry of the early Neolithic culture. Most noticeable was

the complete loss of technical skill in the manufacture of wedge-shaped cores.

Instead of wedge-shaped cores, prismatic and conical cores and the forms derived from

them attained widespread development (Fig. 41:1–9). Knife-like blades in forms often larger

than before become strictly geometrical, and the edges in many cases are retouched all around

(Fig. 41:22). Large and medium size blades now predominate quantitatively over microblades.

Dihedral and lateral burins on blades appeared (Fig. 41:16). A lateral burin on a large blade

retouched along the edge (Fig. 41:17) and a blade with lateral concavity (Fig. 41:23) were found

as well. Scrapers were developed and differentiated (Figs. 41:28, 30, 33). Completely flaked

skreblo-like adzes (Fig. 41:18) and stemmed projectile points made from large blades only partially

retouched along the edges (Fig. 41:14) were used. A series of arrow points, rhomboid in cross

section, with a more or less clearly distinguished triangular stem, worked by oblique retouch, can

also be assigned to innovations as well (Fig. 41:12, 13).
84 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Figure 40. Neolithic sites of Kamchatka, the Kolyma, and Chukotka. 1—Tar’in culture; 2—southern variant of the Tar’in culture;

3—Pre-Koryak culture; 4—North Chukotkan culture; 5—Ust’-Belaia culture; 6—Paleo-Eskimo culture; 7—other Neolithic sites:

I—Ioniveem; II—Matachen (187); III—Ekityki (185); IV—Tytyl’; V—Rytkyl’veem (200).
Nikolai N. Dikov 85

Judging by the materials from other territories, there are no complexes completely identical

to the one described. Its individual elements were spread almost throughout all northern Asia,

including Chukotka, in the European north, and to a lesser degree in Arctic North America. They

attained their largest concentration in the Lena River basin, in the Angara-Yenisei region, in

Kazakhstan, in Zabaikal’e, and in the Japanese Islands, where their age fluctuates from the eighth

to the third and sometimes second millennium B.C. The earliest elements were concentrated on the

Aldan, in Pribaikal’e and Zabaikal’e, and in the Japanese Islands.

The closest analogies are encountered in Chukotka on the Amguema River (at 102 km) at the

Third site (80). Conical flint cores and arrow points of rhomboidal section were found there (Dikov

1977b:Pl. 111:8). Unfortunately, only fragments of them were found, but nevertheless they can be

Figure 41. Stone artifacts of the first Ushki Early Neolithic culture (1–33). 1, 6, 19—Ushki I (1); the remaining—Ushki II (2).
86 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

compared with Ushki finds from Cultural Layer IV. The Third site, being sharply distinct from other

Amguema sites by its lack of ceramics and distinctive points, can be considered without doubt the

earliest in the Amguema Valley. The similarity of this non-ceramic complex with that of Kamchatka

is so close that it could be assigned along with the complex of Cultural Layer IV of the Ushki sites

(1, 2, 4) to one and the same culture, which we would call the Kamchatka-Amguema culture. If,

however, we do not do this it is only because the Amguema complex unfortunately is a surface

collection and therefore has no stratigraphic association. Although the collection contains very

diagnostic artifacts, their numbers are too small.

On the Aldan, the Sumnagin Mesolithic culture of the eighth to fifth millennia B.C. is

characterized by entirely non-ground, flaked skreblo-like adzes from Cultural Layer VIII of the

Bel’kachi I site (sixth and fifth millennia B.C.), similar to those of Ushki from Cultural Layer IV of

the Ushki II site, the same kind of prismatic cores, and a whole series of similar conical cores

reworked on all sides (including pencil-like) or unifacial, as well as knife-like blades with and without

retouch along the edges (Mochanov 1969b:Pls. 10, 6, 12, 2, 15; 1, 6; 3, 9; 12). All these analogies

might be viewed as evidence of a definite role of the Sumnagin culture in the origin of the Ushki

complex being examined, and we have already turned our attention to this (Dikov 1971,

1977b:123). However, Mochanov’s conclusion, based on this, about the spread into Kamchatka of

the Sumnagin culture itself (Mochanov 1977), is entirely unjustified in light of the available data. In

distinction from the Sumnagin culture, both bifacial knives and bifacial arrow points are found in

the Ushki culture, and these elements of it are better portrayed by the recently discovered Maltan

complex than by the Sumnagin culture. Mochanov’s conclusion becomes all the more suspect, if one

considers the comparatively late date of the Ushki culture under examination, which is closer in time

to the Maltan complex than to the Sumnagin.

We must remember that on the basis of comparison with surrounding cultures that the culture

of Ushki Cultural Layer IV is dated to the fourth and third millennia B.C. (Dikov 1971; 1977c:123,

124). Subsequent radiocarbon determinations have corroborated and made this date more exact.

The absolute date obtained was 4200 ± 100 B.P. (MAG–132).

Judging by everything, the presently known Kamchatka “late Mesolithic” or Early Neolithic

culture emerged as a result of divergence of the broader post-Paleolithic “Mesolithic” cultural

community, in which the Maltan people appeared during the eighth to fifth millennia B.C. In this

Early Neolithic Kamchatkan culture some indigenous elements still held on, which can be traced

back to early post-Paleolithic times.

Its connections with the south through the Kurile Islands were probably extremely limited. An

entirely different culture with insignificant use of knife-like blades developed there at that time

(Vasil’evskii 1975b). Kamchatkan cultural connections were carried out at that time primarily

through Chukotka. The whole exogenous part of the innovations of Kamchatkan culture that are

being reviewed could have spread there only from Chukotka. Therefore, the great significance in

the early history of the Northeast of the Amguema non-ceramic complex (80) is quite clear, having

a common origin with the Kamchatkan culture and located at the crossroads of Asia and America.

Cultural contacts of the Amguema-Kamchatka Early Neolithic or late Mesolithic at this time,

however, are very undeveloped. They are illustrated only by the elements of culture (especially

bifacial leaf-shaped points and knives) adopted by the Kamchatka (Cultural Layer IV of the Ushki

sites) and Amguema complexes from the Ushki final Paleolithic and spread to America in the early
Nikolai N. Dikov 87

and middle Holocene. The overwhelming number of analogies with cultures of northwestern

America are dated to the sixth and fifth millennia B.C. (the Cordilleran culture and complexes DiRi3, Kaiyuk, and Flint Creek), some to the fourth and third millennia B.C. (the complexes of Denby

and Pointed Mountain, a site on Takli Island, and Lochnor Nesikep), and Anangula, to the eighth

millennium B.C.

There are prismatic and conical cores with two platforms on Anangula; conical cores as well

at Lochnor Nesikep (Beregovaia 1957:Fig. 4:3; Laughlin 1963:Fig. I:1; Sanger 1966:Pl. VII:C);

knife-like blades retouched on both edges in the Denby complex (Giddings 1964:Fig. 47, Fig. 53:5);

end scrapers (Fig. 41:29) in the Flint Creek complex, the Denby complex, and at Pointed Mountain

(Beregovaia 1967:Fig. 2:12, 13; Giddings 1964:Fig. 70:B, 2, 3, 10, 11; McNeish 1959); symmetrical

leaf-shaped biface-knives in the complexes of Pointed Mountain and Kaiyuk I and in the Cordilleran

culture (Beregovaia 1967:Fig. 5:18; Butler 1961:Fig. 4:K; Campbell 1962:Pl. 2:13); asymmetrical

biface-knives on Takli Island, in the Cordilleran culture, and in particular at the DiRi-3 (in British

Columbia), as well as in the Kaiyuk complex (Borden 1962:Pl. I:e; Butler 1961:Fig. 4:a, c, k;

Campbell 1962:Pl. 2:13, 14; Dumond 1969:Pl. VII:g); and elongated leaf-shaped arrow points in

the Cordilleran culture (Butler 1961:Fig. 3:B, f).

Such things as arrow points of rhomboid cross section, typical for the Ushki and Amguema

complexes at the end of the third and second millennia B.C., are encountered in similar forms in the

Neolithic of Zabaikal’e (the so-called awl from Shilkin Cave) (Okladnikov 1970:Fig. 12:12), on the

Aldan (in the Syalakh culture) (Mochanov 1969:Pl. 24:8), and on Hokkaido (in the pre-ceramic site

of Magarikawa) (Morlan 1967:Fig. 20:3), and not at all in America. This is the clearest evidence of

emerging isolation at the end of the second millennium B.C. between inner-continental cultures of

Northeast Asia and America. Playing the role of barrier, of course, was Bering Strait, on the shores

of which a specialized sea mammal hunting culture had probably settled even at that time,

preventing entry of influences into America from inner-continental cultures of Northeast Asia

oriented toward land hunting and river and lake fishing.

The problem of ethnic membership of the Ushki culture we are examining has attracted the

attention of anthropologists and ethnographers. It is possible that the ethnicity derived from

ancestors common to several peoples of the Northeast, most probably the Itel’men, a people whose

ancestors, judging by all the data, settled in Kamchatka earlier than the Koryak and certainly earlier

than the Ainu.

The idea of a definite role of the Ushki “Mesolithic” or Early Neolithic culture in the formation

of the Itel’men seems extremely probable to us in light of recent ethnographic-linguistic

investigations by Vdovin, which convincingly indicate the isolation of this people in language and

culture from northeastern Paleo-Asiatics—the Chukchi and Koryak (Vdovin 1970).27

Essential in this connection, first of all, is the fact that this Ushki fishing culture, and along with

it probably the very early ancestors of the Itel’men, was able to come into Kamchatka during the

middle of the Holocene, that is, at the end of the climatic optimum, by a continental route from

more southern regions of eastern Siberia and the Far East, probably from Zabaikal’e or the more

eastern regions of southern Siberia. This is indicated by some essential features of similarity of our

27P. Ya. Skorik also suggested that the Itel’men language was isolated earlier from the Chukchi language and has had more

intensive influence from a different language.
88 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Ushki culture with the Gromatukha culture (blade technology, bifaces, and adze-like/skreblo-like

tools) (Okladnikov and Derevianko 1977), with the Novopetrovsk culture (knife-like blades)

(Derevianko 1977), and with the Ononsk Neolithic culture (in particular, prismatic and conical

cores and knife-like blades retouched along the edges from Lake Irgen’) (Larichev and Rizhskii

1966:Figs. 6:5, 7; 8:12, 14; 14:1, 2). The presence in the named cultures of ceramics is not in accord

with this idea. However, the spread of southern ancestors into the north could have begun in preceramic times. From the left bank in the Amur region and eastern Zabaikal’e through Chukotka

when the climate was warmer than now and the landscape more abundant with vegetation, they were

able to bring into Kamchatka the many skills of experts and collectors of grasses very characteristic

for the Itel’men, not losing them along the way. Under the conditions of central Kamchatka, with

its climate more favorable than in Chukotka, these skills of collectors of vegetable foods were

preserved. During the period of subsequent cooling, when conditions in Chukotka and northern

Kamchatka did not favor this much, they stabilized and were passed through inheritance to the

“historic” Itel’men, who found themselves for a long time afterward isolated, surrounded by tundra

and sea on their part of the peninsula flourishing in wild vegetation.

Being isolated they preserved their archaic technology longer than their neighbors in Chukotka

and Yakutia, in particular, the custom of getting by without clay vessels, evidently employing an

early method of boiling water with heated stones.

Thus, the Kamchatka Peninsula remained a region of remnant post Paleolithic (“Mesolithic”)

traditions for a long time during the Neolithic period, similar to what it had been earlier, at the

beginning of the Holocene. It was the region of a distinctive relict Paleolithic culture.

The Second Ushki “Late Mesolithic”

or Neolithic Culture

To “late Mesolithic” we assign the complex of the stone artifacts found near the hearths in

Cultural Layer III of the first and second Ushki sites (I and II). Taking into account the significant

similarity of this complex with the previous one from Cultural Layer III, we are only tentatively able

to interpret its membership to a particular culture. It is possible that both these complexes belong

to different stages of one and the same culture. With this condition understood, we set about

analyzing the complex of artifacts from Cultural Layer III.

This complex (Dikov 1977b:Pl. 9:17, 18) consists primarily of knife-like blades of different

sizes, but predominantly longer ones of often exceptionally regular forms without retouch (Fig.

42:1–3), with edge retouch (Fig. 42:6), and insets with both sides completely retouched (Fig. 42:15).

In this complex is included a fragment of a stemmed arrow point made on a blade (Fig. 42:7), very

distinctive three-edged file-like points without a stem (Fig. 42:8) and with a stem (Fig. 42:9–12),

fragments of leaf-shaped biface-knives (Fig. 42:16), unifacially retouched knives with blades with

a pointed end (Fig. 42:17), scrapers with a convex edge (Fig. 42:18), a coarsely flaked unifacially

convex adze or skreblo (Fig. 42:19), punches (Fig. 42:5), and a lateral burin on a knife-like blade

(Fig. 42:14). Cores are absent, possibly by chance, from this complex, though prismatic blades

flaked from them form its characteristic feature. Also absent are ceramics and ground tools, owing

to which we are not justified in assigning it to the Developed Neolithic in the usual understanding
Nikolai N. Dikov 89

of this term, though, judging by the character of the arrow points, as will be shown below, it is most

similar to sites of the Developed Neolithic.

To the earlier first Ushki Mesolithic or Early Neolithic culture this complex is genetically

connected by the presence of small and larger knife-like blades, which at times are very long and,

additionally, retouched along the edges; leaf-shaped biface-knives; and burins on knife-like blades.

Its remaining components should be viewed as innovation of possibly partially endogenous

character but also exogenous in significant measure.

Determining the endogeny of the new creations in this complex, as of many of our other

complexes, is substantially more difficult than exogeny.

A large portion of the new objects of this complex are very uncharacteristic and not very

diagnostic, making it difficult to judge with confidence the complex’s exogenic or exclusively

indigenous origin. Parallels to these uncharacteristic artifacts, as we see below, can be found in very

different cultures, so to connect them with some of the cultures, not to mention all of them, would

be incorrect. On the other hand, these insignificant innovations might even be endogenous.

Completely original artifacts are unknown at present in the second Ushki Neolithic culture. Its

knife-like blades are widespread. Scrapers and knives are also very common in different cultures.

More diagnostic are its adze-like skreblos, though they are encountered in many cultures from the

late Paleolithic to the Neolithic (Medvedev 1966b:Figs. 8:14; 10:12; 1967:Fig. 2). Bifacially

retouched insets are perhaps more unique and can be assigned to a narrower chronological range—

the fourth to first millennia B.C. (Korobkova 1965:Fig. 3:a; Larsen and Rainey 1948:Pl. 13:3–5;

Okladnikov 1946:Pl. XX:5).

Figure 42. Stone artifacts of the second Ushki Neolithic culture. 1, 10, 12—Ushki I (1); the remaining—Ushki II (2).
90 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Perhaps only stemmed points on blades (Fig. 42:7) can be considered an element of

endogenous innovation of the second Ushki Neolithic culture. In the near vicinity are no analogies

to this type.

With regard to three-sided file-shaped points, the stemless type (Fig. 42:18) is clearly an

exogenous form, while the unique stemmed type (Fig. 42:9, 10) is evidently an indigenous

transformation of it, a hybrid of stemmed points with rhomboid cross section (Fig. 41:8, 9), which

preceded the first Ushki Neolithic culture, and imported stemless ones.

For this reason three-sided points are the most interesting as a dating element for the culture

we are examining.

First to turn attention to their significance for dating northern cultures of Siberia, particularly

the Late Neolithic of the lower Lena, was Okladnikov, who found them in the lower basal level of

the Uolba settlement and near Cape Obukh. He compared them with similar points from

Scandinavia, where they had been widely spread, in his opinion, from northern Siberia around 1500

B.C., during the period of single burials in stone boxes (Okladnikov 1946:Fig. 3:2; Pls. V:6, 7; XII:1;

1955:131). This made it possible for him to speak of the origin of a non-Europoid component in

northern Scandinavia, one coming from northern Yakutia during the second millennium B.C., and

to determine this time as the upper limit of the earliest complexes of finds in the lower Lena

connected, in his opinion, with the lower level of the settlement and the burial at the Uolba kyrdal.

Later, Mochanov also writes about three-sided file-like points in the Yakutian Neolithic but

assigns them to the Syalakh culture of the fourth millennium B.C. He connects them with complexes

that contained net-impressed pottery (Mochanov 1969b:Pl. 15:2, 5). It must be noted, however,

that the points found by Mochanov in Level VII of the main Bel’kachi I site are somewhat different

from the lower Lena three-sided points found by Okladnikov in Uolba and on Cape Obykh. The

Bel’kachi points might be more correctly called unifacially convex with leaf-shaped form. This was

possibly a more archaic variety of the future three-sided point of northern and northeastern Siberia,

which would have a cross section like an equilateral triangular. However, if this is so, comparing

them with our Kamchatka point would hardly be correct. The latter belong to the Uolba type,

which, judging by excavations in the north in recent years, belongs not to the fourth millennium B.C.,

but rather more likely to the second, and in some cases even to the third, millennium B.C. In the

Buolkalaakh site on the Olenek River they were found in a complex of second to beginning of the

first millennium B.C. (Glushinskii and Khlobystin 1966:Fig. 3:4, 2; Konstantinov 1969:222).

Fedoseeva (1969:223, 224), who excavated the Chuchur-Muransk cemetery near Yakutsk, assigns

them to the second millennium, to the Ymyiakhtakh culture. They were also found in Tuoi-Khai on

the upper Viliui, where excavations are dated to the third millennium B.C. (Fedoseeva 1969:15).

Three-sided points are known also in Chukotka. One of them, completely whole, stemless,

worked by the finest flattening retouch on all three sides, was found in the 1930s by A. K. Sed’ko

on the Velikaia River, but unfortunately without clear association to a cultural level. A fragment of

a second was extracted, along with check-stamped pottery, from the cultural level of a Late

Neolithic site on Chirovoe Lake (51),28 probably belonging to the second millennium B.C. More than

28Dikov numbers the sites of extreme Northeast Asia (pp. 249–257) in Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki Kamchatki, Chukotki i

Verkhnei Kolymy. Aziia na styke s Amerikoi v drevnosti, Nauka, Moscow, 1977 (published in translation as Archaeological Sites of

Kamchatka, Chukotka, and the Upper Kolyma by the Beringian Shared Heritage Program of the National Park Service, Anchorage

AK 2003).—Trans.
Nikolai N. Dikov 91

ten three-sided points were collected by M. A. Kiriyak on the Tytyl’ V site in the upper Aniui basin

in northwestern Chukotka in 1977. These, as far as we know, exhaust northern parallels to

Kamchatka three-sided points.

At the present time, three-sided points are known in Japan in early Neolithic complexes. Some

of them, in the form of pyramidal awls, were found on northeastern Honshu Island in Khimuka Cave

together with ceramics of early Jomon (5000–3000 B.C.) (Yamanouchi Sugao and Sato Tatsuo

1962:Fig. 5–1). Others, in the form of rods sharpened on both ends, were found in the probably

even earlier pre-ceramic complex of Sunagawa (Tozawa 1968:Fig. 4–5) and at Kosegosawa (8000–

7000 B.C.) (Ikawa 1964:Fig. 4–6). In the opinion of the Japanese archaeologists, all these points and

“three-sided awls” were imported into Japan. And this apparently is the case since comparatively

few of them are found in the Japanese Islands, in spite of the exceptional study of the Japanese region

in archaeological regard.

The unexpected and substantially greater antiquity of three-sided points in Japan than in Siberia

makes one take notice. The difference is at least 1,000 years. The problem that emerges: is it possible

to consider northern Yakutia as the region of their origin or is it in more southern regions?

It can be proposed that the three-sided points of Kamchatka are somewhat earlier than those

on the lower Lena and the Olenek, and that in the complex with early Jomon ceramics on Honshu

Island such points appeared at the very end of the fourth millennium B.C., coming from Kamchatka.

However, if this is the case we would be forced to depart entirely from the questionable postulate

of the possibility of these things penetrating from Kamchatka into Japan by the shortest route—

through the Kurile Islands. The invalidated find by Jochelson of a three-sided stemmed point

(preserved in Government Historical Museum in collection No. 96, in the third section of

depository)—if it actually originated in southern Kamchatka—might serve as evidence, though

very weak, for the spread of three-sided points from the valley of the Kamchatka River south

toward the Kurile Islands. However, the proposal of their farthest advance through the Kurile

Islands is not confirmed at present by comparison of the antiquity of those from the islands with

the Kamchatkan ones for the time period we are examining. We do not find there one analogy, for

the period being compared, to the second Ushki Neolithic complex, and this circumstance does not

make it proper to speak of a connection between Kamchatka and Japan in the fourth and third

millennia through the Kurile Islands. Subsequently, even the need for an increase in the age of this

Kamchatkan complex, up to the end of the fourth millennium, no longer arises. Being dated on the

basis of the presence of three-sided points and taking into account all that has been said, this

complex should have been tentatively assigned to the beginning of the second millennium B.C. Until

new archaeological materials are gathered regarding connections in other directions, the second

Ushki Neolithic complex is closest stylistically to the complex of finds at Osinovskaia Spit (63) in

Chukotka, where there are biface-knives and knife-like blades, and among the three-sided blanks

of cores is even one that by its thin rod-like form, pointed at both ends, is almost exactly identical

to the three-sided stemless points (Dikov 1977b:Pl. 84:4). Connections with other Neolithic sites

of the Anadyr’ River basin in Chukotka are documented by a fragment (already mentioned) of a

three-sided point from the site at Chirovoe Lake (51), where there are, in addition, similar knifelike blades, as well as a large quantity of similar types of knife-like blades, burins on blades, and insets

from the early Ust’-Belaia complex (72).

Analogies with the Yakutian Neolithic are very extensive. To the above-mentioned three-sided

points, it is possible to add here Uolba lateral burins on blades (Okladnikov 1946:Pl. IV:11), insets
92 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

from Chokurovka that are retouched all around (Okladnikov 1946:Pl. XX:5), knife-like blades

retouched along the edges from Levels VI–VII of the Bel’kachi I site (Mochanov 1969b:Pls. 14:19,

22; 22:26), and leaf-shaped biface-knives from Cape Obukh. All these analogies are assigned to the

fourth and third millennia B.C.

Judging by the analogies cited above, there were direct contacts between this Kamchatkan

culture and Chukotka and Yakutia adjoining on the north. Through these territories contacts

were carried out even with the more distant polar regions of Eurasia. If one considers the

archaeological analogies in Pechora29 as well, this northern zone of the Old World becomes a

field of very active movement of people, ideas, and things. At the same time connections with the

south begin to weaken somewhat, though complete isolation of the north from the south did not

occur, and here and there—from Kazakhstan to the Japanese Islands—many (apparently initial)

elements of culture similar to Kamchatkan continued to be preserved: the blade technology, in

particular lateral burins on blades (Formozov 1959b:No. 2:Fig. 2:3—referring to the collections

Figure 43. Complex of stone artifacts common for the northern and southern Tar’in cultures. 1, 5, 15, 19, 21—Domashnee Lake (7);

24—Kozyrevskii Sovkhoz (9); 18—Ushki II, Cultural Layer II; 14—Kultuk (5); 7, 11, 13—Tar’ia (284); 2, 4, 6, 17—Kirpichnaia

(44); 9, 20, 23—Mishennaia Sopka (43), Cultural Layer 2; 3—Elizovo 1 (42); 8, 10, 12, 16, 22—Elizovo II (42).

29We mean a blade technology similar to the Kamchatkan, in particular, blades from the Pechora site (second millennium B.C.)

retouched along the edges (Gurina 1957:No. 2:Fig. 2:4).
Nikolai N. Dikov 93

of G. F. Debets at Ust’-Kiakhta), leaf-like biface-knives (Korobkova 1965:Fig. 4:2—bifaces from

Ust’-Narym in Kazakhstan; Viazovskaia 1968:Fig. 2:6—bifaces from the Sakhalin Neolithic with

knife-like blades), completely retouched insets (Korobkova 1965:Fig. 3:a; Okladnikov 1946:Pl.

XX:5—biface from Chokurovka), rod-like punches (Korobkova 1965:Fig. 2:l, n), blades

retouched along the edge (Larichev and Rizhskii 1968:Fig. 8:12, 14—Lake Irgent in Zabaikal’e;

Vasil’evskii 1968:116, Fig. 2:3), and blade technology in general in its less specific manifestations

(Derevianko 1970; Larichev 1960:Figs. 11–14; Vasil’evskii 1975b:62–68).

Northern activity was also reflected in the spread of similar elements into Alaska: lateral burins

on knife-like blades (Bandi 1969:Fig. 64; Giddings 1967:Fig. 107) and blades retouched along the

edges (Giddings 1964:Figs. 47; 53:5) into the Denby Flint complex (3000 B.C.), and microblades

still farther across Arctic North America—all the way to Greenland, where they are known in the

cultural complex of Independence I at the end of the third millennium B.C. (Bandi 1969:Fig. 64;

Giddings 1967:Fig. 107).

The examined culture, similar to the preceding, still bears an archaic character. In time it

conforms to the Neolithic cultures surrounding it, but its representatives, fishermen and hunters at

Ushki Lake, still do not use ceramics or grind their tools. This is the same population whose traces

were left in the lower-lying level of the Ushki sites and who in a subsequent stage became one of the

ancestors of the early Itel’men.

The Tar’in Culture of the Late Neolithic

At the end of the warming period, approximately in the second millennium B.C., the Neolithic

culture of Kamchatka had acquired a well-developed form. The first clay vessels appear, as well as

ground axes and a varied assortment of diverse, finely worked (by overall retouch) stone knives,

scrapers, and points of arrows and spears.

Sites of the Developed Neolithic of Kamchatka consist of two basic groups: the South

Kamchatkan and the Middle Kamchatkan (Figs. 39, 40).30

The sites near Petropavlovsk-Kamchatski are assigned to the first, earlier group: on the shore

of Tar’ia Bay (282–285), near Seroglazka Village (262), on the southwest slope of Mishennaia

Mountain (43), on Kirpichnaia Street (44), opposite Elizovo Village (42), on the left of the mouth

of the Avacha River (46), on the shore of Avacha Bay—Bol’shoi Kamen’ (277), and others (257,

271, 273, 276, 294–299, 306) (Antropova 1949; Dikov 1977b; Dikova 1976:235; Jochelson 1928;

Ponomarenko 1976:183–193; Rudenko 1948).

In the second group are sites in the Kamchatka River valley: near Kliuchi Village (12, 13), on

Domashnee Lake (7), in Zastoichik (6), and in Kultuk on the shore of Ushki Lake (5).

The material complexes of these sites are basically similar, in consequence of which they can

be assigned to one culture that we will call Tar’in after the name of the first site, which has been known

for a long time on the shore of Tar’ia Bay near Petropavlovsk-Kamchatski.

30A western Kamchatkan group of sites of the Tar’in culture was also outlined. This research was conducted by V. I. Ruban

(1977).
94 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Figure 44. Complex of stone artifacts from the northern zone of the Tar’in culture. 1, 24, 44, 48, 52—Kultuk (5); 2, 4, 7, 13, 16,

18, 36, 37, 40—Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer 2; 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19–22, 27, 28, 31–33, 35, 39, 42, 45, 46, 49–51—

Domashnee Lake; 18—Ushki I, Cultural Layer 2; 5—Kozyrevsk (8), surface; 23–25, 26, 29, 34, 41, 43, 47—Zastoichik (6); 11,

30—Elizovo (42), excavations of W. I. Jochelson (2168 and 2165).

 The artifacts represented in Figure 43 are assigned to the common elements of the Tar’in

culture, which are spread throughout its whole area. Local differences peculiar to its northern and

southern areas can be seen by comparing Figures 44 and 45.

If the stone artifacts of the Tar’in culture are examined as a whole, then this is one of the most

representative cultures of Kamchatka. The total number of different types of tools here is rather

large. They form two genetically unequal groups:

1. a group of artifacts reminiscent of earlier indigenous Neolithic types;

2. a group of artifacts appearing in Kamchatka for the first time.
Nikolai N. Dikov 95

Into the first group of artifacts, inherited from the indigenous Neolithic and probably of

autochthonous origin, fall: knife-like blades, unretouched (I–1, 2, 4) and retouched (I–6, 7); lateral

burins (I–3) and angle burins (I–5) on blades, from the site at Domashnee Lake (7); stemmed arrow

points of rhomboid section (P XI–1) and oblong leaf-shaped points (I–2c) from the same site (7),

as well as from the site on Kirpichnaia Street (44); and, finally, end scrapers (I–17) and end scrapers

on blades (II–1)—from Elizovo (42), Kultuk (5), and Domashnee Lake (7).

The enumerated artifacts may have an autochthonous origin, attesting to the preservation of

progressive technical traditions, in particular, industries of knife-like blades. The latter, however,

is developed relatively weaker than in the previous culture. It must be noted that used prismatic or

Figure 45. Complex of stone artifacts from the southern zone of the Tar’in culture. 1, 3, 5, 15, 19, 26–29, 35, 40, 42—Elizovo (42);

6—Elizovo (42), excavations of W. I. Jochelson (2166); 16, 22, 41—Elizovo (42), excavations of O. F. Gerts (MAE, 566—14, 7,

15); 2, 10, 11, 21, 24, 30, 31, 33, 34, 39—Kirpichnaia (44); 7, 18, 23, 33, 38—Mishennaia Sopka (43); 4, 17, 25—Mishennaia

Sopka, excavations of E. P. Orlova (Hermitage, 3956—7, 11, 29); 8, 9, 13, 14, 32, 36, 37—Tar’ia (after S. I. Rudenko); 12—

Bol’shoi Kamen’ (277), after A. K. Ponomarenko; 20—South Kamchatka (after Shnell).
96 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

conical cores are not encountered at all, though fragments of three-sided blanks were found twice

at the Elizovo site (42).

The overwhelming majority of the artifacts can be assigned to the second group in the Tar’in

culture.

Most numerous in this collection are retouched segmented insets (I–11) and sometimes only

partially retouched triangular ones (I–13); biface knives with a straight axis (II–4, 8; III–4, 5); various

asymmetrical stemless biface knives (IV–1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8) and stemmed ones (V–6, 8, 10, 14, 17, 18);

oblong ones with a trimmed back (VI–5); knives made from incompletely retouched flakes (VII–

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10); as well as ground knives of argillaceous slate: leaf-shaped double-edged with

straight axis (III–38) and single-edged (III–23).

The new types of scrapers and skreblos, which fall into this second group, are varied. To this

group belong end scrapers on concave blades (I–1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 16, 23), stemless (II–7, 12, 15, 18,

20, 23) and stemmed (II–26) ones on straight blades, varied combination scrapers-gravers (III–1,

3, 4, 15, 17; IV–2, 7, 23), scrapers-punches (III–18, 27), pear-shaped biface scrapers (V–1) and

trapeziform scrapers (VI–3), side scrapers on flakes (VII–3, 7, 10, 12, 15), massive skreblos (VIII–

24, IX–7, X–5), grooved spokeshaves on knife-like blades (XII–1) and more massive ones (XII–

3, 4), and a skreblo-like polisher (XIII–3).

The new types of projectile points are extraordinarily abundant and varied in form. Among

them are bifacially retouched arrow, dart, and spear points that are leaf-shaped (I–1b, 2b, 3b, 5b,

6aK, 9a, 9b; II–1b, 2b), stemmed (VII–2; VIII–9, 12; X–2, 5, 14M), and triangular with a straight

base (II–4b; V–a, b; VI–b) and with a concave base (V–bx), as well as only partially retouched

stemmed ones on flakes (O–5). The latter are very few.

New types of burins are represented by angled specimens on blades (I–1, 2), on flakes (IV–3),

dihedral (IV–5), core-like (II–1), and lateral with retouched tang (III–1). Punches have

similar retouched tangs (I–4, 6). But there are entirely different punches, probably small labrets

(type II–7).

All types of adzes are entirely new in the Tar’in culture. The most characteristic are unifacially

ground concave stone adzes of elongate-triangular form with a subtriangular cross section (III–3,

5), the same but relatively shorter and wider (III–8), and those less regular in outline (III–7).

Incompletely ground adzes are often found, which are the same in general as the triangular ones, but

with a lenticular, bi-convex cross section (IV–3, 2, 4). Among them is one that is not ground at all

(IV–8). It was found on Mishennaia Mountain (43).

Also, completely or partially ground adzes with geometrically irregular cross section, of

various dimensions, and having a more or less narrowing butt (V–9) should be noted, as well

possibly as an extremely rare type of adze with rectangular cross section (II–4)—if only the location

(Staryi Ostrog) where Gerts found it could be identified with the site we excavated in Elizovo (42)

(this adze is preserved in the MAE, collection 566–7, 8). Also, oblong unifacially convex chisel-like

tools (VII–2) belong to this same category of tools.

Finally, extremely important innovations are ceramics (though they are found in the sites of the

Tar’in culture in very small quantities and are indeterminate in appearance) and stone lamps (Dikov

1977b:Pl. 49:8).
Nikolai N. Dikov 97

To arrive at the estimation of age, we rely on the main complex from Cultural Layer II of the

Ushki site and on the statistical calculation of the dating analogies that we have drawn. We note that

the wealth of analogies to the rich artifact assemblage in the Tar’in culture makes statistical

calculations possible, but hardly makes a concrete and full enumeration of the analogies expedient.

We name only the basic and most characteristic of these dating analogies.

Subtriangular arrow points with indented bases (V–bx) are one of the characteristic types in

the Ust’-Belaia Neolithic culture in Chukotka. Occasionally they are encountered on Sakhalin (in the

Starodubskoe II site during the end of the second–beginning of the first millennium B.C.) (Kozyreva

1967:Fig. 4:12) and in the Kurile Islands, in particular on Shumshu Island: a collection, acquired

there in 1949–1952 by B. A. Podkovyrkin (Museum of Anthropology MGU, depository of the

department of archaeology, collection 503–79), is still unpublished. Truncated leaf-shaped,

subtriangular, and triangular arrow points with a straight base (II–4b; V–a; V–b) are also

encountered on Sakhalin Island, as well as in the second millennium B.C. cultural level on

Nedorazumeniia Island (Vasil’evskii 1965:Figs. 3:4; 4:1, 4). Stemmed arrow points have an even

broader distribution. They are found in all the above-noted Neolithic sites—on Zav’ialova Island

they were found in the Late Neolithic site, which is dated to the end of the first millennium B.C.

(Vasil’evskii 1965:Fig. 1:26). The mentioned types of points have an integral membership in

Neolithic cultures of Pribaikal’e, beginning with the Isakov stage (Okladnikov 1950c). The

remaining points have a leaf-shaped and rhomboid form, characteristic for many points of

Neolithic sites of the second and first millennia B.C. on Sakhalin Island, in the Kurile Islands, and in

Chukotka, where very many of them are in the Ust’-Belaia cemetery.

The leading form in the Developed Neolithic culture of Kamchatka is the humpbacked knife,

which is more or less broad and finely reworked by pressure retouch on both sides (IV–2, 3; V–

14; V–17, 18). Such knives are known on Sakhalin Island (Starodubskoe II) (Kozyreva 1967:Fig. 4:1,

2, 4), in the Kurile Islands (Chubarova 1960b:No. 2:Fig. 1:1), and in the Neolithic site of

Nedorazumeniia Island (Vasil’evskii 1965:Fig. 6:1). An especially strongly pronounced kind is

found in southern Kamchatka. This specific form of knife with ears (III–5) is encountered on

Nedorazumeniia Island among cultural remains belonging to the end of the second millennium B.C.

(Vasil’evskii 1968:Fig. 1:11).

The predominant type of scraper is the trapeziform, which is carefully worked by pressure

retouch (I–12, 17; II–18), and is known in the Ust’-Belaia Developed Neolithic of Chukotka (if

one uses for comparison sites from nearby territories); scrapers of pear-shaped form (I–11)—

in Late Neolithic sites of the northern part of the Okhostsk coast (on the islands of Zav’ialova

and Nedorazumeniia) (collection of the Museum of Anthropology MGU, No. 475–66, 67) and

in Level III of the Bel’kachi I site (Mochanov 1969b:Pl. 44:26); and bifacially retouched pearshaped scrapers (V–1)—on Shumshu Island (Museum of Anthropology MGU, No. 475–66, 67)

and in the Norton culture in Alaska (Giddings 1964:Pl. 57:17), as well as in Primor’e in

Zaisanovka I (sixteenth–twelfth centuries B.C.) (Andreev 1957:Fig. 4:12). At the Pkhusun site in

Primor’e (approximately third millennium B.C.) scrapers with ears are also found that are close to

the variety IV–2 (Okladnikov 1964:Fig. 7:3), and the latter at the same time were also found in Level

V of the Bel’kachi I site (Mochanov 1969b:Pl. 33:7). Finally, on Sakhalin Island in the Nogliki I site

(second millennium B.C.) are stemmed scrapers very similar to the Kamchatkan (II–26) (Chubarova

1960a:Fig. 6:6). Also among the early artifacts of the second millennium B.C. from the northwestern

part of Sakhalin are miniature rounded scrapers (I–23) (Chubarova 1960a:Fig. 1:10), which are
98 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

found as well in the Ust’-Belaia culture in Chukotka. On Sakhalin (in the Starodubskoe II site) and

in Chukotka we find the greatest quantity of analogies to adzes (IV–4) (Kozyreva 1967:Fig. 5:36).

They are also known on Cape Peschanyi (ninth–eleventh centuries B.C.) (Okladnikov 1963:Pl. 3:2).

There we also find an analogy to adzes with a rectangular cross section (Ibid.:Pl. 80:6).

Very notable are finds of retouched stone figurines. The majority of them were found in the

cultural level of the Tar’ia site. They are small blades of obsidian reworked by pressure retouch as

stylized or primitively realistic figurines of a man or animal. It is known that similar figured stones

are rather widely distributed in primitive societies during the period of change from the Neolithic

to the age of metal (Formozov 1959b:102, 103, Fig. 20; Zamiatnin 1948:85, 123).

Examining all the material from the sites of the Kamchatkan Developed Neolithic as a whole,

we are convinced that the noted analogies belong in large part to the second and first millennia B.C.

Thus, it can be acknowledged that the duration of this culture is determined by those chronological

limits, and the radiocarbon date of 3900 ± 100 B.P. (GIN–183) on charcoal from the cultural layer

at the Elizovo site (42) and a later date from Kultuk (5) of 2440 ± 290 B.P. do not contradict this.

Judging by these data, the southern Kamchatkan group of sites of the Tar’in culture is earlier than

the Middle Kamchatkan, from which it follows that the first group coexisted at first with the cultures

of Cultural Layers IV and III of the Ushki sites, and then replaced them, becoming spread from the

southern Kamchatka Peninsula into the Kamchatka River valley.

The most significant site of this second period of the Tar’in culture is on the shore of Ushki

Lake, at Kultuk (5). Here, on a shore overgrown by forest, a large, rounded hole had been excavated

80 cm deep and more than 10 m in diameter—the remains of an early pit house. The ruins of this

dwelling were buried beneath several layers of ash. Owing to this, beams and poles of the covering

of this pit house that had fallen down during a fire were spared. They were almost all charred

throughout—only the ends of logs buried by the earthen roof were not charred, but still they were

no less well preserved. In this huge pit house (see its reconstruction in Fig. 46) was a central hearth,

around which were six small hearths in a ring. Under each of the latter was a sub-hearth of burned

orange-colored soil (Dikov 1977b:Fig. 33).

Excavations at Kultuk cast light on the economic and social ways of the inhabitants of

Kamchatka during the Developed Neolithic. The large size of the Kultuk pit house itself (about 100

m2

) and the presence in it of several hearths indicate that a large related group consisting of several,

though not completely separated families lived in this dwelling.

The abundance of fish bone and finds of bone harpoon heads (Fig. 46:20) (Dikova 1976b:235;

Shnell 1932:Pl. XVII:7) and stone arrow points indicate fishing and hunting as the primary direction

of the early economy. By several peculiarities in its construction, the Kultuk pit house reminds one

of an Itel’men dwelling of the eighteenth to nineteenth centuries. We see in them the same support

posts buttressing the roof and the same smoke hole above, serving as an entrance.

The Old Itel’men indigenous cultures—Middle Kamchatkan and South Kamchatkan

(Nalychevo)—as we will see below, are closely connected by social traditions with the Tar’in culture.

Therefore, the Tar’in culture has a direct relationship to the ancestors of the Itel’men. Both the

northern and southern Tar’in were distinctive in the use of, later lost, unusual decoration in the form

of labrets (Ponomarenko 1976:Pl. I:17; Dikova 1978; Shnell 1932:Pl. XVII:2). This feature attests

to the strong Eskoaleut traditions of the Tar’in culture, which can be traced back in all probability
Nikolai N. Dikov 99

to the late Paleolithic culture of Cultural Layer VI of the Ushki sites, for which labrets were very

characteristic (in addition to a previously discovered blank, three completely finished labrets were

found there in 1978).

In this connection, Vdovin’s opinion appears quite correct, that the Itel’men neither in language

nor in cultural relations were related to the ethnogenesis of the Chukchi or Koryak, who were later

arrivals in the territory of the northern Far East (Vdovin 1969:153, 154). Local genetic sources of

the Itel’men thus appear in Kamchatka very early and can be traced back to the end of the Paleolithic.

The ethnic community corresponding to the Tar’in culture was not a community isolated

from others, but rather developed under conditions of broad cultural connections. We are

convinced of this through the examination above of the analogies of some of their characteristic

artifacts. Connections were made both with northern territories (Chukotka, the Okhotsk coast,

and eastern Siberia) and southern (the Kurile Islands, Sakhalin, and apparently Japan), where in

the Jomon the same arrow points are known as in the Tar’in culture: subtriangular with straight

base (Va, Vb) and subtriangular with pointed stem (X–2) (Sugihara 1968:16, Figs. 1:2; 3). What

is more, the Kamchatkan culture of this period was probably the result of a cross between the

northern and southern cultural traditions, with northern influences prevailing.

The presence of elements similar to Tar’in, especially knives (II–8, 17; IV–1, 6; V–6, 8, 17, 18)

and arrow points (I–2b, 2c, 19b; II–4b; VI–b), in Onkoromanai on northern Hokkaido (at the

beginning of the first millennium A.D) (Okada 1967:Figs. 9:8, 9, 23; 8:20, 22; 9:10; 10:12; 9:11–16;

13:5; 7:1, 23, 29; 8:35; 8:10–16; 7:6; 8:36) attests to probable connections of the Tar’in culture with

the later so-called Okhotsk culture. It is possible as well that beyond all these analogies stands a

common initial historical background, as Vasil’evskii (1975b:75) is inclined to think.

The spread of many artifacts of Tar’in appearance extended to northwestern North

America, including the Aleutian Islands. As far back as the Dorset culture we see humpbacked

Figure 46. Reconstruction of a dwelling of the Tar’in culture (Kultuk).
knives of V–6 and 8 types (Bandi 1969:Fig. 57), scrapers with ears of IV–2 type (Harp 1964:Pl.

XII:5, 6, 8), pear-shaped scrapers-bifaces in the Norton culture (Giddings 1964:Pl. 57:17),

triangular insets (I–13) (Ibid.:Pl. 46:11, 12, 16), and truncated leaf-shaped arrow points (II–4b)

(Ibid.:Pl. 47:12, 14, 15, 21, 23, 24). The presence of labret-like punches (II–7) in the Choris and

Kachemak I cultures (end of the second and beginning of the first millennium B.C.) (Bandi

1969:Fig. 22:3, 31) and later labrets in the Aleutian Islands (Jochelson 1925) permits posing the

question of their spread to America from the Tar’in culture. There is a greater number of

analogies with later sites in Alaska, in particular with the complex at the Ipiutak cemetery. These

analogies permit the supposition of their Kamchatkan origin, inasmuch as they are unknown in

Chukotka, from where they would have gone into Alaska. Artifacts that are similar to Ipiutak are

subtriangular points (II–4b) (Larsen and Rainey 1948:Pls. 2:1–4; 35:2–6, 9–12), stemmed

scrapers (II–26) (Ibid.:Pls. 2:1–4; 35:2–6, 9–12), and oblong scrapers (XII–3–a) (Ibid.:Pl. 24:f).

It would be possible to name still more, different similarities between American and Tar’in

artifacts, for example, segmented insets (I–11), various kinds of arrow points (Va, Vb, Vbx, VIb),

burins (V–5), and knife-like blades (I–6), but they are equally similar to those in Neolithic Chukotka

and therefore could have penetrated into North America directly from Chukotka, and thus the

Kamchatkan culture might have had nothing to do with it.

The influence of the Chukotkan Neolithic on early cultures in Alaska was, of course, stronger.

100 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia
The Stone and

Undeveloped Bronze

Ages of Chukotka

The Earliest Late Paleolithic

Traces of People in Chukotka

The earliest known traces of late Paleolithic man in Chukotka, just as in Kamchatka, are

assigned to the Mesolithic or early Neolithic and coincide with the period of post-glacial warming.

However, the earliest traces have been found in Chukotka’s interior regions.

The peculiarity of the historical development of these regions during the Holocene, caused by

partial preservation of the ecology of the Pleistocene, is the continuation here, as in other regions

of the Arctic, of Paleolithic hunting of herd animals. Of course, they did not hunt mammoths, which

died out here at the beginning of the Holocene, but they did hunt the herds of reindeer, also a

Pleistocene animal, by round-up [drive] hunting, which was characteristic for the Upper Paleolithic.

Round-up hunting, typically Paleolithic, in the form of spearing in the shallows, that is, at streams

where deer crossed, has been preserved in Chukotka until recent times. This type of hunting

coexisted with fishing, which was developing during the Holocene, and then with sea mammal

hunting as well.

Therefore, the arguments seem to us erroneous regarding some kind of critical change in the

ecological conditions of the north, of the dying out of herd animals, which brought on a transition

from collective to individual hunting and even supposedly determined new principles of

technology—a transition to Mesolithic techniques (Ermolova 1977:18). Similar explanations of

tool change resulting from changes of land animals do not withstand criticism when examined in

the light of concrete ecological and archaeological factors in Chukotka and in the Arctic in general.

Most likely the sudden change of stone-working technology that is observed in the Holocene both

in Alaska (West 1976) and in Northeast Asia (including Yakutia) (Khlobystin and Levkovskaia

1973:91–94)—the use of microliths and the appearance of inset tools—is eminent progress of

technology and not directly connected with ecology. This can especially be seen in the example of

the Ust’-Belaia site (72), the inhabitants of which continued Paleolithic hunting proper, while the

techniques they had were not at all Paleolithic.

Nor can one agree with the existing opinion that the Eurasian Arctic was first settled by man

only in the Mesolithic or even in the Early Neolithic (Simchenko 1977:279).

One should keep in mind that traces of the late Paleolithic have been found in very few places

in Chukotka at present—on the Inas’kvaam River (Dikov and Koliasnikov 1978) and possibly at

Chikaevo. Also, it is important to have in mind that, judging by the presence of late Paleolithic sites
102 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

in Alaska, the Paleolithic culture should have been spread still earlier in Chukotka and in northern

Yakutia, which we have never doubted (Dikov 1958b; 1969a:114, Map; 1969b) and which was then

spectacularly confirmed by N. K. Vereshchagin’s remarkable discovery on the Berelekh River of

the northernmost Paleolithic site (Vereshchagin and Mochanov 1972). There is every reason to

expect more finds of this kind in northern Chukotka and Yakutia, especially, near mammoth bones:

for example, in Oiagosskii Ravine between the Yana and Indigirka or in the basin of the Malyi and

Bol’shoi Aniui, Omolon, Chaun, Amguema, and Anadyr’.

Possibly the earliest post-Paleolithic (probably early Holocene) finds are known on the lower

Anadyr’ River at Krasnenskaia and Osinovskaia Spits (63, 68–70), apparently on the shore of Tygyl’

Lake on the upper Malyi Aniui River, and possibly on the mountain near Ust’-Belaia (72). They are

all surface finds and may be determined as Mesolithic only on the basis of their technical-typological

characteristics and comparative data.

Extremely archaic stone artifacts from Krasnenskaia Spit (Dikov 1958b:Fig. 25) and Lake

El’gygytgyn (Saiapin and Dikov 1958) prompted the American archaeologist McNeish to assign

them to the late Paleolithic, specifically to the Cordilleran Tradition (McNeish 1959). He had in

mind broad blades (bifaces); broad, crudely made skreblos and burins; semiconical multifaceted

cores; and flat and rhomboid points of the Lerma type. However, he did not consider the essential

chronological limitation of the Krasnenskaia finds with regard to the age of the Krasnenskaia Spit

itself, which was formed no earlier than the early Holocene (Tomirdiaro 1969). In addition, only a

few stone artifacts from Krasnenskaia Spit may be assigned to early post-Paleolithic times, such as

some of the diachronic finds from Osinovskaia Spit: broad, leaf-shaped bifaces (Fig. 47:9) (Dikov

1977b:Pl. 84:10; 86:5), which can be traced back to late Paleolithic Akmak prototypes (McNeish

1970:Fig. 4), leaf-shaped points, crudely worked broad skreblos, and knife-like blades (Figs. 47, 48)

Figure 47. Post-Paleolithic complex of stone tools from the lower Anadyr’ (1–17).
Nikolai N. Dikov 103

(Dikov 1977b:Pls. 84, 86). The El’gygytgyn finds also have a non-Paleolithic age, rather Neolithic,

though probably not so late (Ymyiakhtakh) as Fedoseeva (1975:94) suggests, inasmuch as this is still

a non-ceramic complex with burins that are entirely different from those at Ymyiakhtakh.

With regard to recent finds by Kiriyak on the shore of Lake Tytyl’, some of them (conical and

prismatic cores and broad scrapers in the Tytyl’ I site; Fig. 48:1–5) (Dikov and Kiriyak 1979:Fig.

2:1–5) are found to be similar to Maltan Mesolithic artifacts, while an end scraper on a broad, bladelike flake from the Tytyl’ II site (Fig. 48:6) (Dikov and Kiriyak 1979:Fig. 2:6; Mochanov 1977) is

analogous to the Sumnagin Mesolithic. Similar to the Sumnagin are some—apparently the

earliest—of the Ust’-Belaia (72) arrow points (blade-like, partially retouched), which Mochanov

(1977:246–248, Pl. 86:1) first noticed.

Traces of non-ceramic culture, probably Early Neolithic or even Mesolithic, were found by A.

E. Katenin in 1977 at one of the sites he discovered near Lake Ionigytkhyn (Dikov and Katenin

1979). This consisted of a flattened conical core, knife-like blades, and two burins: one almost

diagonal on a long, regular, knife-like blade (Figs. 49, 60), the other—a dihedral burin (Figs. 49, 60).

All these artifacts were made from light-gray siliceous slate and were recovered from an eroded area

of the sod layer on the 4–5 m terrace on the left bank of a creek that flows from Lake Ionigytkhyn

and falls into the Ioniveem River from the right bank. These notable finds very obviously indicate

how mistaken Sergeev’s assertion was regarding the lack of settlement until the middle of the first

millennium A.D. in the inner regions of the Chukotka Peninsula east of Krest Bay and the Amguema

River (Arutiunov and Sergeev 1975:195).

We have spoken above about traces of Neolithic culture in the Third site at Kilometer 102 on

the Amguema Road (80). They are similar to the non-ceramic culture of Cultural Layer IV of the

Figure 48. Stone artifacts from early sites on the shore of Tytyl’ Lake. 1–5—Tytyl’ I; 6—Tytyl’ II (found by M. A. Kiriyak).
104 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Uskhi site and are probably related to a single non-ceramic Chukotka-Kamchatkan Neolithic

cultural region, which is distinguished by its highly developed blade-like stone industry and arrow

points that are rhomboid in cross section. An idea about the age of this Amguema Neolithic

complex is given by the radiocarbon date of Cultural Layer IV of the Ushki V site: 4200 ± 100 B.P.

(MAG–132).

Close in age, perhaps even somewhat later (Fedoseeva 1975), is the complex of stone artifacts

from a hidden place and site on the shore of Lake El’gygytgyn, also non-ceramic and characterized

by flint biface blades, knife-like blades, and burins. This find attests to the view that deer hunters

and fishermen repeatedly stopped in this place of difficult access during their expeditions

(Okladnikov and Nekrasov 1957; Saiapin and Dikov 1958).

Keeping in mind these discoveries in the Anadyr’ and Amguema River valleys, on Lakes Tytyl’

and El’gygytgyn, and near Lake Ioni, as well as in other regions of the Russian Arctic, in Alaska, and

in Greenland, where the so-called Paleo-Eskimo or, more correctly, Pre-Eskimo Sarkak culture can

be traced, it can be suggested that about the fourth–third millennia B.C. early hunters, part of whom

possibly did not use clay vessels, also lived in Chukotka. Much of the technique of working stone

among them was still Mesolithic, especially the skill of splitting off small, thin, knife-like blades.

At the same time there are sufficient grounds to suggest that probably by the third millennium

B.C. in Chukotka the ceramic technique began to penetrate as well. Evidence of this is presented by

a few fragments of net-marked thin-walled ceramics among the earliest remains of the Ust’-Belaia

site at Burial Mound 14 and outside the burial complexes of Burial Mound 15. Distribution in the

Anadyr’ River basin of cord-wrapped ceramics is indicated by fragments of them in the Kameshki

site (58), where they were found together with an obsidian dihedral burin and knife-like blades

retouched along the edges.

Figure 49. Flint artifacts from the site on Ioni Lake (Locus 2) (1–7) (found by A. E. Katenin).
Nikolai N. Dikov 105

Considering recent investigations in Yakutia, for which net-marked ceramics are dated on the

Aldan to the fourth millennium B.C. and cord-wrapped ceramics to the third millennium B.C.

(Mochanov et al. 1970), it might be possible to accept these dates for the named types of ceramics

of Chukotka as well. But the question of their dating is complicated by the distance of Chukotka

from the Aldan and by the known facts of a later date for net-marked ceramics in Pribaikal’e, for

which the date extends up to Serov times, that is, until the third millennium B.C. (Okladnikov 1970).

Therefore we consider it more correct to refrain from maximum dating of net-marked and cordwrapped ceramics in Chukotka, limiting the lower boundary of the age for net-marked ceramics

to the third millennium, and for cord-marked to the first millennium B.C. For this period we

should recognize the definite influence of Neolithic Yakutia on the Neolithic culture of

Chukotka, which is expressed in the spread there not only of the named ceramics, but also of

some characteristic types of stone artifacts (three-sided points, stepped adzes, etc.), which in

significant measure determined the character of subsequent cultures in Chukotka. These cultures

developed there in the second and beginning of the first millennia B.C.—at the time of the Late

Neolithic and Bronze Age of Yakutia. On the whole, the North Chukotka and Ust’-Belaia cultures

were rather similar in their economic base.

The Late Neolithic North Chukotkan Culture

This early hunting-fishing culture was first discovered in the tundras of northern Chukotka

adjoining the Arctic Ocean (Figs. 39, 40).

The sites we assigned to this culture were found on Chirovoe Lake (51), Yakitikieveem River

(186), Aion Island (160–164), in the basin of the Amguema River (79, 81) (Dikov 1961b, 1977b;

Dikov and Smirnov 1977; Levoshin 1950:193–195; Okladnikov 1953a:405–412, 1950), and on

Lake Ekityki (185). In addition, in 1977 the West Chukotka Detachment of the Northeastern Asiatic

Expedition (M. A. Kiriyak) discovered two sites of this culture on the shore of Lake Tytyl’ on the

upper reaches of the Malyi Aniui River (Tytyl’ IV and V) (Dikov and Kiriyak 1979). All these sites

are united by a very characteristic peculiarity: the arrow points found there frequently have the

appearance of massive and long bifacially worked points (Dikov 1961b) and are often unifacially

convex or three-sided, with especially many of the latter being found in the Tytyl’ V site. Flat points

with peculiarly rounded working end and stemmed points are found as well (Dikov 1961b).

Ceramics are encountered rather seldom. Only on the shore of Chirovoe Lake (51), on Aion

Island (160–164), and on the Amguema (79, 81) are there more. Everywhere they are either smoothwalled with a temper of reindeer hair or covered by check-stamped impressions (Fig. 50), similar

to Late Neolithic ceramics of Yakutia.

Campsites have been discovered along the migration routes of the reindeer, as for example on

Aion Island, where the deer go to enjoy the salty sea water or to escape mosquitoes, or in the

mountains on the Yakitikiveem River, where the deer could also easily escape insects in summer.

The burial places of the people who lived at these sites were placed on the stony summits of

mountains, in crevices, covered by stone fragments and flagstones, near outlying cliffs. Human

bones are, as a rule, not preserved under such conditions. The majority of stemmed arrow points,

finely reworked by delicate retouch, were found in one such burial in 1963 at the confluence of the

Ekiatap River with the Amguema (95).
106 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

The site on the shore of Lake

Chirovoe (51) gives an especially

graphic picture of the way of life of

the continental population of

Chukotka. Besides stone arrow

points, axes, scrapers, flakes, and

bone barbs of leisters for taking

fish, as well as split deer bones, an

accumulation of thin clay vessel

fragments was also discovered.

Also found in a rather thick layer

of the site was a clay oven of a

rather stationary type for smoking

fish, as well as some cache pits for

preserving meat.

The relatively sedentary way of

life reconstructed from such

artifacts was brought about by the

lack of necessary means of

transport and the impossibility

under the conditions of a cold

tundra to quickly and accurately

provide oneself with a dwelling. In

Chukotka, sleds and the harnessing of deer and dogs appeared

comparatively recently. And if

hunting and fishing resources

suddenly became exhausted, it

often entailed hunger and death.

At times whole tribes seem to have

become extinct, as happened for

example with the Yukagir on the

Omolon River when reindeer,

which they hunted, unexpectedly

changed the route of their seasonal migrations. It was not possible for the Yukagir to go in pursuit

of herds of animals wandering about the tundra, just as the early inhabitants of Chukotka did not

have this option until the appearance among them of reindeer herding or at least of harnessed dog

driving, as among the Cariboo Eskimo of Arctic North America.

The presence of more or less permanent settlements does not exclude, of course, the

movement of some lightly equipped hunters (without families) with hunting-trapping goals or in

search of raw materials for making tools. Along these lines, one commonly finds sites in Chukotka

that have an insignificant quantity of manufacturing and everyday remains, as well as work areas of

that type. The earliest inhabitants of continental Chukotka apparently combined such movements

with a semi-settled life in places favorable for this—a temporary settlement, thus, was part of a

wandering hunting life.

Figure 50. Ceramics from the Neolithic North Chukotkan culture.
Nikolai N. Dikov 107

For the North Chukotkan culture a variety of stone artifacts were characteristic (Figs. 51, 52).

Here are encountered prismatic cores (I–1, 2), conical flattened cores (II–3) and conically unifacial

ones (III–5), cone-like cores (II–4, 5), cores similar to the Gobi type (IV–6); retouched and plain

knife-like blades (I–1, 2, 3, 6, 7); three-sided arrow points (TI–1c) from the Tytyl’ V site (Fig. 51:18,

19) and a fragment from the Chirovoe site with indented base (V–aMx) and with an asymmetrical

base (V–by); stemless biface-knives (II–1, 4, 7), stemmed ones (V–2), with flattened straight back

(VI–3, 4, 5), triangular with pointed ends on flakes (VII–5), and ground knives (III–3, 41, 43);

end scrapers (I–1, 19, 20, 23); combination gravers, including those with “ears” (III–10, IV–1);

triangular scraper-knives (IV–9); bifacially worked end scrapers (V–7, VI–3), lateral and

rounded types on flakes (VII–3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12), those in the form of cobble spalls flaked along

the edge (VIII–4, 5, 13, 30), and unifacially convex with no remaining cobble cortex (IX–1, 17);

Figure 51. Stone artifacts of the North Chukotkan culture (not found in the Ust’-Belaia culture). 1, 4, 8, 26, 31, 32, 52—Amguema,

Fourth site (81); 2, 9, 10, 23, 39—Aion (163); 3, 15—Amguema, Second site (79); 5—Amguema, Third site (88); 17, 22, 24, 25,

28, 30, 33–37, 40, 41, 42, 46–51—Chirovaia (51); 18, 19—Tytyl’ Lake (M. A. Kiriyak 1977); 6, 7, 12–14, 16—Aion (1972);

20–22, 29—Ekityki (V. Smirnov).
108 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

scraper-bifaces (X–8, 10); scrapers on knife-like blades indented laterally (XII–1); spokeshaves

(XI–7); lateral burins on knife-like blades (I–2), dihedral burins (I–5), graver-burins (I–6, 8),

polyhedral burins with retouched (II–3, 5) and with unretouched (II–4) hafts, angle and dihedral

burins with flattened bifacially retouched haft (III–1, 2, 4), burins on flakes (IV–3, 4, 5, 6), and a

multifaceted crystal quartz burin (V–9); punches with retouched hafts (I–4, 6); a small adze,

subtriangular with a convex blade, entirely retouched on both sides and lenticular in cross section

(IV–8); unground elongatedly trapeziform axes (I–5); and subtrapeziform ground adzes (V–8).

The date of the leading site of the North Chukotkan culture, as is known, was first determined

as the time of Late Neolithic and early Bronze Age in Yakutia, that is, the end of the second–

beginning of the first millennium B.C. (Okladnikov 1953a).

There is principally no basis for changing this date for the Chirovoe site. Abundant new

material allows making it more precise. Ceramics with check-stamped (“waffle-like”)

impressions (see Fig. 50), in combination with three-sided arrow points and triangular knifescrapers (IV–9), support the possibility of moving the lower boundary of this date to the

beginning of the second millennium B.C. This applies even more to the Amguema sites (79, 81),

Figure 52. Stone artifacts from the North Chukotkan culture (in common with artifacts of the Ust’-Belaia culture). 1, 9, 10, 16, 19,

21—Amguema, Fourth site (81); 2, 4, 7, 8, 11–15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25–28—Chirovaia (51); 3, 5, 6, 24—Aion (163 and others).
Nikolai N. Dikov 109

for one of which (81), also with check-stamped ceramics, a radiocarbon date of 6665 ± 110 B.P.

(GIN) was obtained that, of course, is significantly high. The absolute date for the Chirovoe Lake

site (51) is 2800 ± 100 B.P. (GIN) and corresponds completely with its formerly set age—end of

the second–beginning of the first millennium B.C., to which the upper boundary of the date of the

North Chukotkan culture is assigned.

Okladnikov has expressed the opinion that the Chirovoe site indicates the spread into interior

Chukotka of the Lower Lena culture of hunters and fishermen of the Late Neolithic and early Bronze

Age (Okladnikov 1953). Later, Mochanov assigned the site on Chirovoe Lake to the Bel’kachi

culture of the third millennium B.C. Now, examining more significant material, one cannot but agree

with Okladnikov’s hypothesis about the connection of the North Chukotka Late Neolithic with the

Lower Lena. At the same time, the distinctiveness of the interior Chukotka Neolithic became more

remarkable, in particular late North Chukotka. This distinctiveness is essentially expressed by its

ceramics. The ceramics are similar to Prilensk check-stamped in the technique of fashioning the

surface of vessels. In form, Late Neolithic North Chukotka vessels, though also bottom-rounded,

are nevertheless different: in contrast to straight Ymyiakhtakh vessels that slope at the throat, the

edge of the rim always turns out (Fig. 50). Adzes of this culture are also different and not of such

a developed form as the rectangular Ymyiakhtakh ones. Also, some arrow points—oblong and

massive—are entirely not of the Prilensk type. All these peculiarities permit the separation of this

North Chukotkan culture into an apparently distinct indigenous variant of the Late Neolithic Lower

Lena or considering it even as an independent culture, composing with the Lower Lena a single

cultural region.

In Levels IV and V of the Bel’kachi I site, assigned by Mochanov to a separate Bel’kachi culture,

unifacial conical cores (III–5) (Mochanov 1969b:99) and core-like burins (II–4) have been

encountered (Mochanov 1969b:Pl. 29:1, 6, 8, 9). They were found at the Staryi Siktiakh site by

Okladnikov (Okladnikov 1946:Pl. XIV:1, 2, 5), as well as combination scraper-gravers (IV–9, 10,

11) and trapezoidal scrapers with a narrow working end (II–19) (Mochanov 1969b:Pl. 33:9; 30:1;

38:13). In spite of all these rather abundant analogies between the North Chukotkan and the socalled Bel’kachi culture, the Bel’kachi is essentially distinct from the North Chukotkan culture: the

primary attribute of the Bel’kachi culture, according to Mochanov, is cord-wrapped ceramics. For

the North Chukotkan culture, and particularly for the site at Chirovoe Lake, which Mochanov

assigns to the Bel’kachi culture, vessels with check-stamp imprint are characteristic. Therefore, it is

out of the question to assign the named site to the Bel’kachi culture; rather, analogies noted with the

Aldan Neolithic should be interpreted as a manifestation not of genetic, but purely of cultural

connections.

In the Neolithic of the north Okhotsk Islands we still find only two types of North Chukotka

arrow points: stemmed (VIII–5), from Nedorazumeniia Island (Vasil’evskii 1971:Pl. I:21) and

from the Upper site on Zav’ialova Island (Vasil’evskii 1965b:Fig. 1:26), and triangular with an

asymmetrically concave base (V–cy) at the same place (Vasil’evskii 1965b:Fig. 1:1; 1968b:314,

Fig. 1:1).

To the analogies with Alaskan cultures can be added the similarity to stemmed ground knives

(III–43) found on Takli Island on the Pacific Coast of Alaska in a complex of the second–first

millennia B.C. (Dumond 1969:Pl. IV:f); to scrapers with ears (IV–1) from Taye Lake (mid-first

millennium B.C.–beginning of first millennium A.D.) (McNeish 1964:Fig. 90:2); to biface scrapers

(V–7), punches (I–6), and adzes (V–8) in the Norton culture (Giddings 1964:Pls. 57:11, 12; 53:13;
110 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

59:2; 44:1, 6, 7; 10:2; 46:24; 52:5, 8); and to leaf-shaped biface knives (II–1) in the Norton (midsecond millennium B.C.), Pointed Mountain (beginning of third millennium B.C.), and Tuktu (midsecond millennium B.C.) complexes (Beregovaia 1957, 1967:Figs. 3–9), and one has to think these

do not exhaust the North American analogies.

Parallels noted in the synchronic Norton complex are especially interesting to us since they are

strengthened by the ceramics, which are also characterized by a check-stamped imprint. On the

north coast of the Sea of Okhotsk this type of ceramics appears somewhat later—in the Zav’ialova

stage of the Old Koryak culture, 500–800 A.D. (Vasil’evskii 1966)—which is also very important

for a reconstruction of genetic cultural and ethnic connections between Chukotka and northern

Priokhot’e. It is possible, though not proven, that beyond this similarity of ceramics, which is

supported by the aforementioned similarity of some utilitarian artifacts, are hidden early sources

of the Chukotka-Koryak commonality.

The Ust’-Belaia Culture

The Ust’-Belaia culture was formed and spread throughout the forest-tundras of Chukotka. To

this culture should be assigned sites of the middle Anadyr’: Uvesnovaniia (57), Utesiki (61), Vilka

(59–60), and Chikaevo in part (74), as well as the Omrynskii (73) and Ust’-Belaia (72) cemeteries

(Figs. 39, 40) (Dikov 1958c, 1959, 1960b, 1961c, 1961d, 1964b). The latter is the most significant

site of this culture, and its clearly unmixed burial complexes that we isolated serve to support this

(Dikov 1977b:239, 240).

Sites of the Ust’-Belaia culture were located at seasonal spring or fall river crossings of wild

reindeer. The materials of the settlements, as well as their topography, quite definitely sketch the

character of life of the inhabitants: the subsistence base of these tribes was, as before, hunting wild

reindeer, which was probably supplemented by fishing and collecting vegetable foods.

The vast complex of stone artifacts of the Ust’-Belaia culture consists of a variety of cores,

flakes, knife-like blades, projectile points, knives, scrapers, burins, punches, axes, and adzes.

We will examine them according to the two chronological groups of the Ust’-Belaia culture that

we identified previously (Dikov 1977b:239, 240).

To the first, earliest group of finds (Fig. 54), that is, to the burials of Burial Mounds 4, 11, 14,

and 18—in the first of which no ceramics were found, and in the last two of which ceramics with

ribbed paddle impressions were discovered (Fig. 53)—belong narrow, thin, excellently retouched

on both sides, leaf-shaped knives pointed on both ends (I–1c) and broad leaf-shaped ones (I–8a);

bifacially retouched subpentangular arrow points (II–2b), as well as rhomboid (III–3b),

subtriangular and triangular (V–a, b, bx, VI–a, c), and very oblong elongated subtriangular with

indented base and rounded tip (II–4cM); small oval side-blades (I–14); leaf-shaped biface knives

(IV–1), formless knives with straight flattened butt (IV–4), and knives on flakes (VII–3); trapezoidal

end scrapers (I–12, I–13) and thumbnail scrapers (II–12, 18); biface scrapers on the end of a long

blade (I–1, II–1), as well as beak-shaped (III–14) and elliptical (V–12), scrapers on flakes (VII–7,

10), including flakes with cobble cortex (VIII–3, 4, 12, 14), a scraper on a knife-like blade indented

laterally (XII–1), and a massive indented spokeshave (XII–7); lateral and angle burins on knife-like

blades (I–2, 3; IV–3, 4, 6), a diagonal burin on a knife-like blade (I–3); an almond-shaped bifacially
Nikolai N. Dikov 111

flaked adze (III–10) and massive triangular adzes with sloping butt, so-called “stepped” (II–5, 6),

which, together with oblong arrow points (VI–c, II–4cM), are characteristic tools for this earliest

group of finds of the Ust’-Belaia cemetery.

To the later complex of the Ust’-Belaia culture (Fig. 56), that is, to the burials of Burial Mounds

8 and 9 of the Ust’-Belaia cemetery—whose remains preserved bronze burins (Fig. 55:1, 2), a foursided awl, smooth-walled ceramics, and ceramics marked with a ribbed paddle (Fig. 53)—belong

the stone artifacts illustrated in Figure 56. Cores are primarily prismatic here, often unifacial and

flattened (III–2, 3). Points of arrows, darts, and spears are represented by leaf-shaped forms (I–1b,

2b), triangular with symmetrically concave haft (V–ay, V–bx), as well as distinct types incompletely

(often on only one side) retouched arrow points on knife-like blades and flakes (O–3; 01–bK).

Knives and knife-like tools include side-blades (I–8), formless biface knives (II–4, 6, 7), curved

stemmed knives (V–1), and unifaces on flakes (VII–5), as well as bifacial knife-scrapers (VI–2).

Among the scrapers and skreblos can be distinguished concave end scrapers (I–11, 17, 24, 25),

straight end scrapers (II–13, 16, 17), concave combination scrapers (III–13), straight scrapers (IV–

19, 23), and bifaces (V–3), including stemmed ones (V–14), predominantly side scrapers on thin

flakes (VII–2, 13), segmented biface scrapers (X–7, 9), and an indented spokeshave (XII–4). The

burins of the late stage of the Ust’-Belaia culture are varied. They are subdivided into multifaceted

with core-like and retouched hafts (II–1, 5) and dihedral and lateral with flattened retouched hafts

(III–4). And finally, adzes that are ground, flattened, and rectangular in plan and in cross section,

with stepped butt (II–7) belong to this complex.

Figure 53. Ceramics of the Ust’-Belaia culture.
112 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Figure 54. Early complex of stone artifacts from the Ust’-Belaia culture (1–53).
Nikolai N. Dikov 113

The following stone artifacts (Fig.

56) belong in equal measure to both the

first and second complexes of finds of

the Ust’-Belaia culture: conical cores

(II–2) and knife-like blades; bifacially

retouched pentangular arrow points (I–

6a) with rudimentary triangular stem

(X–2), triangular (V–a, b; VI–a), and

elongatedly triangular (VI–c); rectangular side-blades retouched on two sides

(I–9); leaf-shaped curved biface knives

(IV–1); concave end scrapers on bladelike flakes (IV–1); concave trapezoidal

end scrapers (I–12); and rectangular

adzes (II–9).

Both of the above-described type

complexes of the Ust’-Belaia undoubtedly belong to one culture. This is also

indicated by the overwhelming majority

of the remaining Ust’-Belaia finds,

including artifacts from sites of the Ust’-

Belaia culture (Figs. 57, 58); the

similarity of the burial ceremony in the

grave complexes belonging to them, the

latter being connected with partial

cremation in the burial mounds; and the basic similarity of the inventory, including the ceramics.

Clear delimitation between these two complexes at present is impossible. As we have indicated,

there are many common elements, while elements of difference between the complexes are not

present in every burial. However, the tentative division of these two complexes gives some idea of

the duration of the Ust’-Belaia culture and helps date it.

The lower boundary in dating the Ust’-Belaia culture, belonging to the first complex, is

determined by such characteristic artifacts as rectangular stepped adzes, flat rectangular adzes,

combination scrapers with a cutting edge, triangular microscrapers, and ceramics imprinted with

a ribbed paddle. All these artifacts are typical for the Ymyiakhtakh culture of the second millennium

B.C. (Mochanov 1969b:Pls. 43–47). At the same location, hatched with ribbed paddle ceramics are

encountered together with waffle-marked ceramics. The presence in the complex of stepped adzes

similar to those spread throughout the Bel’kachi culture of the third millennium B.C. provides

grounds for assigning this Ust’-Belaia complex and, consequently, the lower boundary of the age

of the Ust’-Belaia culture not so much to the end or middle of the second millennium B.C., as to its

very beginning.

The upper boundary in dating this culture is determined as the end of the second–beginning

of the first millennium B.C. based on characteristic artifacts from the second group of the Ust’-Belaia

burials. In this regard, bronze burins (Fig. 55:1, 2) from Burial 1 of Burial Mound 9 and Burial 3 of

Burial Mound 8 have decisive significance, as does a bronze rectangular awl from Burial 2 of Burial

Figure 55. Bronze burins, flint figurine, fragment of a white nephrite

ring, and a toggling harpoon head from the late complex of the Ust’-

Belaia culture (1–5).
114 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Mound 8, all of which, judging by the date of the Bronze Age in neighboring Yakutia, cannot be

earlier than the end of the second millennium B.C. No less significant for the establishment of the

upper date is the point of a toggling harpoon from Burial 1 of Burial Mound 9. It was carved from

walrus tusk by a sharp metal instrument. It has a broad open socket for a foreshaft, one line hole,

and no grooves for stone insets or an end blade (Dikov 1977b:Pl. 95:13). It is generally Old Eskimo

in its basic features, though it is somewhat different from all known artifacts of similar kind. It is very

similar to some rarely encountered points of Pre-Dorset and Dorset types found in Greenland and

on Baffin Island in sites from the end of the second–beginning of the first millennium B.C. (Bandi

1969:Fig. 56:2; Knuth 1962:Fig. II:1, 2). Points similar in form to Ust’-Belaia are also known in

Figure 56. Late complex of stone artifacts of the Ust’-Belaia culture (1–50).
Nikolai N. Dikov 115

Alaska in the cultural complex of Kachemak I, which is assigned to the end of the second–beginning

of the first millennium B.C., and in the Norton complex of the middle of the first millennium B.C.

(Bandi 1969:Fig. 31:1, 2; Giddings 1964:36:18, 20). Finally, the presence in this complex of a stone

point with lateral indentations (Fig. 280:10) and a stemmed scraper (Fig. 278:6), characteristic for

the Alaskan Old Whaling culture of the first half of the second millennium B.C., should be considered

(Bandi 1969:Fig. 17:3; 17:8–10).

Taking into account the above-noted analogies in dating, the Ust’-Belaia culture should be

assigned to the second or even to the end of the second millennium–first half of the first millennium

Figure 57. Stone artifacts from the Ust’-Belaia cemetery not yielding to chronological separation into stages (1–48).
116 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

B.C. A radiocarbon date of 2865 ± 95 B.P. (RUL) was assigned to charcoal taken from Burial Mound

15, apparently from the relatively early (first) Burial Complex IV, in which among its arrow points

there were elongatedly triangular ones (Fig. 57:6), which therefore probably brings the date closer

to the lower chronological boundary of the Ust’-Belaia culture than to the upper. The upper

boundary approaches in time the Alaskan Norton Paleo-Eskimo culture (mid-first millennium B.C.)

in which there are many elements in common with Ust’-Belaia, in particular ceramics with ribbed

paddle impressions on the outer surface.

Finds in the Ust’-Belaia cemetery throw a clear light on the spiritual and material culture of

interior tribes of Chukotka in the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age. Everything in these large, flat

stone burial mounds turns out to be uncommon and different with regard to previous ideas about

the early population of Chukotka: the custom of partial cremation, the rite of covering the corpse

with red ocher, tiny circular beads decorating the hat of the deceased, canine teeth of bears, the

wealth of stone points and their forms, the head of a toggling harpoon, and especially bronze

artifacts. These finds and the burial ritual compel the proposition that the population of the Anadyr’

River basin in these remote times were in contact with the population of the interior regions of

Siberia. Of course, such a proposition requires examination based on detailed comparison of the

entire aggregate of archaeological materials of the Ust’-Belaia culture available to us.

The original Ust’-Belaia culture, in other words the Ust’-Belaia cemetery, has already attracted

the attention of researchers and challenged them to attempt to affiliate it with other cultures.

Mochanov included it, together with sites of the other, North Chukotkan culture—the sites on

Chirovoe Lake and at Chikaevo—with the so-called Bel’kachi culture of the third millennium B.C.

(Mochanov 1969b:182, Map, Fig. 20). Fedoseeva, on the basis of a chance and uncharacteristic find

in Ust’-Belaia Burial Mound 5 of a “waffle-marked fragment,” assigns the Ust’-Belaia cemetery to

the Ymyiakhtakh culture (Fedoseeva 1970:141). Vasil’evskii is inclined to connect the Ust’-Belaia

culture—more precisely the Ust’-Belaia cemetery—to the North Okhotsk Neolithic and to

consider the Ust’-Belaia toggling harpoon the earliest Chukchi-Koryak evidence of the presence in

Figure 58. Stone artifacts from sites of the Ust’-Belaia culture (1–11).
Nikolai N. Dikov 117

northern Priokhot’e of a separate center of origin of sea mammal exploitation, distinct from

Eskimo and not connected with it (Vasil’evskii 1970b, 1971, 1973, 1975c).

All these hypotheses are justified in their own way and not devoid of meaning. One should be

alerted only to this, that each of the named authors characterizes the Ust’-Belaia culture in his or her

own way, in connection with “his or her own” well-studied culture. Perhaps this indicates the wellknown and psychologically very explicable inclination (in addition to objective consideration) of

almost every archaeologist to proceed from his or her more familiar material and to consider “his

or her” culture the most distinctive one in relation to surrounding cultures, it being the source of

resettlement, influence, and the like.

However that may be, the presence of completely different hypotheses of interpretation of the

connections with the Ust’-Belaia culture prompts us to make as far as possible a more careful

analysis of its connections with the Bel’kachi (and the Prilensk cultures in general) and the North

Okhotsk culture, especially since it is with them that the Ust’-Belaia culture has the greatest number

of similar elements.

The similarity, apparently genetic, of some elements of the Ust’-Belaia culture with that of the

middle Lena began as far back as the Syalakh stage, that is, in the fourth millennium B.C. In Levels

VI–VII of the Bel’kachi I site, just as in the Ust’-Belaia site, were found knife-like blades (I–2, 3),

including those retouched along the edges (I–7) (Mochanov 1969b:Pls. 22:19, 20, 24, 27; 14:2, 19,

21); points from partially retouched blades (O–3) (Ibid.:Pl. 16:1, 4, 5); humpbacked biface knives

(IV–1) (Ibid.:Pl. 23) and knives with straight, flattened butts (VI–5) (Ibid.:Pl. 15:10); burins (III–4;

IV–4; IV–1; I–2) (Ibid.:Pls. 14:5, 6; 21:14; 32:27), and trapezoidal scrapers (I–12) (Ibid.:Pl. 23:5).

In the above-lying Levels IV–V of the Bel’kachi site, dated by Mochanov to the third

millennium B.C. and, in his opinion, characteristic of the so-called Bel’kachi culture, there are still

more analogies. These are cone-shaped and prismatic cores (II–2; III–2, 3) (Ibid.:80, 81, 99); end

scrapers on blades (I–1) (Ibid.:Pl. 32:23) and pear-shaped scrapers (Ibid.:Pls. 39:14; 31:47); various

kinds of combination scraper-gravers (III–13, 14) (Ibid.:Pl. 38:13, 14), including unique ones with

corner points (III–6) (Ibid.:Pl. 33:10), as well as indented scrapers (XII–7) (Ibid.:Pl. 38:24); insets

(I–8) (Ibid.:Pl. 1:8); and finally, probably to some measure, even rectangular stepped adzes (II–5)

(Ibid.:Pl. 40).

Mochanov gives more decisive significance to the stepped adzes just mentioned in the

argument regarding his opinion about the continuation of the Bel’kachi culture in Chukotka. It is

necessary, however, to keep in mind that Bel’kachi adzes of this type are essentially different from

the Ust’-Belaia both in form and character of manufacture. In contrast to the latter they are

completely unground and do not have a rectilinear profile, having rather a convex-curvilinear

outline.

Objectivity requires one to note that in the Ust’-Belaia cemetery the cord-wrapped ceramics

connected with these adzes are of a completely non-Bel’kachi type, rather hatch-marked and

covered with ribbed paddle imprints.

Thus, in spite of the presence of some analogies, the Ust’-Belaia site with the cemetery cannot

be assigned to a single Bel’kachi culture. This is even more true of the Chirovoe site, which

Mochanov assigns to the Bel’kachi culture, where no signs of cord-wrapped ceramics are found;

instead, many are of the check-stamped style.
118 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Consequently, it is permissible to speak of a few Bel’kachi elements in the Ust’-Belaia culture,

but not of the unity of these cultures.

Thus, even in the following Late Neolithic Yakutian Ymyiakhtakh culture of the second

millennium B.C. we continue to find many analogies to some elements of the late Ust’-Belaia culture,

except for the ceramics, since in the Ust’-Belaia culture, in contrast to the Ymyiakhtakh, there are

no check-stamped ceramics at all. The same things are there that were noted above in the Bel’kachi

culture: prismatic cores (III–2), knife-like blades (I–2), angle burins on flakes (IV–4), and end

scrapers (I–1). But there are also new things there that are not characteristic of the Bel’kachi culture:

completely retouched insets (I–9) (Ibid.:Pl. 44:1), triangular micro-scrapers (I–25) (Ibid.:Pl. 44:13),

and leaf-shaped arrow points (I–9a) (Okladnikov 1955:Fig. 27:4).

Meanwhile, the degree of similarity between the stone inventory of the Ust’-Belaia culture and

the cultural complex of the Late Neolithic Chuchur-Muranskii Ymyiakhtakh cemetery found near

Yakutsk, presently still unpublished, is not entirely clear (Fedoseeva 1969:223, 224).

But the presence of three-sided arrow points and check-stamped ceramics in the burial

inventory of the latter also attests to the lack of unity of these complexes in the most essential things,

and that they are most probably related to different cultural-ethnic communities.

Similarities are also few in ceramic production with the Ust’-Mil’ culture of the Bronze Age,

characterized by round-bottomed vessels with applied rims (Fedoseeva 1970:132), which are

entirely absent from the Ust’-Belaia vessels.

We now extend our comparison with the sites of Yakutia farther to the north. And we see in

the Lower Lena culture the closest analogies to many elements of the Ust’-Belaia culture. Moreover,

we find there almost the same burial complexes of the early Bronze Age (end of the second–

beginning of the first millennium B.C.) as at Ust’-Belaia. First, it is the burial on the Kullaty River,

where with the deceased, in addition to typically Ust’-Belaia triangular arrow points (V–a, b), are

the same bone foreshafts for seating them on the main shaft (Okladnikov 1955a:Fig. 45). Then, it

is the early Bronze Age burial on the Bugachan River, where the same arrows and the same bone

foreshafts for them are again repeated (Ibid.:Fig. 41:1; 1946:Pl. X). These points, most typical for

the Ust’-Belaia culture, are abundant in the lower Lena, unlike the Aldan, where they are

comparatively few. There is no necessity to prove again the presence of a distinct Lower Lena

culture, identified by Okladnikov (Okladnikov 1968:95). We note only that the Ust’-Belaia is the

closest to it, perhaps even in genetic regard, but of course only in a clearly cultural-historical aspect,

since at present no physical anthropological data show an ethnic relationship. Taking into

consideration check-stamped ceramics found in the Ymyiakhtakh cemetery and their distribution

in the Late Neolithic in northern Yakutia as well, it is more likely to be acknowledged that the Ust’-

Belaia and Lower Lena cultures are less related in ethnic and historical-cultural regard than can be

demonstrated at first glance.

And now we will turn to the north coast of the Sea of Okhotsk. On Nedorazumeniia Island

during the first millennium B.C. and in the Upper site on Zav’ialova Island at the end of the first

millennium B.C. we actually find quite a number of artifacts similar to those of Ust’-Belaia. Similar

artifacts occur simultaneously either in the northern Neolithic of Yakutia (inset blades I–10,

triangular points V–a, and truncated rhomboid points I–6aK) (Vasil’evskii 1965b:Fig. 1:27;

1965a:Figs. 3:1, 4; 4:1, 4; 3:8) or in the southern (arrow points V–c; X–2; stemmed knives V–1;

scraper-gravers IV–19; and triangular knives VII–5) (Vasil’evskii 1965a:Fig. 5–3; 1965b:Fig. 1:5;
Nikolai N. Dikov 119

1969:Fig. 1:4, 6, 10; Museum of Anthropology MGU, Coll. 475–104, 106, collected by M. G.

Levin). Others are not found in Yakutia, though are noted in Primor’e, the Kurile Islands, Sakhalin,

Pribaikal’e, the Urals, Zaural’e, and even in northern Europe and elsewhere. These are triangular

points with a straight concave and asymmetrically concave base (V–b, bx, by), stemmed on flakes

(O–5) (Vasil’evskii 1965b:Fig. 1:1, 17; 1968:Fig. 1:1, p. 314), curved knives (IV–6), and miniature

triangular scrapers (II–25) (Vasil’evskii 1966). However, in northern Priokhot’e the primary thing

is absent—there are no or almost no signs of developed blade technique, the very thing that is

characteristic for the Ust’-Belaia culture.

Therefore the inclusion of the northern coast of the Sea of Okhotsk within the zone of the

Ust’-Belaia culture is out of the question, just as is inclusion of the Ust’-Belaia culture in the

Priokhotsk zone.

Evidently the North Chukotkan culture played a very significant role in the formation and

development of the Ust’-Belaia culture. The Ust’-Belaia culture has a large number of elements

in common with it, in particular the following types of artifacts: cone-shaped cores (II–4, 5);

retouched and smooth knife-like blades (I–2, 3, 7); triangular arrow points with a straight base

(V–a, b; VI–a, c) and with a concave base (V–ax; V–bx); stemless biface-knives (II–4, 7),

stemmed (V–1), and with a flattened straight back (VI–4, 5); triangular sharp points on flakes

(VII–5); end scrapers (I–1), side (VII–3), and corner (VII–8, 10); cobble spalls flaked along the

edges (VIII–4); biface scrapers (X–10); indented scrapers made on knife-like blades (XII–1);

lateral burins on knife-like blades (I–2), dihedral burins (I–5), polyhedral with a retouched haft

(II–5), with a flattened bifacially retouched haft (III–2, 4), and burins on flakes (IV–3, 4, 5, 6).

However, in the most important element—the ceramics—the Ust’-Belaia culture is essentially

distinct from the North Chukotka with its clay vessels covered on the outside by check-stamped

(“waffle”-marked) imprints.

Ust’-Belaia cultural connections with early cultures of America can be traced through

different stages.

Even in the Denby Flint Complex (the approximate age of which is about 3000 B.C.) are

encountered triangular arrow points (V–a; VI–9) (Ibid.:Pls. 71:a, 6; 72:8; 72:7) finely retouched by

diagonal flaking, leaf-shaped points (I–1c) (Ibid.:Pl. 71:b, 2, 3), segment-like insets (I–11) (Ibid.:Pl.

71:b, 9, 16; Fig. 56:a), uniface knives (VII–8) (Ibid.:Fig. 53:6, 8, 10; Pl. 69:1, 7, 8), and angle burins

(IV–5) (Ibid.:Pl. 66:b, 1, Fig. 5).

Parallels can be traced even in later complexes of Alaska. They are most characteristic in the

Norton Paleo-Eskimo complex (mid-first millennium B.C.). The parallels are arrow points like the

ones in the Denby complex (V–a, VI–c) (Ibid.:Pls. 46:30, 31; 72:7; 47:31; 47:24, 25, 27), segmentlike insets (I–11) (Ibid.:Pls. 46:2, 29; 46:5, 11, 13, 15), and uniface knives (VII–8) (Ibid.:Pl. 54:14, 15),

as well as rhombic stemmed arrow points with a concave base (I–15, 19; III–14) (Ibid.:Pls. 46:30,

31; 48:1, 2, 10; 49:7, 9), small oval insets (I–18) (Ibid.:Pl. 46:3, 4, 7–9), and side scrapers on flakes

(VII–3) (Ibid.:Pl. 54:2). In Alaska and the surrounding regions of Canada some other quite

characteristic Ust’-Belaia types of artifacts are present at the beginning of the second millennium

B.C.: arrow points with lateral indentations (VIII–22) and stemmed scraper-bifaces (V–14) in the

Old Whaling culture at Cape Krusenstern (Bandi 1969:Fig. 17), as well as combination scrapers with

an angular cutting point (III–6) (Dumond 1963:Fig. 1:u).
120 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

At the same time, in the Ust’-Belaia culture, in addition to noted elements of similarity with the

Norton culture, are found other “Eskimoid” traits, in particular knives and other artifacts of slate,

a stone that later acquired broad and prevailing distribution on the North Pacific coast among the

early Eskimos and ancestors of the Coastal Chukchi, as it also did to the south along the Asiatic coast

of the Pacific Ocean as far as Indochina and the Philippines.

The basis of life for inhabitants of the North Pacific, who made their knives, scrapers, and

projectile points from such gray slate, was sea hunting for pinnipeds with a special harpoon with a

detachable, so-called toggling, head. All these surprising analogies with the coastal Eskimo culture

are crowned by finds in Burial Mound 9 at the Ust’-Belaia cemetery of this very harpoon, more

precisely, its essential part—the head.

Being located at the crossroads of the intercontinental route of the north, the Ust’-Belaia

culture of Chukotka evolved from its very beginning, as was shown above, under conditions of

broad connections that were facilitated by the similarity of life of northern hunters, fishermen, and

collectors in both the Old and New World. These broad cultural connections embraced all of

northern Asia at that time, including Chukotka (Okladnikov 1945:No. 2, 1950:22–37).

The data of physical anthropology with regard to the ethnic association of the Ust’-Belaia

people are still rather vague: the study of one well-preserved skull from the Ust’-Belaia cemetery

indicates that together with features characteristic for the Arctic race (in which the Chukchi and

Eskimos are included) there are also features in it of the Baikal type of the northern Asiatic race,

which is quite evident in the plastic reconstruction of the face (Fig. 59) (Gokhman 1961). This

combination is characteristic to a certain extent for modern Chukchi reindeer herders and is usually

explained by physical anthropologists as the consequence either of Yukagir admixture (Debets

1951, 1960; Levin 1949, 1950) or of undifferentiation of similar proto-Yukagir types, and at the

same time, proto-Arctic types (Zubov 1977). In recent times there is even the tendency to consider

this Ust’-Belaia skull simply that of a proto-Eskimo who possessed neutral physical anthropological

features characteristic for very distant ancestors of the Eskimos (Alekseev 1967).

Actually, this point of view is supposedly confirmed by Eskimoid features in the Ust’-Belaia

culture, which were discussed above. However, some traits that are not characteristic of Eskimo

culture are noted in it: decoration by mother-of-pearl beads of the hat of the deceased in Burial

Mound 8, bear canines in all burial mounds, ornamentation of “raven’s” feet on the bone item of

Burial Mound 15, and the rite of partial and possibly even complete cremation itself. The first two

features are typical for taiga peoples of Siberia (the Even and Yukagir), the last two—more for the

Chukchi.

Hence, from this it can be concluded that the early Ust’-Belaia people, who already knew

bronze but retained mastery of the Neolithic stone-working technique to perfection, could be

related to the ethnogenesis of the Eskimos, Yukagir, and Chukchi, and if to the Chukchi, then of

course to the Koryak who were related to them, though the Chukchi ethnic component probably

predominated.

It is not accidental, therefore, that the ideas of scholars are so sharply divided concerning the

population for whom the Late Neolithic people of interior Chukotka were ancestors. At first the

population was interpreted as Old Yukagir (Levin 1958b; Okladnikov 1950e, 1953a)—Iu. B.

Simchenko’s (1976) position being very comprehensively substantiated within the framework of a

broader conception of a single Ural ethnic substrate in which the Yukagir play the role of the
Nikolai N. Dikov 121

Figure 59. Face of a man based on the

skull from Ust’-Belaia Kurgan 8

(reconstructed by G. V. Lebedinskaia).

northeastern people (Chernetsov 1973). At the same time, the population is seen by many specialists

as northeastern Paleo-Asiatic, in particular, Old Chukchi (Dikov 1960:66, 71; Gokhman 1961;

Vasil’evskii 1971, 1973; Vdovin 1972:107).

There is some basis for considering that later, probably at the end of the first millennium B.C.,

the Ust’-Belaia culture spread to the northern coast of Chukotka. This is attested by the Ekiatapskii

cemetery in the Amguema River valley, which is similar to the Ust’-Belaia by its burial ritual (95),

by the Pegtymel’ hunting camps (99–101) near the cliff drawings, and by the Pegtymel’ petroglyphs

themselves (102, 103).

Figure 60. Ornaments, amulets, and other items of the Ust’-Belaia culture (1–15).
122 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Figure 61. Grazing wild deer (Pegtymel’ petroglyphs).

The Pegtymel’ petroglyphs (Figs. 61–64) substantially expand ideas about the economy and

mode of life of the population of Chukotka during the period under examination. There is no

necessity to speak in detail here about them since we have exhaustively described, classified, and

dated them, and given their ethnocultural characteristics in a special monograph (Dikov 1971b).31

We only mention that owing to these cliff drawings did the speculation concerning the remote

antiquity—descending at least from the first millennium B.C. in polar Chukotka—of hunting wild

31We note with pleasure that the idea we posited on the basis of classification of the Pegtymel’ petroglyphs, of a separation of

descriptive canons, was accepted and recently developed in conformity with the petroglyphs of Belomor’e by A. D. Stoliar

(1977:24–41).
Nikolai N. Dikov 123

Figure 61a. Image of deer on a Pegtymel’ cliff.
124 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

deer in spring on skis with dogs (petroglyph 104) and in fall on the river shore with the aid of large

boats and small kayaks with double-bladed paddles, using thrusting spears and harpoons, become

certain (Dikov 1971b:54–56). And of special importance, the Pegtymel’ petroglyphs are the most

valuable source of ethnic identification of the population that left them. In them, especially in the

anthropomorphic mushrooms-toadstools (Fig. 64) and in some cases in Chukchi-Eskimo fur suits

(kerkery) (Dikov 1971b:Fig. 44), the Old Chukchi component of Bronze Age Chukotka, in its Ust’-

Belaia culture, is manifested even more and substantially strengthened.32

A more recent discovery in Tuva, in Saiany Canyon on the Yenisei, of Bronze Age

representations very close in essence to the Pegtymel’ mushroom anthropomorphs (Fig. 65:3–5)

(Devlet 1975:238–248; 1976a:Pls. 34, 36; 1976b:115–123; Devlet, Popova, and Titova 1976:240),

in combination with linguistic data for the possible connection between Chukotkan-Kamchatkan

Figure 61b. Head of a toggling harpoon and stone artifacts from the PaleoEskimo site of Chertov Ovrag on Wrangel Island.

Figure 62. Hunting wild deer (Pegtymel’ petroglyphs).

32The Chukchi component of the Pegtymel’ petroglyphs is also confirmed by I. S. Gurvich’s discoveries in 1975 of

representations of deer and dogs similar in style to those of Pegtymel’ on the retem of a yaranga in a Chukchi nomad camp in

northern Chukotka.
Nikolai N. Dikov 125

Figure 63. Whale hunting (Pegtymel’

petroglyphs).

Figure 64. Toadstool people (Pegtymel’

petroglyphs).

Figure 65. Petroglyphs representing

people with mushroom-like heads.

1—in the Stone Age in Spain;

2—on the Olekma River (after A.

P. Okladnikov and A. I. Mazin);

3–5—in the Yenisei canon, on the

right bank of the Chinge River, in

Tuva (after M. A. Devlet).
126 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

and Yenisei peoples, in particular the Kets (and consequently, for the fact that prior to the UralAltaic peoples, Siberia was possibly populated by some of the ancestors of the Chukchi and

Koryak) (Dul’zon 1969a:31), permits viewing in a somewhat new way the problem of the origin of

this Chukchi (Chukchi-Koryak) component in the Ust’-Belaia culture and, on the whole, the

problem of the origin of the Chukchi (and Koryak).

It is entirely possible that the ancestors of the Chukchi (and Koryak) arrived not only and not

so much from the southern part of continental Priokhot’e (Vasil’evskii 1971, 1973) or nearby

continental regions (Arutiunov and Sergeev 1975), but even more likely from some more remote

region of southern Siberia, through Taimyr from the upper Yenisei.33 If such is the case, the south

Siberian origin of bronze, from which the Ust’-Belaia burins and awl (square in cross section) were

made, can be explained.34 This also explains the discovery, inexplicable up to now, in 1904–1907

by N. P. Sokol’nikov on the middle Anadyr’ of a fragment of a clay vessel with an out-turned lip,

decorated in a rectilinear zigzag-shaped pattern (Dikov 1961a:10, Fig. 4:28). These ceramics were

favored in antiquity by the steppe tribes of Khakassko-Minusinsk in the south and are also found

in the taiga of the middle Yenisei in the Neolithic (and later) site near Podkamennaia Tunguska

(Nikolaev 1963:130, Pl. 4:9, 10). Finally, it explains the similarity, probably genetic, of the stone

ceremonial structures of the Entsi and Nganasani in Taimyr with those of the Karasuk, on the one

hand (Dolgikh 1951:13, 14 [Footnote]; Nikolaev 1959:19–21), and, on the other, with Ust’-Belaia

items, and through them even with the Uelen, Seshan, Chini, Ekven, and other Old Eskimo stone

burial constructions. Agreeing well with this hypothesis are the remains of a bronze smelting

production of the Piasin culture in Taimyr at the end of the second millennium B.C. (Khlobystin and

Gracheva 1972:297), the connection of the Kets with the bearers of the Karasuk culture (Chlenova

1969:143–146; Nikolaev 1960:67, 1962:253–262; Simchenko 1976:30; Vainshtein 1951), the Ket

mushroom tradition (Elizarenkova and Toporov 1970:40–46), cremation in the Ust’-Belaia

cemetery, and finds there of bear canines, attesting to the bear cult, which is characteristic also for

the Kets (Alekseenko 1967:172, 1977:41), even for their legendary ancestors—the Kaigus’

(Nikolaev 1973:492).

A. A. Formozov (1973) turned to the famous ancient East Indian soma (intoxicating vine) for

his interpretation of the Pegtymel’ mushroom-like images. He equated the divine beverage of the

Aryans with an infusion of mushroom/toadstool (Wasson and Wasson 1957). Judging by the upper

Yenisei petroglyphs, such a concoction was being used by the ancestors of the Kets during the

Bronze Age, and probably in even earlier times by the substrate Paleo-Eurasian population (about

which the anthropomorphic images of mushrooms in the art of the Stone Age of Spain may attest)

(Schuster 1970:Figs. 48, 49), probably in Priladozh’e (near St. Petersburg),35 and quite definitely in

Olekma [Fig. 65]) (Okladnikov and Mazin 1976:Pl. 12:4, p. 93). Thus, this makes the spread of the

tradition of eating hallucinogenic mushrooms quite possible not only in Northeast Asia among the

33We conjectured earlier about the alternative of the spread of the ancestors of the Chukchi from Taimyr (Dikov 1958b:9).

34We cite data from spectral analysis on the Ust’-Belaia burins, produced on 6 April 1960 by I. Bogdanova-Berezovskaia in

the Laboratory of Archaeological Technology LO IA AN SSSR (given by percentage). For the large burin: Cu—94, Pb—0.01,

Sn—2, Sb—0.2, As—1.5, Ni—1–0.7, as well as traces of Fe, Ag, Bi, Mg, Si, Al, Co, Ti, Na, Ca. For the small burin: Cu—95,

Pb—0.1, Sn—0.5, Fe—0.1, Sb—0.5, Bi—0.07, As—1–0.75, Ni—1–0.7, as well as traces of Ag, Mg, Si, Al, Mn, Ti, Na, Ca

(total sum 99%).

35We have in mind the bone sculptural representation of a man, possibly with a mushroom-like head, from the Priladozh’e

sites, usually interpreted as a mythical man-like being with two bird heads (Gurina 1961:Fig. 19:14).
Nikolai N. Dikov 127

ancestors of the northeastern Paleo-Asiatics, but even earlier into America, where the cult of

hallucinogenic anthropomorphized mushrooms was widely known in the art of the early Maya,

which we have previously discussed (Dikov 1971c:24). Therefore, the tentative hypothesis

regarding genetic connections of the proto-Chukchi component of the Ust’-Belaia culture with the

early Karasuk culture, possibly to the hypothetical Dinlins or their ancestors (Chlenova 1969:253–

262; Nikolaev 1962) through the ancestors of the Kets, who might have come to Chukotka through

the Yenisei and Taimyr, probably reflects only a very late presumable wave of Yenisei peoples into

Northeast Asia. The earliest of these waves, going directly back to the substrate Paleo-Eurasian

population, may correspond with migrations into America from Asia of the ancestors of the PaleoIndian population. Also pointing toward this are connections between the Kets and Indians both

in language (Dul’zon 1969b; Swadesh 1962) and in mythology (Ivanov 1973), and possibly in

physical anthropology (Elizarenkova and Toporov 1969:217). Furthermore, the languages of the

Yenisei type, forming the Paleo-Eurasian linguistic substrate, were spread in a significantly more

vast territory of Asia (Ivanov 1973:178). Only after this first presumed migration of ancestors of

the Paleo-Indians separated from the proto-Yenisei people were the northeastern Ural peoples

(ancestors of the Yukagir) and Eskimo-Aleuts able to settle Northeast Asia. This might be the

earliest Yukagir and Eskimo ethnic wedge between the ancestors of the northeastern Paleo-Asiatics

and Paleo-Indians, who were related in the remote past (going back to the Paleo-Yenisei peoples).

Of course, all these speculations are in need of more solid linguistic (especially toponymic)

corroboration than that which we presently have at our disposal. Broad and attentive comparative

study of languages and toponymics of northern and central Asia might bring the necessary clarity

to the problem of the origin of the Chukchi and of the northeastern Paleo-Asiatics in general.

The Appearance of Sea Mammal Hunting and the

Problem of the Origin of the Eskimos

The beginning of specialized sea mammal exploitation was a large progressive shift in the

history of the Northeast during the second millennium B.C.

It was preceded by a long period of formation of coastal economy, probably beginning as far

back as the early Holocene after the extinction of the megafauna. Having a revolutionizing effect

on the formation of this idea among archaeologists studying the northern Pacific Ocean were

Bandi’s idea, regarding the possible beginning of sea hunting during the penetration into the

Aleutian Islands through Beringia by bearers of the microlith tradition (Bandi 1969:175–186), and

J. Malaurie’s report at the 13th International Congress of Historians in Moscow in 1970, expressly

dedicated to the substantiation of this idea through vast materials drawing on the data of the

archaeology of the Eskimos and our Ushki Paleolithic (Malaurie 1970, 1972, 1973). Soon

Vasil’evskii, who before had dated the origins of sea exploitation to the second millennium B.C.

(Vasil’evskii:1969), took up this idea, made it the basis of his work, and began to develop it

(Vasil’evskii 1973, 1974, 1975a:134). The wide and rapid recognition of this idea was promoted by

a new formulation of the concept of a maritime culture as not being necessarily connected, among

those harvesting the gifts of the sea, with sea hunting with harpoons. This new definition was

formulated by the American archaeologist McCartney (1974) in contrast to its previous definition

by Chard and Vasil’evskii as a culture permanently connected with hunting in the sea. Incidentally,

the earliest sea exploitation was understood in the same way by both Laughlin and Borden, also
128 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

assigning it either to the boreal tradition at the end of the Pleistocene (Borden 1973:202) or to the

Anangula site in the Aleutian Islands at the beginning of the Holocene (Laughlin and Aigner 1966).

There is still much that is not clear about where the initial formation of sea mammal

exploitation originated. Some suggest it was in the region of Bering Strait (Arutiunov and

Sergeev 1975:116; Dikov 1958b), others on the shores of Bristol Bay in southwestern Alaska

(Chard 1962). The first center is connected only with the Eskimos, the second with the EskimoAleuts, and they are both dated to comparatively recent times—the third and second millennia

B.C. The possibility of the spread of sea hunting with toggling harpoons from the island of

Hokkaido is examined (Chan Su Bu 1977:16). These harpoons are known there as far back as Late

Jomon (in the first half of the second millennium B.C.) (Borob’ev 1958:Fig. XII:10). The idea even

exists of two independent centers of coastal adaptation: among the ancestors of the Eskimos in

the region of Bristol Bay in southwestern Alaska and among the ancestors of the Koryak on the

northern coast of the Sea of Okhotsk—and accordingly of two “spheres” of sea mammal hunting

culture: the northern Eskimo and the southern Koryak-Chukchi-Aleut (Vasil’evskii 1971,

1973).36 Below, in the section on the early Koryak culture, we go into more detail regarding this

recent, and in our view, mistaken hypothesis. Meanwhile we note that it is most likely that a single

common method of adaptation to the coastal mode of life and to hunting on the open sea with

the simplest toggling and nontoggling harpoons—though at first entirely without them—

developed in Northeast Asia and in North America, first during the Holocene climatic optimum.

As temperatures cooled about 4,000 to 3,000 years ago, the sea mammal hunting culture

gradually diverged into more isolated local cultures.

The problem of the origin of the Eskimos is most closely connected, as we see, with the

problem of the beginning of sea mammal exploitation, but, of course, is not limited by it. In the

search for the remote ethnic origins of the Eskimos, researchers use the data of physical

anthropology, ethnography, and language, and with consideration of these data, especially the

linguistic relation of the Eskimos and Aleuts, have arrived at the conclusion of the existence in the

distant past of a certain initial proto-Eskimo/proto-Aleut commonality (Esko-Aleuts or protoEskimo-Aleuts) from which the Eskimos split off either in the fourth–third millennium B.C. in

southwestern Alaska (Chard 1962) or somewhat later, not earlier than the middle (first half) of the

second millennium B.C. in the zone of Bering Strait, arriving there across the isthmus of Kamchatka

from the southwestern coast of the Sea of Okhotsk (Arutiunov and Sergeev 1975:195). (We note

that this does not agree well with the spread of the Independence culture to northern Greenland at

the beginning of the second millennium B.C., if this culture is considered Paleo-Eskimo). Other

researchers, and first among them it seems is D. Dumond, suggest that the division of the EskoAleuts could have occurred significantly earlier than 4000 B.C., as far back as the end of the

Pleistocene, in the region of Beringia, along which they spread from Asia into America (Dumond

1969a; Fainberg 1971). Then Vasil’evskii put forward this idea as the basis of his work, having

somewhat exaggerated it and ascribing the separation of the Aleuts from the Eskimos to the region

of Kamchatka. Following Laughlin, he connected the sixth Paleolithic level of the Ushki sites with

the earliest Aleuts, while the ancestors of the Eskimos—along with later (in the early or middle

Holocene) migrations across Bering Strait of some groups of Asiatic population at different

times—he suggested mixed with Paleo-Indians (Vasil’evskii 1973:210). He follows Mochanov in

36More recently Vasil’evskii (1975a:133) calls the second center Northeastern Paleo-Asiatic (Chukchi-Koryak).
Nikolai N. Dikov 129

this respect, who sees the Asiatic ancestors of the Eskimos (Aleuts also) in his Sumnagin peoples

(Mochanov 1969b:142, 1977:253).

Finally, there is even a circumpolar, or “Yukagir,” variant of the proto-Eskimo ethnic substrate

based on the possible relationship of the Eskimo and Ural languages. According to this hypothesis,

features of circumpolar culture with subsurface dwellings and other attributes of a northern

complex are elaborated among hunters of wild deer as a result of the deterioration of the climate

on the boundary between the third and second millennia (Simchenko 1976:18, 26). A labret found

in the Maimech culture in Taimyr at the boundary of the first millennium B.C. is elicited as testimony

of the relationship of the early inhabitants of Taimyr and Arctic America (Khlobystin 1969, 1973;

Simchenko 1976:19). In the last hypothesis the ecological approach draws attention, and, beginning

with the American archaeologist L. Giddings (1961:171), has gained ever more adherents in recent

times not only for the explanation of the origin of Eskimo culture, but for the comprehensiveness

of the variations in its development (Arutiunov 1975).

At one time we too proposed an ecological explanation for an indigenous (of which we are still

convinced) origin of Eskimo culture, having separated this aspect of the problem from its other

aspect—the origin of the Eskimo ethnic group itself (accepting the appearance of the latter from

more southern regions of Northeast Asia) (Dikov 1958b:8, 1963).

The cooling at the end of the second millennium B.C. and the complete deforestation of the

Arctic coastal zone brought on by it (Borisov 1970:67; Chizhov 1970:74; Shvartsbakh 1955) must

have, as we still suppose, played a decisive role in the production of several peculiarities of an Arctic

culture of sea mammal hunters, such as tightfitting, ingeniously cut, warm and waterproof fur

clothing; semisubterranean dwellings constructed from whale bone because of a lack of wood;

bedding from deer skins; oil lamps for warmth; unsinkable swift kayaks and large light baidars of

walrus skin; toggling harpoons with detachable heads; and many other tools of stone and bone

adapted to Arctic sea hunting. All this could have appeared precisely at the confluence of the two

oceans, the Pacific and the Arctic, in the place most abundant in the world with sea mammals, as

a result, we suggest, of the adaptation to new, more severe climatic conditions (Dikov 1958b:8).

We employ the term “Old Eskimo culture” in the tentative sense since in reality the culture

denoted by it corresponds to different ethnic groups of Eskimos, though in some local

manifestations it might turn out to be not even Eskimo according to the ethnic attribution of its

bearers.

In the western districts of Alaska during the first millennium B.C. lived sea mammal hunters

who did not use knife-like blades, in contrast to the Dorset peoples living to the east of them, thus

marking a break in the northern Neolithic tradition. Here in western Alaska at the end of the

second millennium and in the first centuries of the first millennium B.C., the Kachemak I and

Choris cultures spread, and then, in the middle of the latter millennium, the Norton culture and,

finally, at the end of the first millennium B.C.–beginning of the first millennium A.D., the Ipiutak.

These were the so-called Paleo-Eskimo cultures. At the end of the first millennium B.C. the NeoEskimo cultures took shape here: Okvik, Old Bering Sea, and in the middle of the first millennium

A.D., the Birnirk and Punuk. All the enumerated cultures have clearly local elements, not

characteristic of eastern Arctic sites.

In its development the Old Eskimo culture passed in Chukotka, as is usually supposed, through

several stages: the Okvik, Old Bering Sea, Birnirk, and Punuk, so named by the location of the most
130 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

typical of their sites. In essence, these do not represent the whole stage of Old Eskimo culture of

Chukotka, but rather the indigenous cultures of different time periods (sometimes partially

coexistent). Each of them is distinguished now primarily by forms of bone toggling heads of

harpoons—the basic tool for the exploitation of sea mammals—and by the style of artistic carvings

on them and on other bone artifacts.

The origin, development, and interrelationships of these coastal sea mammal hunting cultures

is a long way from being clear. Until very recent times (up to the discovery in 1975 of the PaleoEskimo culture on Wrangel’ Island) the initial Asiatic cultures of sea mammal hunters were still

entirely unknown, and our acquaintance with them on the sea coast of eastern Chukotka began with

the very complex and well-developed Okvik and Old Bering Sea cultures. The question of which

is older is still being discussed. Therefore, we need to address the Eskimo problem, which embraces

a very broad sphere of questions.

We do not set before ourselves the task of final and complete resolution of this Eskimo

problem, but we nevertheless do make an effort according to our strengths to understand it and

for this we examine each of the named coastal archaeological cultures in light of recent

archaeological materials.

The Wrangel’ Paleo-Eskimo Culture

It became possible to speak about the distribution on the Asiatic side of the Eskimo area of

the earliest Paleo-Eskimo culture in Asia only after the discovery in 1975 on Wrangel’ Island of a

Paleo-Eskimo site at Chertov Ovrag (167) (Dikov 1976c, 1978b). We will limit ourselves here to

only preliminary data about this culture on the basis of our first materials pertaining to it, inasmuch

as at the present time a special crew of the Northeast Asiatic Expedition (under the direction of T.

S. Tein) is still conducting fieldwork there (Tein 1977, 1978).

In the complex of stone artifacts of this sea mammal hunting culture, as is typical of PaleoEskimo cultures, ground tools are almost completely absent.

Among the stone artifacts are projectile points, knives, knives-gravers, scrapers, and some

other instruments. They were almost all made by percussion and pressure flaking, which gives them

a very archaic appearance. Below we give a description of them.

All the projectile points were made by bifacial pressure flaking and are typical bifacial tools

with fine retouch along the edges. They all have a more or less pronounced stem and can be

subdivided into two basic groups: leaf-shaped stemmed (Fig. 66:1) and triangular stemmed (Fig.

66:3). In addition, the stems may be narrow and long (Fig. 66:1) or hardly noticeable (Fig. 66:2).

Only one stemmed point was made from dark-gray flint of good quality; the remainder are of coarse

filleted, almost black, argillo-arenaceous slate.

Knives, as a rule, differ by crude manufacture and based on the working of the surface are

either bifacial (Fig. 66:8) or unifacial (Fig. 66:7). The predominant form of knife is leaf-shaped

(Fig. 66:8) or elongated oval (Fig. 66:9), though knives of shaped (curved) forms were also

preserved as fragments.
Nikolai N. Dikov 131

Another group of knives is made up of more or less massive blade flakes retouched primarily

on the dorsal side (Fig. 66:5, 6) or on the ventral side too. Some varieties of these artifacts can be

assigned to the category of crude knife-like blades with retouch.

A special category of tools is made up of large triangular knife-gravers, bifaces, and unifaces

(Fig. 66:14, 15). In essence, they closely resemble the previous category of knives, being different

from them by the presence of a pointed working end.

A combination of features of the two previous categories of tools forms another, and very

specific, group of tools—uniface knives-gravers on comparatively thin blade flakes or broad knifelike blades (Fig. 66:11, 13). As a rule, they have a more or less long and narrow segmented outline

with one carefully pointed working end, with the opposite end rounded, the ventral side entirely

unworked, and dorsal side covered completely with pressure retouch.

Figure 66. Paleo-Eskimo complex on Wrangel Island (1–16).
132 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Scrapers make up a comparatively numerous group. They were made from flakes by means of

more or less complete working. Characteristic in form are scrapers with “ears,” carefully worked

on the dorsal side (Fig. 66:20, 21); a “pear-shaped” scraper, precisely retouched on both sides, and

probably being a scraper-punch (Fig. 66:19); an oval scraper (Fig. 66:18); a trapezoidal scraper;

subtriangular ones (Fig. 66:17); and others of less pronounced forms. Some of them could have

served simultaneously as knives.

A distinctive tool is a massive knife bearing a burin spall (Fig. 66:16) and an adze-like

instrument of gray arenaceous slate.

Finally, simply flakes are also encountered, some of them with traces of retouch.

Among the enumerated artifacts, worked by percussion and pressure, only one small adze of

subtrapezoidal form on a flat cobble was found with the working edge slightly ground. It was

worked rather carelessly, and along one of its edges and on the butt was preserved untouched

cobble cortex (Fig. 66:4).

Artifacts of walrus tusk are represented by three rod-like tools resembling leaf-shaped icepicks. They have slightly pointed working ends, while the opposite ends are unworked. It is possible

that some of these tools could have served also as pressure flakers for working stone artifacts.

Finally, the most interesting and important artifact in diagnostic regard is a one-holed toggling

harpoon head of rather large dimensions, very archaic in appearance, and distinctive (Fig. 66:1)

(Dikov 1977b:Pl. 188).

We have already noted (Ibid.:Pl. 188) that this toggling harpoon head found at the site is with

all its distinctiveness generally closest in its construction to the earliest harpoon heads from Peary

Land in extreme northern Greenland, where they were found more than two decades ago by the

Danish archaeologist Eigil Knuth among the remains of the Independence II Paleo-Eskimo culture

(second millennium B.C.) (Bandi 1969:Fig. 64).

The general appearance of the stone industry first discovered in the Wrangel’ Island culture,

and especially the prevalence of such artifacts as stemmed points worked by retouch, knife-gravers,

and, though crude, knife-like blades, also has many features in common with the earliest PaleoEskimo cultures of Arctic America, especially in the northern Greenland Independence culture and

in the Palisades II culture (4000 B.C.) on Cape Krusenstern in Bering Strait (Bandi 1969:Fig. 16;

Giddings 1961:Fig. 4). Coastal sites in northern Chukotka, in particular the Old Bering Sea and

Punuk sites and the sanctuary on Cape Schmidta (Ryrkaipiia) that we investigated in 1957 and 1975,

at present do not provide analogies with the early Wrangel’ culture.

Thus, we now have very convincing comparative-typological data for adequately setting the

date of the maritime culture found on Wrangel’ Island to a very early time—second millennium B.C.,

a period that undoubtedly preceded the Okvik and Old Bering Sea cultures. These data agree with

a radiocarbon date of 3360 ± 155 B.P. (MAG–198) on charcoal from a hearth at the Chertov Ovrag

site. Moreover, we not only obtained the first evidence of an early settlement for Wrangel’ Island

but also found the earliest Paleo-Eskimo culture in Asia. A striking fact in the similarity of this

Wrangel’ culture with Paleo-Eskimo cultures of the Canadian Arctic and even of the distant island

of Greenland on the one hand, and the noticeable similarity of many specific types of stone

artifacts—stemmed scrapers, knife-gravers, and curved knives (Tein 1978)—on the other, with
Nikolai N. Dikov 133

those of Neolithic Kamchatka up to Cape Lopatka, with the northern Okhotsk, and with Old Aleut

(Dikova 1976; McCartney 1971:Fig. 15; Vasil’evskii 1971) is good confirmation of this single and

broad cultural stratum during the period of mastery of maritime economics in Northeast Asia and

North America, which was discussed above.
134 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia
Northeast Asia

During the Period of

the Undeveloped Iron Age

and the Remnant Neolithic

By the beginning of our era iron starts to penetrate into extreme Northeast Asia. It is used in

insignificant quantity—tools of stone, bone, and wood predominating as before. However, the end

is closing on the former Neolithic culture as such in Kamchatka and Chukotka. The Neolithic in this

territory now acquires a remnant character and enters into the last, though very protracted phase

of its development, which continued until the arrival of the Russians in the Northeast in the

seventeenth century.

During the course of time several ethnocultural commonalities were formed here that are

clearly distinguished by the character of their archaeological sites (Fig. 67). On the Chukotka Sea

coast we find cultures of the ancestors of the Eskimos and Coastal Chukchi during this time, as well

as of the Koryak. In the interior of Chukotka, in the valleys of the Anadyr’ River, the Main River,

and evidently the Kolyma, we likely find the Old Yukagir culture. On the northern coast of the Sea

of Okhotsk and the Bering Sea coast of northern Kamchatka is the Old Koryak culture. In the valley

of the Kamchatka River is the Middle Kamchatkan (Nikul’skaia) variant of the Old Itel’men culture

and, finally, in the southern Kamchatka Peninsula is the South Kamchatka (Nalychevo) variant of

the culture of the Itel’men, which underwent Ainu influence.

We will examine these archaeological cultures in sequence beginning with the most northern,

those connected with sea mammal hunting.

The Okvik Culture

The Okvik culture can now be considered one of the earliest and best known maritime cultures

in Chukotka, along with Old Bering Sea. Okvik was well investigated on St. Lawrence Island, where

its remains are covered by deposits of the Old Bering Sea culture. Traces of the Okvik culture can

also be found in southwestern Alaska, on Kodiak Island, and on the islands in Bering Strait. In

Chukotka its distribution is restricted primarily to the coast of Bering Strait, from Uelen to

Chaplino, but signs of it have also been found in Nunligran.

Among the burials of the Uelen cemetery (112), which we excavated between 1957 and 1963,

one (No. 1) turned out to have toggling harpoon heads typical in construction of Okvik, decorated

with the spare Okvik pattern of deeply incised, lightly bent lines. The skeleton of a man lay supine,
136 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

head to the east, under a slab of a wall of later burials. Beside it were many stone and bone artifacts

including a ground slate punch reminiscent of Eskimo-Aleut labret studs (Dikov 1967a:Fig. 4:2).

At least one more (No. 15) clearly Okvik burial was found in 1959 at the Uelen cemetery by

M. G. Levin, D. A. Sergeev, and S. A. Arutiunov. It was also oriented with the head to the east,

buried extended in the same manner, lying on its back (Arutiunov and Sergeev 1969:56, Fig. 15).

We determined these two Uelen burials as Okvik by both the form and style of the decoration

of the toggling harpoon heads, and by the presence in one of them of an archaic “winged object”

of Okvik type, similar to those that had been found earlier (Arutiunov and Sergeev 1969:Fig. 50:9).

Bone and stone artifacts from these burials form a rather completely defining characteristic

complex, almost analogous to that known from the excavations of Collins and Rainey on St.

Lawrence Island.

Among the bone artifacts of the Okvik complex are toggling harpoon heads made of walrus

tusk, having both closed and open sockets for the base, either with an end blade or lateral insets,

Figure 67. The settlement of peoples of Northeast Asia in the seventeenth century and archaeological cultures of the Undeveloped Iron

Age and the Remnant Neolithic. I—Yukagir; II—Chukchi; III—Itel’men; IV—Ainu; V—Koryak; VI—Kerek; VII—Even;

VIII—Eskimos of the Chukchi Peninsula. Sites: 1—Okvik culture; 2—Old Bering Sea; 3—Birnirk; 4—Tule-Punuk; 5—Vakareva

culture; 6—Old Koryak; 7—Kanchalan culture; 8—Old Kerek; 9—Old Itel’men (Middle Kamchatka); 10—South Kamchatka

(Nalychevo) Old Itel’men; 11—Old Aleut.
Nikolai N. Dikov 137

but always with one hole for the line (Arutiunov and Sergeev 1969:Figs. 36, 124, 127; Dikov

1967a:Fig. 6:1–4). Also characteristic for the Okvik complex are “winged objects” of rather archaic

form with straight short wings (Bandi 1969:Fig. 23).

Anthropomorphic bone statuettes are quite common to the Okvik culture, as are images of

human faces simply carved from walrus tusks, most often adorning buttons and plugs for floats. The

Okvik anthropomorphic images, as a rule, are distinguished by a face of extended proportions and

a long, narrow nose. Especially significant in this respect is the so-called Okvik Madonna from the

Punuk Islands. Often labrets are very definitely depicted on such bone images from mixed OkvikOld Bering Sea burials. The fact that there are no similar images with labrets in pure Old Bering Sea

burials or in Old Bering Sea sites permits concluding that these images are associated with Okvik.

Also, directly corroborating this is the lack of labrets on Old Bering Sea wooden masks recently

found by Sergeev in the Ekven cemetery.37

In the complex of Okvik bone artifacts are also various tools of land and sea hunting: arrow

points with end slots for a stone point and long barbs on the stem, arrow points with a blunt end

(for hunting birds), mattocks, long rods for lateral inset stone blades, leister points, hooks, buttons,

plugs for floats, sled runners, and so forth. Finally, an antler bow for starting fire, which we found

in an Uelen burial, is very characteristic by its typically Okvik design (Dikov 1958a:Fig. 14:1).

In the Okvik assemblage of stone artifacts (Fig. 68) are bifacially retouched arrow and dart

points that are leaf-shaped (I–9a, 9aM) (Dikov 1967a:Figs. 4:9; 7:11), stemmed (VIII–4M)

(Ibid.:Fig. 7:5), triangular (II–4b; VI–b) (Arutiunov and Sergeev 1969:Fig. 63:1); ground slate spear

points (E–4) (Bandi 1969:Fig. 23); slate knives, among which was preserved a complete knife of

broad leaf-shaped form and very large dimensions (22 cm long), with one hole for fastening to a

handle (E–37) (Dikov 1967a:Fig. 5:1); fragments of bifacially retouched, incompletely leaf-shaped

knives on flakes; short (no longer than 4 cm), irregular knife-like blades retouched along the edges

(I–7) (Ibid.:Figs. 4:6; 7:16); small, leaf-shaped inset blades for a toggling harpoon (I–14) (Ibid.:Figs.

4:11; 7:14) and triangular inset blades for a harpoon (I–11) (Ibid.:Fig. 4:15); combination scrapers

with end and side working edges (V–5) (Ibid.:Fig. 7:3), rounded micro-scrapers (V–8) (Ibid.:Fig.

4:3), scrapers on flakes (X–9, 10) (Ibid.:Figs. 4:7, 8; 7:6), a high disk-shaped scraper (IX–13)

(Ibid.:Fig. 7:10); a dihedral burin on a flake (IV–6) (Ibid.:Fig. 7:9) and a quartz crystal in the role of

a burin (V–9) (Ibid.:Fig. 7:13); punches: flat, slate, and ground, without a haft (II–6) (Ibid.:Fig. 4:2)

and a fragment of a massive punch (II–4) (Ibid.:Fig. 7:12); flaked adzes—in some cases with a slightly

ground working edge—of irregular lenticular cross section, with rounded blade and pointed butt

(IV–1), as well as of irregular subtrapezoidal form (V–3); cube-shaped cores-pressure flakers; and

sandstone slabs for grinding ocher (Ibid.:Figs. 4:16, 19; 5:7; 7:1; 7:2).

We will now examine the problem of dating the Okvik culture. Larsen and Rainey dated it to

the first centuries A.D., considering this culture earlier than Old Bering Sea and synchronic with

Ipiutak (Larsen and Rainey 1948). Collins, having subjected the development of the

representational style of Old Bering Sea sites to thorough investigation, assigned Okvik to the first

phase of development of Old Bering Sea art, placing it chronologically in the last three centuries B.C.

(Collins 1954). At Collins’s disposal at this time was the first radiocarbon date from Okvik House

No. 2 at the Hillside site at Gambell on St. Lawrence Island, determined by Libby (2258 ± 230 B.P.).

37A mask without labrets was also recently found at Uten (122). It is preserved in the repository of the Chukotka District

Regional Museum.
138 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

This Okvik date and the belief that it was the earliest of the known sea mammal hunting cultures of

the Asiatic part of Bering Strait has been maintained up to now by all or almost all American

researchers of the Eskimo problem, including J. Giddings and H. Bandi (Bandi 1969; Giddings

1964:252). In addition, the opinion gradually began to prevail that Okvik was not simply the first

stage of Old Bering Sea, but rather an independent culture, one occurring at the beginning of and

even earlier than Old Bering Sea, then developing in parallel with it (Bandi 1969; Ford 1959:239).

It is very important that such an idea about the chronological relation of the Okvik and Old

Bering Sea cultures prevails in spite of the fact that by 1959 new radiocarbon dates on the same

samples from the Hillside site at Gambell were found to be younger (averaging 500 years A.D.) than

Old Bering Sea (averaging 300 years A.D.) (Rainey and Ralph 1959). This served Levin, and then

Arutiunov and Sergeev, as a reason for the categorical revision of the relative chronology of Okvik.

Levin pointed out the necessity of this as early as 1949, supposing even then that Okvik was younger

than Old Bering Sea (Levin 1949). On the basis of the analysis and classification of harpoon heads

Figure 68. Okvik complex of stone artifacts (Uelen cemetery, Burial 1. Author’s excavations in 1956).
Nikolai N. Dikov 139

from the Uelen and partially the Ekven cemeteries, these investigators confirmed, they suppose, this

conclusion (Levin et al. 1975).

However, it should be noted that Collins anticipated that the dates on the charcoal from House

No. 2 at Hillside were not sufficiently reliable to determine the chronological position of Okvik,

since no items characteristic of Okvik were preserved in this house. They, in Collins’s opinion, were

either earlier than ordinary Okvik, or later (Rainey and Ralph 1959). Considering this circumstance,

we should treat all the radiocarbon dates on the charcoal from Hillside with great care. This also

relates, of course, to the new radiocarbon date (1370 ± 60 B.P.) from the other house at Hillside,

which can also be assigned to the late stage of Okvik (Bandi 1976:489, 490). Meanwhile, there are

no other radiocarbon determinations for dating Okvik.

Also incorrect, in our view, is the determination of the age of the Okvik culture on the basis

of the typology of toggling harpoon heads, which the named investigators suggest. Contrary to the

facts, they consider the two-holed heads as the basic form (consequently, Old Bering Sea) and the

one-holed (consequently, Okvik) as later. Meanwhile, both in Chukotka (at the Ust’-Belaia

cemetery) and in Alaska (in the Kachemak I, Choris, and Ipiutak cultures) the earliest heads are not

two-holed, but rather the simplest one-holed heads (Bandi 1969:Fig. 22, 31, 36). Moreover, the

Ipiutak one-holed heads, which, of course, are definitely not later then Old Bering Sea, are similar

to Okvik even in their constructional details of the second order (end blades, lateral insets, and

barbs) (Ibid.:Fig. 36).

At the same time, one must take into consideration the very specific typology of “winged

objects” worked out by Collins and confirmed through recent investigations both by us and by M.

G. Levin, S. A. Arutiunov, and D. A. Sergeev. The earliest initial form is “winged objects” with short

straight wings. It is for this form that the Okvik style of decoration is most characteristic. Such

“winged objects” were found at the Okvik site on Punuk Island (Bandi 1969:Fig. 23; Collins

1962:Fig. 7:a), and in the Uelen cemetery accompanied by Okvik type harpoon heads (Arutiunov

and Sergeev 1969:Fig. 50:9, 11). Even if one admits that Okvik “winged objects” are not

represented by the earliest variety of this early type, as this presumably follows from the typology

of “winged objects” proposed by Arutiunov and Sergeev (Arutiunov and Sergeev 1975:153, Fig.

85:5), they are nevertheless not later types, and this is decisively significant. Therefore, Okvik

“winged objects” are synchronic only with the early phases of the Old Bering Sea culture and in

addition could not have been borrowed from it initially, not in the earliest phase of Okvik culture.

We consider the predominance of flaked stone tools over ground stone in Okvik as another

archaic feature, which is more significant than in the Old Bering Sea culture, and the presence of

spear-like bone rods equipped with lateral stone insets similar to the kind of inset rods from the

Mesolithic deposits of Trail Creek Cave in Alaska (Larsen 1968:Pls. 11–13).

At the same time we suggest that the beginning of Okvik probably was not much earlier than

the beginning of the Old Bering Sea culture. Also, R. V. Chubarova-Kozyreva, M. G. Levin, S.

A. Arutiunov, and D. A. Sergeev are correct, of course, in ascertaining the Uelen site after its

excavation and the investigation by Chubarova-Kozyreva to late “prehistoric” times (fifteenth–

seventeenth centuries) (Chubarova-Kozyreva 1969:34), though not S. I. Rudenko, who

seemingly assigned it to the end of the second–first millennium B.C. (Rudenko 1947:107, 108). An

Uelen culture connected with Okvik is in reality a fiction and we therefore are not dealing with
140 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

an Uelen-Okvik culture, as Rudenko mistakenly considered it and as Yu. B. Simchenko at present

traces it (Simchenko 1976:67), but only with Okvik.

Recognizing chronological priority for Okvik, and not Old Bering Sea, we have in mind the

periods of origin of these cultures, suggesting that later they coexist for a long time.

Thus, we do not have a sufficient basis at present for making Okvik older, according to

Rudenko, or for making it excessively younger, according to Levin, Arutiunov, and Sergeev. This,

one of the oldest Neo-Eskimo cultures, probably belongs to the end of the first millennium B.C. and

to the first half, or perhaps even to the middle, of the first millennium A.D. Only by a

misunderstanding is it possible to explain the observation of Arutiunov and Sergeev, that we

supposedly continue to adhere to Rudenko’s old concept of an Uelen-Okvik stage entirely

preceding Old Bering Sea (Arutiunov and Sergeev 1975:184). After the investigations conducted

in 1957 at the Uelen site by Chubarova-Kozyreva, it became clear that all the grounds fell away for

inclusion of this site in the Okvik culture and for dating the latter to the second–first millennium B.C.,

as well as for the inclusion in Chukchi and not Eskimo. If for a time we used the term “Uelen-Okvik

culture” (but not “stage,” as Arutiunov and Sergeev attribute to us), then it was in a quite different

chronological context: “the Uelen-Okvik culture of the first centuries of our era” and meaning not

the Uelen site, but a purely Okvik burial in the Uelen cemetery (Dikov 1967a:48). Later we

completely eliminated this term from use, having restored the former, American term “Okvik”

(Dikov 1969a:172, 1971a:32–33, 1972, 1974a, and others).

Shifting to the question of cultural connections and the origin of the Okvik culture, it must be

stressed that, in spite of Vasil’evskii’s opinion, it cannot be the oldest Eskimo culture in Chukotka,

which, until the resettlement here from Alaska of the Okvik people, was supposedly occupied

exclusively by northeastern Paleo-Asiatics—ancestors of the Chukchi and Koryak (Vasil’evskii

1973:212, 1975a:132). A Paleo-Eskimo pre-Okvik culture is now known even on Wrangel’ Island,

where it could have arrived only by going through Chukotka. There is no convincing data about a

connection between Okvik and this Wrangel’ culture, though in principle it is not out of the question.

This is indicated by the general similarity of their stone industries, more archaic on Wrangel’ Island

in comparison to Okvik in which, though limited, ground slate knives were used.

Though traces of Okvik culture were preserved primarily on the islands (St. Lawrence, the

Punuks, Diomede) and only to a smaller degree on the mainland (in Chukotka and Alaska), it

maintains some features of genetic similarity with continental cultures.

Many common genetic features of similarity with Okvik are observed in the Ust’-Belaia

culture, where, judging by the finds of oblong, segmented flint insets (I–11), there were, just as

in Okvik Uelen Burial 1, composite pikes made of bone and stone. In the Ust’-Belaia culture the

simplest toggling harpoon heads with one hole were used (Fig. 55:5), which are characteristic for

Okvik, as well as bone arrow sockets bifurcated on both ends and decorated with engraved

design (Fig. 60:3–5) very similar to Okvik but simpler, which can be viewed as its prototype.

Okvik corrugated ceramics (Bandi 1969:Fig. 23) also have analogies in some forms of ceramics

of the Ust’-Belaia cemetery.

In addition, in the Ust’-Belaia culture are stone artifacts similar to Okvik: bifacially

retouched, oblong, triangular arrow points with a straight base (II–4c), as well as leaf-shaped with

a truncated base and rounded point (I–9aM); triangular lateral insets completely retouched on
Nikolai N. Dikov 141

both sides (I–11) and small leaf-shaped items worked by the same method (I–14); short knifelike lamellar blades retouched along one edge (I–7); rounded micro-scrapers (V–8), round, high

disk-like scrapers (IX–13), and semi-oval scrapers on flakes (X–9, 10); and dihedral burins on

flakes (IV–6). However, it must be noted that the similarity between the Okvik stone inventory

and the Ust’-Belaia is not complete. In the Okvik culture, in distinction from the Ust’-Belaia,

knife-like lamellar blades are not the dominant form of the industry and are more the exception.

In addition, the lamellar blades noted above (I–7) have quite irregular “non-classic” features.

The Okvik stone industry also has similarities with the North Chukotka Late Neolithic culture,

though fewer. There are the same lamellar blades retouched along one edge (I–7) and dihedral

burins (IV–6), as well as entirely flaked subtrapezoidal adzes of coarse manufacture characteristic

for the Okvik culture (V–3). In everything else there are fewer similarities with the North Chukotkan

culture. There are no similar bone artifacts, and the ceramics are entirely different—a small checkstamped design.

Just as in the Ust’-Belaia culture, in the North Chukotka (in distinction from Okvik) the

technique of flaking knife-like lamellar blades prevails, and in addition, three-sided stone arrow

points quite foreign to Okvik are present. Thus it is that the Okvik reveals in general significantly

fewer connections with the North Chukotkan culture than with the Ust’-Belaia that might be

considered genetic. This may in part be explained by its relatively greater chronological remoteness

from Okvik.

Nor did we find similarities with the Okvik complex farther in the depths of Siberia.

However, it should be noted that the spread of some elements of this complex (similar arrow

points and adzes) can be traced to the end of the second–first millennium B.C. primarily in the

circum-Pacific zone—on the northern coast of the Sea of Okhotsk, on Sakhalin, in Primor’e, and

farther to the island of Hokkaido.

In North America some similarities with Okvik artifacts are found along the entire Arctic zone,

the greatest quantity of them belonging to Alaska, especially to the Norton complex (second half

of the first millennium B.C.). In the latter we find one-holed toggling harpoon heads (Giddings

1964:Pl. 36:17, 20); labrets (Ibid.:Pl. 39); elongated triangular arrow points with a straight base (II–

4c) (Ibid.:Pl. 47:12, 14, 15, 18, 21, 23, 24), stemmed (VIII–44) (Ibid.:Pl. 50:14); entirely retouched

inset blades, lateral triangular (I–11) (Ibid.:Pl. 46:5, 11, 13, 15) and oval (I–18) (Ibid.:Pl. 46:3, 7–9,

17); and, finally, oval adzes with a pointed butt and only partially ground on the blade (IV–1)

(Ibid.:Pl. 44:11). Of the Norton items named, some are already found in the earlier Denby complex

(about 3000 B.C.): elongated triangular arrow points (II–48) (Ibid.:Pl. 72:8) and triangular insets (I–

11) (Campbell 1962:Pl. 3:8; Giddings 1964:Fig. 56:a; Pl. 71:b, 9).38 In the temporally intermediate

Old Whaling culture (beginning of the second millennium B.C.) we see, just as in Norton, elongated

triangular points (II–46) (Bandi 1969:Fig. 17:14), and in the Choris culture (middle of the first

millennium B.C.)—labrets, one-holed toggling harpoon heads, and stemmed points (II–14), as well

as triangular (III–5) points (Bandi 1969:Fig. 22).

Thus, on the northwestern coast of Alaska is a continuous genetic chain of some cultural

elements coming from the Denby complex through the Old Whaling culture and the Choris culture

to Norton, and from it to the Okvik culture. It is even possible to add to the earlier sources for the

38Also see Giddings (1964) about insets from Natvakruak (middle of the third millennium B.C.).
142 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Okvik material culture, going back to the Mesolithic deposits in the western Alaska Trail Creek

cave, where bone rods analogous to Okvik with lateral grooves for segment-like stone insets were

found (Larsen 1968:Pl. III:5).

The origin of Okvik and its similarity with the labret-bearing Ipiutak culture that developed in

northwestern Alaska at the end of the first millennium B.C.–beginning of the first millennium A.D.

is of definite interest for the problem being examined. There is much in common here in the

construction of one-holed toggling harpoon heads (Bandi 1969:Fig. 35, 36), the style of decoration

of bone artifacts, and in the stone inventory. Similar in the last are triangular and oval lateral inset

blades (I–11) (Larsen and Rainey 1948:Fig. 20 [Type 1]; Pls. 2:26, 27, 24, 33; 36:2, 6, 7, 14, 17);

bifacially retouched, oblong, triangular, flat arrow points with a straight base (II–46) (Ibid.:Pls. 2:1–

4; 35:2–6, 9, 12); and the general domination of flaking over grinding.

It is interesting that the named triangular points are encountered sporadically as far as

Labrador, where they are known in a culture that existed from 3000 to 1000 B.C. (Harp 1963:Pl. I:c),

and on the Kuskokwim in the vicinity of Bristol Bay, where they have a concave base and date to

the beginning of the first millennium B.C. (Ackerman 1964:Fig. 8:1). At the same place but somewhat

later, from the middle of the first millennium B.C., lateral, triangular inset blades so characteristic

for Okvik (I–11) are also encountered (Ibid.:Fig. 9–2–3). However, at present it is to early too judge

whether these analogies are evidence proper of cultural connections of a contact character, in other

words, cultural diffusion, or the manifestation of a general earlier cultural base.

Surprisingly many elements similar to Okvik can be traced from the end of the second to the

middle of the first millennium B.C. southeast of Alaska, in the delta region of the Fraser River in

British Columbia, where in the cultural deposits of the Locarno Beach and Marpole phases labrets

(Borden 1962:Pl. 5:k, l, p), one-holed toggling harpoon heads (Ibid.:Pl. 2:k, l, m), ground slate

knives (Ibid.:Pl. 4:d, e, k, h), and stemmed slate dart points (E–4) (Ibid.:Pl. 4:b), as well as small

plaques in the form of human faces (Ibid.:Pl. 5:a), have also been found.

Open-work bone plaques characteristic of this American culture, including plaques in the form

of human heads and skulls (Ibid.:Pl. 5:c, m, e), labrets, and barbed non-toggling harpoon heads

(Ibid.:Pl. 2:a, h), bring this culture quite close to the Ipiutak culture, on the one hand, and to the

culture of the Aleuts, on the other (Hrdlicka 1945; Jochelson 1925).

Evidently the maritime culture of Kachemak I of southwestern Alaska, with labrets, oneholed toggling harpoon heads, and non-toggling unilaterally barbed harpoon heads (Bandi

1969:Fig. 31), is the intervening culture between the culture at the mouth of the Fraser River, on

the one hand, and the Choris, Norton, and Okvik cultures, on the other—not only by its

geographic position but genetically.

Unfortunately, the triangular lateral insets (I–11) and almond-shaped flaked adzes (IV–1)

excavated in the Aleutian Islands by W. I. Jochelson are undated (Jochelson 1925:Fig. 34:A; Fig.

26:A). They are similar to Okvik and Norton, probably reflecting genetic relations with them, at the

same time showing a commonality of origin with early Aleut and Eskimo cultures.

Summarizing the comparative analysis of the Okvik material complex that we conducted

above, it should be noted that there are no exact analogies with this complex.

Similar in many ways, the Ust’-Belaia and North Chukotkan cultures are nevertheless distinct

by a technique of flaking knife-like lamellar blades entirely uncharacteristic for Okvik. A large
Nikolai N. Dikov 143

chronological break between these cultures of continental Chukotka and Okvik is the reason for this

difference. But it is not impossible, and is even more probable, that the Ust’-Belaia and North

Chukotkan cultures belong to an ethnocultural tradition different from Okvik.

The Ipiutak, Norton, Choris, Kachemak I, Marpole, and Locarno Beach complexes can be

considered the closest to Okvik. These complexes are characterized by the presence of one-holed

toggling harpoon heads and labrets, as well as a well-developed, in greater or lesser degree, ground

slate industry and the complete or almost complete lack of production of knife-like lamellar blades.

By a combination of similar traits all these complexes can with sufficient basis be considered Old

Eskimo. Consequently, we must acknowledge even the Okvik culture as truly Old Eskimo by its

ethnic quality. Corresponding completely with this definition are language data (examined by

glottochronology), according to which the separation of the Eskimo from the Aleut occurred no

later than 4,000 years ago (Swadesh and Marsh 1952:452–463).

It can be easily seen that this conclusion agrees in significant measure with Chester Chard’s

hypothesis regarding the location of the origin of Eskimo culture in the vicinity of Bristol Bay in

Southwest Alaska (Chard 1962:No. 5).

At the same time, we have to acknowledge a more southern—from British Columbia—strong

influence on the formation of early western Alaskan Eskimo culture and, consequently, on the Okvik

culture. Drucker’s hypothesis of an Old Eskimo substrate on the Northwest Coast of America is

supported by this (Ibid.:97).

But neither Chard’s hypothesis nor ours supplementing it answers the question of the first

appearance on the north coasts of the Bering Sea of the most distant, primordial ancestors of the

Eskimos. The answer to this question is contained, in our deep conviction, in new archaeological

material from Kamchatka. Precisely, the Final Paleolithic culture of Cultural Layers V–VI of the

Ushki site permit determination of the earliest sources of Eskimo culture.

This culture of the late Paleolithic of extreme northeastern Siberia was determined above as

proto-Eskimo-Aleut on the basis of an artifact similar to a labret, wedge-shaped cores, and other

data. It contains the rudiments of several elements, which, having spread throughout Alaska,

created there a substrate of proto-Eskimo culture. Above all, the technique of flaking knife-like

lamellar blades from wedge-shaped cores and the bifacial pressure flaking of cutting edges and

projectile points belong to this proto-Eskimo culture. In Alaska we see this technical tradition

10,000–8,000 years ago in the Campus, Akmak, Healy Lake, Donnelly Ridge, and Teklanika

complexes (Anderson 1970; Bandi 1969:51; McKennan 1970). In later, Mesolithic or Early

Neolithic times this tradition is partially preserved in the Trail Creek and Denby complexes. In the

latter we even have evidence of something resembling a wedge-shaped core (Bandi 1969:Fig. 21).

And the narrow, leaf-shaped, carefully bifacially worked projectile points or blades are as similar

as two drops of water to such elegantly retouched, narrow, leaf-shaped points from Cultural Layers

V–VI of the Ushki sites. It is impossible not to agree that the skills of preparation of such intricate

flint points, as well as insets later, were one of the basic components of the material culture in the

Arctic from the earliest stages of Eskimo history.

Also to the array of culture-forming proto-Eskimo features should be ascribed ground slate

knives, found in small quantity in the Ushki Final Paleolithic complex, and a labret-like artifact

mentioned above.
144 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Figure 69. Okvik toggling harpoon heads. 1, 2—from Burial 1, Uelen cemetery (1956); 3—found by G. A. Menovshchikov in

Sireniki (106).

In light of these archaeological data, the Denby complex, in which the manufacture of pressureflaked inset blades attained its brilliant development, can probably be viewed as a transformation

of the final Ushki Paleolithic culture under the effect of exogenous influences (that is expressed in

the dominance of the Siberian burin technique). The complexes from Anangula and the mouth of

the Fraser River can be seen as its most ethnically stable branch, having preserved not only the

technique of flaking off knife-like lamellar blades but the tradition of labrets as well.

A recent discovery of labrets at the Neolithic site of Maimech IV in Taimyr by L. P. Khlobystin

(1969:217) attests to the spread of these specific ornaments not only toward America but also to

far northern Siberia. Evidently, in Taimyr we have a case of a relict culture penetrating there from

more southern regions, having been a part of the same ethnocultural area entered by the Final

Paleolithic culture of Kamchatka. Corroboration for this assumption can be seen in the striking

similarity of mushroom-shaped steatite pendants found by Khlobystin together with labrets at the

Maimech IV site (Khlobystin 1969:217) with a form of the same steatite pendants from Cultural

Layer VI of the Ushki site (see Fig. 64:9).

Physical anthropological data also point to a great antiquity for the ancestors of the Eskimos

in America and northern Siberia (Debets 1951:108, 109), who penetrated from Asia into North

America. It is appropriate to recall Laughlin’s interesting observation, which was later cited by

Debets. We have in mind the fact noted by Laughlin that the quite rare blood group “N” is

characteristic both for Eskimos and for American Indians (Debets 1960:61–65; Laughlin 1951).

This cannot but attest to very early, probably late Pleistocene, penetration into North America from

Asia by the ancestors of the Eskimos.
Nikolai N. Dikov 145

Figure 70. Old Bering Sea toggling harpoon heads. 1, 4–6—Chini cemetery (110); 2—Uelen cemetery (119), Burial 9 (1957);

3—Dzhenretlen II (143).

In short, without any effort, relying on data from archaeology and physical anthropology, as

well as the theory of a general Aleut-Eskimo ancestral language that we mentioned earlier, it can be

supposed that the ancestors of the Eskimos and Aleuts initially, as long ago as the end of the

Pleistocene–beginning of the Holocene, spread across the Bering Land Bridge from Asia into

northwestern America, and then under conditions of post-glacial isolation underwent ethnic

differentiation in the territory of southern and southwestern Alaska and western Canada. As a result

of this, an Eskimo ethnocultural commonality, which specialized in hunting with the toggling

harpoon, was separated out by the second millennium B.C. Its noticeable ethnographic feature, as

among the Aleuts, over a long time and throughout substantial territory, was labrets.

With regard to the level of development of Okvik culture proper, it can be flatly stated that the

cultural remains express a fully developed complex of economic and domestic adaptation to the

severe conditions of the Arctic sea coast and a cold sea with rich maritime fauna. It is quite possible

as well that the limitations and instability of ecological correlations in the Arctic (to which Malaurie

directs his attention), especially in the vicinity of Bering Strait, with several warming trends against

a background of general late Holocene cooling, provoked repeated modifications of the Eskimo

cultural complex, which resulted in the formation of its indigenous and phasic variants. Perhaps,

in fact, a consequence of this was an ecologically caused (as Arutiunov and Sergeev suggest) diversity

of types of toggling harpoon heads and even types of economy. The Okvik culture of maritime
146 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

hunters emerged together with Ipiutak (predominantly dry land and not just maritime hunters) as

a result of such active adaptation to various ecological conditions—to hunting in the open sea and

to hunting under the conditions of coastal ice. However, it is doubtful whether the traditional style

of ornamentation or decoration, for example labrets characteristic for this or other groups of

Eskimos in the region of the Bering Sea and Bering Strait, underwent these same ecologically caused

modifications. The changes in these spheres of culture, as soon as they occurred, had here, of course,

an ethnogenetic nature.

The Okvik culture, unfortunately still relatively unknown, is weakly represented in the

archaeological materials. Therefore, it will be easier for us to trace these ethnic processes in the

region of Bering Strait and in general on the coast of Chukotka through sites of another culture—

Old Bering Sea—investigated substantially more fully, to the examining of which we now proceed.

The Old Bering Sea Culture

The Old Bering Sea Culture is observed over a broader area than the Okvik culture, emerging

probably somewhat later and coexisting with it for a long time.

Old Bering Sea sites are preserved in large numbers on the Chukchi Peninsula, as well as on the

islands of St. Lawrence and the Diomedes. The most western sites of the Old Bering Sea culture on

the Arctic coast of Chukotka are the sites on Shalaurova Island (407) (Beregovaia 1960) and the

Pegtymel’ petroglyphs (102). Traces of influence of this culture also can be found in northern Alaska

as far as Point Barrow.

In the Old Bering Sea culture, even more than in Okvik, the tools are improved for the

exploitation of walruses, sea lions, seals, and whales. Toggling harpoons are now equipped with

even more diverse specialized heads. Now they have, for example, two-holed heads with intricate

symmetrical spurs that are particularly characteristic of the culture. The style of the artistic

carvings, until now so concisely stressed, now attains a special fluorescence, showing a

sophisticated, and later an even richer, combination of curvilinear patterns. For this curvilinear,

so-called Old Bering Sea decoration, the “eye” (as A. P. Okladnikov defines it) motifs in the form

of concentric ovals and circles with dots in the middle become characteristic. Becoming typical

over a long time span, though not clearly understood, are the special “winged objects” carved

from walrus tusk, which are even more skillfully made than in Okvik. The settlements of the Old

Bering Sea people, as a rule, were located near walrus hauling grounds. First studied in Chukotka

by Rudenko, they had been known on the Bering Sea coast for a long time: near Cape Dezhnev,

at Yandogai (107), Sireniki (106), Enmylen (183), and on Cape Chukotskii (179) (Rudenko 1947).

In 1963 we obtained positive data on the extent of Old Bering Sea sites and on the existence of

“winged objects” in the past on the coast of the Chukchi Sea (at Vankarem [152] and Inchoun

[120]), of artifacts with Old Bering Sea decoration (on Koliuchin Island [146], at Seshan [131],

at Inchoun [120]), and finally, of typically Old Bering Sea types of toggling harpoons (at Inchoun

[120], Dzhenretlen [142], and at Second Creek near Chegitun [130]). A great part of all this was

in the ruins of comparatively small pit houses constructed of driftwood and whale bones on

rather high capes at the influx into the sea of rivers or creeks. We obtained the most interesting

materials in 1975 as a result of excavations of one such pit house on Cape Shmidta, near the cliff

of Kozhevnikov, or Ryrkaipiia (159).
Nikolai N. Dikov 147

We also found typical Old Bering Sea cemeteries with burials in rectangular enclosures of

entrenched stone slabs set on edge—with the deceased placed on the back, with legs and arms

extended—at Seshan (132), Uten (123), and on the Ikolivrunveem River (134). We examined similar

cemeteries on the shore of Bering Strait at Uelen (119), and later, in 1965, both at Cape Chini (110)

and at the village of Enmynytnyn (115–117). A very interesting Old Bering Sea-Okvik cemetery was

investigated as well by Arutiunov and Sergeev at Ekven. Cemeteries give a very clear picture of the

life of early coastal areas of Chukotka during Old Bering Sea times. Their technology is distinct in

having greater development than in the Okvik culture. The grinding of stone knives and points

predominates and flaked flint artifacts are encountered relatively rarely, though their number is still

very large. It can be clearly seen that many carved bone objects were decorated by designs with the

use of iron burins—one of them was even found in a burial in the Uelen cemetery.

The mode of the economy, as far as it can be reconstructed from the remains of the material

culture in the sites and cemeteries based on the numerous stone and bone objects (Fig. 71–79), is

distinct in the predominance of hunting sea mammals, but land hunting, fishing, and collecting were

also well developed.

Features of some social differentiation within the kin group were noted. “The presence in the

early Uelen cemetery of poor and rich (in inventory) burials,” writes Sergeev, “speaks to the fact

that the kin system begins to enter a phase of its long decay. Present are facts of property inequality,

probably connected with the appearance of shamanic leadership. The richest Old Bering Sea burials

undoubtedly belong to shamans, thus it is not without reason that cult objects always predominate

in such burials: all kinds of totemic signs, sculpted images of the original [female] ancestors, who

are often given a half animal-half human appearance, as for example on a bone plaque that represents

a beaver with young” (Arutiunov and Sergeev 1975:108).

This statement, word for word, literal and without quotation marks (and without footnotes),

reproduces the basic part of the paragraph of our article published as long ago as 1964 (Dikov

1964b:20, 1971b:20), the only difference being that Sergeev mentions as evidence of social

differentiation “numerous female statuettes, which, it is entirely possible, represent a femaleoriginal ancestor, object of a maternal kin cult” (Arutiunov and Sergeev 1975:108). This in essence

is the same as what we wrote about them as being evidence for reverence of the female original

ancestor (Dikov 1971b:20).

It causes some bewilderment as to why Sergeev abridged our list of features of social

differentiation in the paragraph he used, having eliminated from it “winged objects and chains

skillfully carved out of walrus tusk—an indispensable attribute of attire for a shaman” (Ibid.).

Perhaps, from the urge toward originality.

We won’t conceal the fact that in the development of our ideas we now use new data on Old

Bering Sea social differentiation derived from Arutiunov and Sergeev’s book, and particularly from

the rich burials (No. 9, 10–11) of notable hunters of sea mammals (Arutiunov and Sergeev

1975:117–120) and a twin burial (No. 27a, b), which probably reflects, in Sergeev’s opinion,

patriarchal bondage (Ibid.:125, 127), as well as the burial of a hunter and warrior (No. 130) with bone

plate from reinforced armor (Ibid.:129, 131). We will add to this the interesting find in the fill of the

Uelen cemetery (after the excavations of Sergeev) of an Old Bering Sea protective slat with

observation slots for the eyes, also probably from combat armor, found by a local inhabitant, S.

Etekmen, our former aid at the excavations at Senlun in 1956, which he gave to us in 1975 (Fig. 72:2).
148 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Figure 71. Old Bering Sea bone artifacts. 1, 2, 4–9, 11, 14, 16, 19, 20—Uelen cemetery (119) (author’s excavations); 3—Dzhenretlen

(143); 10, 12, 13, 17—Yandogai (107); 15, 18, 21, 23–29—Chini cemetery (110).
Nikolai N. Dikov 149

The great antiquity of Eskimo combat armor thus becomes quite tangible, though unexpected, and

the Old Bering Sea community appears very developed and tribal, as Arutiunov, Sergeev, and

Fainberg suggest (Arutiunov and Sergeev 1975:116, 109; Fainberg, L. A. 1964:244), already

entering into a period of intertribal armed collision.

For an understanding of the social structure of the Old Bering Sea community, three series of

cemeteries located near the settlement of Nuniamo are quite interesting. Two of them, First and

Second Enmynytnyn (115, 116), turned out to have an exceptionally rich high-art inventory, while

Chini (110) was poorer. It seems that the ordinary tribal kinsmen were primarily based here. But

genuine masterpieces in carving skill turned up even here at times.

An object of typically elegant Old Bering Sea style is a walrus tusk pick handle from one of the

Chini burials. Unfortunately, it is quite damaged owing to its long duration in a damp burial pit, but

nevertheless it is easy to see how oddly and uniquely it was decorated with an engraved curvilinear

pattern and fantastic representations of the human face (Dikov 1974a:Pls. 2, 3).

In all, 101 burials with objects of Old Bering Sea appearance were excavated from the Chini

cemetery. However, the orientation of the burials turned out to be unusual: the head was not to the

Figure 71. Old Bering Sea bone artifacts. 1, 2, 4–9, 11, 14, 16, 19, 20—Uelen cemetery (119) (author’s excavations); 3—Dzhenretlen

(143); 10, 12, 13, 17—Yandogai (107); 15, 18, 21, 23–29—Chini cemetery (110).
150 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

north and northeast as was most typical of Old Bering Sea burials in the Uelen cemetery, but with

a slight deviation to the south. Evidently, this cemetery is one of the formerly quite unknown Old

Bering Sea social-ethnic groups of northeastern Chukotka.

The worship of a female original ancestor is characteristic for it: numerous statuettes of women

skillfully carved from walrus tusk have repeatedly turned up in burials along with other artistically

carved bone artifacts.

The excavations of the Chini cemetery also provided much for the understanding of such items

as the up to now enigmatic “winged objects.” Of course, we strived to record their location with

maximum accuracy and noted everything, even the smallest details and peculiarities in the positions

of the things surrounding them. As a result, we succeeded in establishing an interesting regularity:

“winged objects” are often found in a burial together with shafts, on the end of which they are set.

In some cases, the head of a toggling harpoon turned out to be on the opposite end of the same shaft

(Dikov 1969a:196–199, Fig. 106, 1974a:81).

Thus, for a solution to the function of the “winged object,” reliable archaeological data were

first obtained. It was set on a harpoon shaft. It did not serve as a “lock” on the prow of a kayak nor

on a umiak, as Sergeev suggests (Arutiunov and Sergeev 1969:108–127). In any case, in our

excavations of the burials we found “winged objects” fixed on poles that terminated on the

opposite end with a head—a long socket of walrus tusk. This precludes any possibility of

simultaneous use of “winged objects” for the fastening of the stem post or the midsection with the

lateral planks (stringers) of an umiak or kayak, as Sergeev asserts.

At the same time, the construction of the “winged object” itself appears suited for use as a

device for fastening a harpoon head to its fore part with a small hole or slot by means of an

intermediate pin. This idea was at one time proposed by I. P. Lavrov. However, the solution to the

problem went somewhat astray by the assumption that the “winged object” with a harpoon head

was set on the prow of a kayak, with which they directly rammed whales (Lavrov 1958). Sergeev took

up this idea and, uncritically relying on information from the Eskimos, developed only one side of

it: the “winged object”—a lock that fastens the stem post to the lateral planks of the umiak. But it

is possible to accept another version, following Collins: the “winged object” served as a rear

stabilizer for a projectile harpoon. This explanation, it seems to us, successfully combines the

hypothesis of Lavrov and the now archaeologically confirmed fact of the connection of the “winged

object” with a shaft. The way we saw the “winged objects” in the Chini burials confirms Collins’

hypothesis. Using ethnographic data on the Greenland Eskimos, he assumed it possible to explain

these enigmatic objects as distinctive weights for projectile harpoons that are fastened to the rear

of their shaft. The hole-slot served, in his opinion, not for fastening a harpoon head, but for engaging

it with the tooth of a spear thrower (Collins 1962). This is a very probable explanation, especially

when it is considered that we have discovered some spear throwers of Old Bering Sea antiquity, and

they are known even earlier.

In such a case, if Collins is right, our hypothetical projectile apparatus was thrown at an animal

with cylindrical head-socket forward. The harpoon head was attached directly to it, and the “winged

object,” equipped moreover with additional plumage, served as equilibrium.

The single weak point in this hypothesis, which we proposed in 1969 (Sergeev’s hypothesis

should have been discarded entirely) (Dikov 1969a:199–201), is that in the burials, as we saw just
Nikolai N. Dikov 151

now, the harpoon heads and pins always lie apart from the “winged objects.” This, of course, can

be explained by the custom of breaking burial goods for the release of their “spirits.” But

nevertheless some probability remains that in some cases we are dealing with the use of “winged

objects” on the top of something, standards or rods, possibly shamanic ones connected with a cult

of the ancestors, as we have already supposed, similar to Ket shamanic rods or tridents. Skillfully

carved of walrus tusk in the form of a butterfly with spread wings, they are often formed quite

anthropomorphically. In the intricate “eye” design, which decorates their central part, a

representation of a human visage can almost always be seen (Ibid.:201). In one case a human face is

even carved quite realistically and very expressively. There is also possibly a solution in this. It is

known that the butterfly, according to notions of the Chukchi, whose mythology has much in

common with Eskimo mythology,39 is a mythical destroyer of sea mammals. Reminiscent of a

butterfly, “winged objects” possibly represent the female original ancestor, the object of a tribal

matriarchal cult of the ancestors, or one of the [female] “sovereigns” of the primeval pantheon. It

is even more probable that the idea of such female rulers occupied a central place in the religion of

the Eskimos even up to recent times.

Of course, the existence of a symbolic meaning for the “winged objects” does not exclude their

having an actual function as well, for example, as a device for a projectile harpoon. Their later

development into Punuk tridents led to the fact that very little of their details that could have

practical meaning now remained. They probably simply became ritual crowns for something.

Old Bering Sea artifacts, made of bone, horn, and walrus tusk, are quite diverse. We will not

dwell on their characteristics in detail. There is no necessity in this after Rudenko’s exhaustive works

and the not yet complete publications of Sergeev, Arutiunov, and Levin (Arutiunov and Sergeev

1969, 1975).40 We need only remember that the leading types of bone artifacts are connected with

maritime hunting and belong to the so-called harpoon complex (heads of toggling harpoons, ice

picks, sled runners, etc.), though many things connected with land hunting, including bird hunting,

have also been preserved (arrow points, spear throwers, bird bolas, bird spears, etc.). And many

of these things are excellent pieces of highly artistically engraved walrus tusk (Figs. 73, 74) (Dikov

1977b:color insert p. 161).41 Clay vessels are also often decorated with a furrowed pattern or

straight line and curvilinear concentric impressions applied to unfired vessels with special stamps

of walrus tusk (Fig. 73) (Dikov 1974a:Pl. 36:1, 2).

The stone artifacts of the Old Bering Sea culture of Chukotka are strikingly varied as well. They

include all kinds—worked by percussion and pressure flaking—of points of arrows, darts, and

spears; knives; scrapers; skreblos; burins; lateral inset blades for harpoons; adzes and axes; as well

as ground supplemental end blades for harpoon heads, ground projectile points, and ground knives

of the most diverse types (Figs. 75–80). We will try to give the summary characteristics of all these

artifacts, both those published and those we introduce for the first time into scientific circulation.

39D. A. Sergeev underestimates the influence of Eskimo mythology on the Chukchi (Arutiunov and Sergeev 1969:111).

40In these summarizing works, materials have, unfortunately, not always been published completely: drawings are often

unscaled (Arutiunov and Sergeev 1975:Figs. 82–100) and not connected with their description; the descriptions themselves are

incomplete.

41It should be noted that this illustration is upside down.
152 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Figure 73. Old Bering Sea artistic artifacts of walrus tusk. 1–3, 12—Chini cemetery (110); 4, 7, 9–11—Uelen cemetery (119), found

by author; 5—Yandogai (107); 6, 8—Enmynytnyn (115); 13—Ekven (175), found by O. N. Ivanov; 14—after S. I. Rudenko

(1947:Pl. IV:8).
Nikolai N. Dikov 153

Among the percussion flaked and retouched projectile points are the following varieties (Fig.

75): various bifacially retouched leaf-shaped forms (I–1b, 2b, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4b, 5b, 6b) and truncatedly

leaf-shaped rhomboidal (II–2a, 2b); leaf-shaped/stemmed points of darts and spears with a

rectangular stem, rather crudely worked on both sides, from 4 to 10 cm long (VIII–15), the same

but with a flute on both sides of the stem (VIII–20), subtriangular-stemmed (X–9, 12, 14, 15, 18),

triangular stemmed (XI–14, 15); bifacially retouched arrow points, truncatedly leaf-shaped with a

straight base (II–2b, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4b), a symmetrically indented base (II–1bx, 4ax, 4bx, 1ax), and an

asymmetrically indented base (II–Iby); oblong-triangular with a straight base (VI–b) and concave

(VI–bx), the same with a subtriangular base (V–bx), broad and short triangular with convex lateral

sides and a straight base (V–a) and an indented base (V–ax); triangular, of moderately oblong form

with convex sides, with a symmetrically (V–bx) and asymmetrically (V–by) concave lower part and

a slight bend on the side of the tip (V–ba; VI–by); with concave elongate sides and concave base

(V–bz); leaf-shaped/stemmed with lateral notches at a straight base (VIII–22) and at an indented

base (VII–22y); partially ground arrow points on irregular knife-like lamellar blades and flakes (O–

5); ground slate triangular end blades of toggling harpoons (E–2), as well as stemmed (E–4, 5);

stemmed dart points (E–3, 6); and a ground leaf-shaped spear point with triangular notches on both

sides of the stem (E–7) (Fig. 76).

The collection of Old Bering Sea knives is also varied (Fig. 77). It is composed of percussion

flaked, broad, leaf-shaped biface knifes (II–1, 3) and narrower ones with bifacially worked cutting

edges (II–4, 6); leaf-shaped with a broad stem (III–3); with a convex working edge, straight back,

and beveled working edge (IV–8); narrow-bladed with a short broad haft (V–14) and with a longer

haft (V–4); broad-bladed with a straight stem, curved back, and convex working edge (V–18);

narrow-bladed with a straight flattened back and convex working edge (VI–4); knives on flakes

partially retouched along the edge (VII–2–4,), among which are especially characteristic broad

asymmetrically triangular ones (VII–5) and oblong ones with a pointed end (VII–7).

Figure 74. Wooden mask from Uten (122) and “winged object” from the Inchoun site (120).
154 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Figure 75. Stone projection points of the Old Bering Sea culture. 6—Seshan (131); 42, 55—Enmynytnyn (115); 47—Dzhenretlen

(143); 51—Uelen cemetery (119); the remainder—Chini cemetery (110).
Nikolai N. Dikov 155

Of greatest variety is the category of ground slate knives, which includes 39 forms—with few

exceptions almost all such artifacts are known in the early material culture of the maritime

population of Chukotka (Table 5). In this category are those with a single convex working edge and

without a stem of subtriangular form (VIII–1, 2) or subtrapezoidal with a hole (VIII–5, 8, 10) or

without a hole (VIII–6, 7, 9, 12); with a convex working edge, stemmed (VIII–15–18) and stemless

with a straight working edge (VIII–20–24, 25b, 26), including with holes (VIII–28); asymmetrical

knives with a double working edge, with holes, narrow (VIII–27) and broad (VIII–29–32, 35);

symmetrical knives with a double working edge and pointed ends, without holes, narrow (VIII–38),

broad (VIII–37), and with holes (VIII–33, 36, 39, 40); subrectangular knives with a double working

edge (VIII–47) and knives with a double working edge that are profiled in cross section, one of them

symmetrical with a rounded end, a hole, and a grooved indentation on both sides (VIII–34); the

other—only a fragment of the blade preserved—has a longitudinal ridge in the middle of both

broad fluted sides (III–48) (Arutiunov and Sergeev 1969:Fig. 84:10).

Some short, knife-like lamellar blades with an irregularly prismatic outline, in some cases

retouched along the edge (I–1, 5, 6), form a special group connected with knives, as do inset blades

of rectangular form completely retouched on both sides (I–9), extended semi-lunar ones with a

straight and opposite convex working edge (I–11–a), and shorter triangular insets (I–11–b),

subtriangular (I–12, 13), and tiny oval (I–14).

Figure 76. Ground slate end blades for toggling harpoon heads of the Old Bering Sea culture. 1, 13, 17—first Enmynytnyn cemetery

(115); the remainder—Chini cemetery (110).
156 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Of 53 forms of scrapers and skreblos (Fig. 78), 14 are unifacially worked end scrapers, concave

ones (I–7, 12, 14, 16, 28) or straight (II–4, 12, 13, 16, 18–21), one scraper of the latter having a haft

(II–26); 9 types are unifacially worked combination scrapers: concave with a laterally projecting

cutting “ear” (III–1, 5) and pointed (III–12, 14), as well as straight with one lateral ear (IV–5) and

with two (IV–1). In addition, three more quite distinctive, tiny ones with cutting edges should be

assigned to the combination scraper-like tools (IV–7, 8), one of which has a regular almond-shaped

Figure 77. Old Bering Sea stone knives (from Chini and Uelen cemeteries). 5, 35—after S. A. Arutiunov and D. A. Sergeev; the

remainder—from the author’s excavations.
Nikolai N. Dikov 157

form with two sharpened ends (IV–19). Bifacially worked end scrapers are either pear-shaped (V–

1), trapezoidal (V–8), or rounded with a straight stem (V–13, 14). In addition, there are 26 more

varieties of scrapers and skreblo-like tools, including side scrapers on flakes worked along the edge

(VII–3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13) and on cobble spalls (VIII–22). Some tools can definitely be assigned to the

skreblo category. They are large, worked either on only one side or on two. To the first belong

oblong end skreblos (IX–2, 3) and side skreblos with a convex working edge (IX–1, 16–18); to the

Figure 78. Old Bering Sea scrapers. 2, 9, 37–39, 42—Uelen cemetery (119), after S. A. Arutiunov and D. A. Sergeev; 40—Uelen

cemetery (119), author’s excavations; 10—Enmynytnyn cemetery (115); the remainder—Chini cemetery (110).
158 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

second—oval (X–4, 2) and subtriangular (X–8, 10). There are also varieties that, judging by the

presence of lateral grooves in their working edge, most probably served as spokeshaves (XII–3–

5). Finally, large oblong tools with a transverse rounded end, percussion flaked or more often with

a partially ground working edge, worked along the back of the tool, on the opposite side of which

(the ventral) is the unworked surface of the spall, probably used like a pressing iron, possibly for

softening thongs or skins (XIII–1, 2, 4).

Punches fall into two groups: thin rod-like without hafts (I–2, 3; II–1, 2) and with a thickened

hafting part opposite the point (I–4, 6; II–3, 5). No labret-like T-shaped punches have been found

at present.

Burins are represented by 11 varieties (Fig. 79). Unground, only two—a dihedral burin on a

lamellar blade fragment (I–4) and a polyhedral one with a large retouched haft (II–3). The remaining

nine types are characterized by grinding on the working edge. These comprise angular, one-sided

burins (V–1–3), two-sided corner (V–4), and dihedral (V–5–8). They all are adapted for

attachment to bone or antler handles. Quartz crystals were also used as burins (V–9).

Axes, adzes, and chisel-like instruments are represented by 23 varieties, among which artifacts

of triangular cross section are entirely absent, with comparatively few of rectangular (Fig. 80). All

Figure 79. Old Bering Sea stone burins. 9, 12—Uelen cemetery (119), author’s excavations of 1956; the remainder—

Chini cemetery (110).
Nikolai N. Dikov 159

adzes positively belonging to the Old Bering Sea culture have a lenticular cross section and taper

toward the butt, are trapezoidal (I–3–5) or elongated subtriangular (I–1). Only one ground axeadze from the excavation by Levin, Arutiunov, and Sergeev at the Uelen cemetery has a strictly

rectangular outline both in plan and in cross section (I–12), but from the publication it is not clear

in which precise burial it was found (Arutiunov and Sergeev 1969:Fig. 92) and, therefore, we can

assign it only tentatively to the Old Bering Sea culture. One variety of ground adze was found that

is almost rectangular in both plan and in cross section (II–4). Of interest are the adzes that are

completely or partially percussion flaked and ground only on the working edge, lenticular in cross

section, and oval of form with a slightly sharpened butt (IV–1) or elongatedly trapezoidal (IV–3).

Figure 81. Old Bering Sea man (reconstruction by G. V. Lebedinskaia based on a skull from Burial 4 of the Uelen cemetery).
160 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

The most numerous and characteristic for the Old Bering Sea culture are incompletely ground

adzes—that is, ground only on the working edges—having a geometrically irregular cross section

and a more or less elongated trapezoidal form, sometimes with a rather significantly narrowing,

almost triangular butt (V–2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11). Among these is one exception—an adze with the butt,

on the contrary, wider than the blade and with convex longitudinal narrow lateral edges (V–12).

Finally, very specific forms of adzes are those with an unusually steep angle of sharpening, ground

(VI–1) and partially ground (VI–2), serving for the processing of especially hard materials, for

example, walrus tusks. Others in this group are chisel-shaped and completely or partially ground

along the working edge. They are oblong wedge-shaped instruments of semicircular or trapezoidal

cross section (VII–1, 5), round (VII–3), and rectangular (VII–6).

Endogenic innovations, that is, absolutely new stone artifacts not found in surrounding earlier

or synchronic cultures, are the chisel-shaped instruments (VII–1, 5), adzes with a steeply sharpened

blade (VI–1, 3), and the adzes with a narrow working edge (V–12) just mentioned (Fig. 80:18–25).

These endogenic innovations are evidently not exhausted. They also include triangular slate

dart points with an incised stem (E–5), 22 varieties of ground slate knives (VII–1, 5, 7, 9, 10, 15–

18, 22, 24, 28–33, 35–37, 47), possibly some kinds of scrapers (II–14, 21), scraper-like instruments

(XIII–4, 5), ground punches (II–1, 2), and a whole series of various ground burins (V–1–8).

The variety of forms of stone artifacts attains its apogee in the Old Bering Sea culture, and later

in Chukotka, as we will see below, it is almost never renewed with new forms, but rather on the

contrary, became somewhat diminished (Dikov 1971b). Later, Arutiunov and Sergeev also noted

this feature of evolution of Old Eskimo culture, having described the post-Old Bering Sea art of

engraving on bone as a descending branch of its development (Arutiunov and Sergeev 1975:178).

Comparative analysis of the material complex of the Old Bering Sea culture permits bringing

some clarity to the questions of its date, origin, and ethnic association. In this regard we will gather

for deliberation as far as possible not only the bone, as was used up to now, but the stone artifacts

as well.

We probably have to agree with the generally accepted date of the Old Bering Sea culture,

which is based, according to Collins and Rainey, on the stratigraphy of sites on St. Lawrence

Island, on stylistic analysis of the patterns of bone artifacts, and on radiocarbon determinations

of the age of organic remains from sites of this culture. In accordance with this data, the Old

Bering Sea culture belongs to the first half of the first millennium A.D. The presence of tiny iron

burins found by Sergeev and Levin in one of the Uelen burials conforms completely to such a

representation of the age of the Old Bering Sea culture (Levin and Sergeev 1960), as does the

similarity in the technique of design, noted by Arutiunov, of some slate artifacts to Japanese metal

halberds (Arutiunov and Sergeev 1969:160, Fig. 84:10–12). These facts attest to the

chronological connection of the Old Bering Sea culture with the early Iron Age of more western

and southern territories of northern and eastern Asia.

We will dwell in somewhat more detail on the problem of chronological correlation of Okvik

and Old Bering Sea cultures.

Above we have already expressed our negative view toward the schema of Levin, Arutiunov,

and Sergeev, in accordance with which the Old Bering Sea culture emerges earlier than Okvik and

then coexists with it for a long time. Trying to prove this thesis, they fall into a contradiction by
Nikolai N. Dikov 161

setting Okvik single-holed toggling harpoon heads as typologically intermediate between Old

Bering Sea and Punuk. Postulating their intermediateness, they date Okvik to late Old Bering Sea

and post Old Bering Sea times. In order to reinforce such a date, Sergeev points to the joint location

of Okvik and Birnirk harpoon heads in Burial 17, which they excavated in the Uelen cemetery in 1957

(Arutiunov and Sergeev 1969:35).42 However, Arutiunov and Sergeev shut their eyes to such an

evident fact contradicting this assumption as the find at the Okvik site on St. Lawrence Island of

primitive “winged objects” of Group A that, according to them, are decorated with Okvik design,

as Collins had already noted (Collins 1962:7, Fig. A). The majority of the Old Bering Sea “winged

objects” belong to the better developed types of Group B, which occupy a typologically

intermediate position between the Okvik and early Old Bering Sea artifacts of this kind and the

Punuk tridents.

Consequently, even if Birnirk and Okvik harpoon heads were in fact simultaneously placed in

Burial 17, this is still not an argument for assigning the whole Okvik culture to the time of late Old

Bering Sea. Rather, the other way round, the presence of archaic Okvik “winged objects” compels

the assumption of an initial Okvik stage earlier than Old Bering Sea.

Regarding the upper boundary of the Okvik date, unfortunately it cannot be based just on such

a fact as the joint location of the Birnirk and Okvik harpoons in Burial 17. This grave was disturbed

by neighboring burials, one of which (Burial 23) contained, together with Old Bering Sea items,

undoubtedly Okvik artifacts (Arutiunov and Sergeev 1969:59). Therefore, it can be supposed that

Okvik harpoons fell into the Birnirk grave from neighboring ones (judging by the plan of the

cemetery [Ibid.:Fig. 3], Burial 17 is possibly the entrance with regard to the remains of the burial that

were preserved in the eastern part of Burial 23). In addition, the authors themselves theoretically

allow another course for earlier artifacts falling into relatively later burials, namely, as a result of

intentional or unintentional excavations of old burials by early occupants of the Uelen site

(Arutiunov et al. 1963:63). Thus, the joint location in the disturbed burial, published without

appropriate graphic and photo-documentation as well, of Birnirk and Old Bering Sea harpoons is

a very shaky base for a conclusion that Okvik is later than Old Bering Sea. However, even if we leave

the question unanswered and take as possible such a late date for Okvik, it has to be understood only

as its upper chronological boundary. The lower boundary, determined by a complex with archaic

Old Bering Sea and possibly pre-Old Bering Sea “winged objects,” inset archaic composite tools,

and other archaic elements in the stone inventory, is undoubtedly earlier than all Old Bering Sea sites

known at the present time.

The origin of the Old Bering Sea culture is a most complicated problem and a satisfactory

answer has not yet been determined. Collins (1937), and after him Rudenko (1947), supposed that

the origins of this culture go back to the Okvik culture. Rudenko, following Okladnikov, also noted

the possibility of southern sources for it that are reflected in curvilinear decoration similar to Old

Nivkhi. It is true that the harpoon complex, and in particular the intricate construction of the

toggling harpoon heads of the Old Bering Sea people, have much in common with Okvik. But there

is one substantial difference between these cultures: the Old Bering Sea people, in distinction from

the Okvik people, left no signs of the use of labrets. Thus, the Okvik culture, probably emerging

earlier than the Old Bering Sea and then coexisting with it, and developing over the course of several

centuries, evidently cannot be viewed as the fundamental indigenous source for the origin of the Old

43 This conclusion was soon seconded by R. S. Vasil’evskii (1973:212).
162 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Bering Sea culture. Moreover, it is more logical to consider it only partially dependent in origin on

the Okvik. Its main foundation is the older (than Okvik) cultures of Alaska and northeastern Siberia,

and for this reason (in order to argue this position) it is necessary to closely examine complexes of

artifacts in the named regions that are similar to Old Bering Sea.

Neo-Eskimo complexes of Alaska had an indisputable relationship to the formation of the Old

Bering Sea culture.

It is no accident, of course, that there is a close similarity with the inventory, including the stone,

of the synchronic Ipiutak culture. Characteristic for the Ipiutak culture, just as for Old Bering Sea,

were various truncated/leaf-shaped and triangular arrow points with an indented or straight base

(II–3b, 4b; V–a; V–bx; V–cy) (Larsen and Rainey 1948:Pls. 2:6, 7, 10, 11, 34, 35, 38; 35:25, 29, 36;

80:21, 22, 23, 24); stemmed (X–15) (Ibid.:Pl. 10) and narrow leaf-shaped points (I–9b) (Ibid.:Pl.

14:1–6); lateral inset blades (Ibid.:Fig. 20:c, e); and leaf-shaped biface knives (I–9) (Ibid.:Fig. 20:h;

20:d; 20:g). Also important is that, besides the large number of artifacts common both for the Ust’-

Belaia and the North Chukotkan cultures, we find in the Ipiutak a completely different set of similar

stone artifacts: bifacially retouched, stemmed, leaf-shaped projectile points (II–12, VIII–15)

(Ibid.:Pl. 90:8–10); stemmed, rounded scrapers (II–26) (Ibid.:Pl. 18:3); combination end scrapersgravers (III–5; IV) (Ibid.:Pl. 18:12–16); oblong, two-edged side scrapers (XII–3) (Ibid.:Fig. 24:f);

and completely ground axes and adzes rectangular in cross section (I–12, VII–6) (Ibid.:Pl. 47:14,

15, 19), as well as partially ground triangular and trapezoidal forms (V–1, 7, 8, 9; VI–2) (Ibid.:Pls.

10:1, 2; 47:6–10).

There is a quite substantial similarity also with the Norton culture. Common there as well are

truncated/leaf-shaped and especially triangular arrow points with an indented or straight base (II–

4b; V–bx; V–cy; V–bz) (Giddings 1964:Pls. 41; 47:2, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 30,

36; 50:12), lateral segment-like triangular and oval inset blades (I–11, 14) (Ibid.:Pl. 46:2, 5, 11, 13,

15, 29), punches with a retouched haft (I–4, 6) (Ibid.:Pl. 53:8, 10, 11, 13), and trapezoidal adzes (V–

8) (Ibid.:Pls. 44; 46:1, 7). Of the stone artifacts unknown in the Ust’-Belaia and North Chukotkan

cultures, but characteristic for the Old Bering Sea culture, are long and narrow triangular points with

an indented base (V–cx) (Ibid.:Pl. 47:16) and almond-shaped adzes ground only along the working

edge (IV–1) (Ibid.:Pl. 44:11).

The origins of a very few elements of the Old Bering Sea culture can presumably be traced to

even earlier cultures of western Alaska, which, owing to the presence of remains of toggling

harpoons, the majority of researchers consider Paleo-Eskimo or proto-Eskimo. Thus, in the

archaeological Choris culture (beginning of the first millennium B.C.) there were retouched stemmed

(X–15) and truncated/leaf-shaped arrow points with a straight base (II–1b) (Bandi 1969:Fig. 22),

and in the Old Whaling culture, dating to the beginning of the second millennium B.C., almost the

same flint points (II–4b, V–b) (Ibid.:Fig. 17:13, 14), broad leaf-shaped knife-bifaces (II–3)

(Giddings 1961:Fig. 7), points with lateral indentations (VIII–22) (Ibid.:Fig. 7:2–7), and scrapers

with a stem (V–14) (Bandi 1969:Fig. 17:3). Finally, stemmed scrapers (V–14) (Giddings 1956:Fig.

17:3), as well as other Old Bering Sea forms of artifacts, are present in sites of the Denby Flint

complex of the third millennium B.C. To the last belong—and are common also for the Ust’-Belaia

(and in part North Chukotka) culture—leaf-shaped points carefully retouched on both sides (I–1,

5, 12) (Campbell 1962:Fig. 3:1), broad subtriangular points with a straight base (V–a) (Giddings

1964:Pls. 71-a:3, 7; 72:9) and with an indented base (V–bx) (Ibid.:Pl. 71-a:1, 2, 4); oblong triangular

with an indented base (VI–cx) (Ibid.:Pl. 72:7); segmented biface knifes (IV–2) (Ibid.:Pl. 70-b:15);
Nikolai N. Dikov 163

long and narrow, segmented, lateral inset blades (I–11) (Ibid.:Fig. 56:a; Pl. 71-b:9, 16); pointed,

oblong uniface knifes (VII–7) (Ibid.:Fig. 53:6, 9, 10; Pl. 69); possibly teardrop-shaped end scrapersgravers (III–14) (Ibid.:Pl. 70-a:9); pear-shaped end scrapers with lateral projection (II–16)

(McNeish 1959:Fig. 67:8); punches; and retouched knife-like lamellar blades (I–6) (Giddings

1964:Figs. 47; 53:5). It is notable that a significant part of the named artifacts are absent from the

Neolithic complexes of Chukotka: laurel-leaf points (I–1a) and sharply pointed knives (VII–7). It

must be considered that in the Denby complex, in distinction from the Ipiutak, Norton, and Choris

cultures, labrets are entirely absent and that the earliest labret-using culture, Kachemak I, is located

in southwestern Alaska and Cook Inlet, where it is dated to the end of the second–beginning of the

first millennium B.C. (Bandi 1969:93). Chester Chard’s well-known hypothesis is that precisely in

southwestern Alaska, in the vicinity of Bristol Bay, rich in sea mammals, was the original location

of formation of the Eskimos, who had separated, in Chard’s opinion, approximately during the

third millennium B.C. from the Esko-Aleuts (Chard 1962). It is presently impossible to oppose this

hypothesis with any undisputed Old Eskimo sites of sufficiently deep antiquity on the Asiatic side

of Bering Strait, except the Chertov Ovrag site (167) on Wrangel’ Island. Therefore, it is possible

that certain tools spread from the direction of southwestern Alaska, in particular from more distant

British Columbia, and reached the Okvik and then the Old Bering Sea culture as early as the end of

the second–beginning of the first millennium B.C. Some types are ground slate points (E–4, 6)

(Borden 1962:Pls. 3:i; 4:f) and knives (VIII–1, 2, 12) (Ibid.:Pl. 4:a, j), which existed there (in the

vicinity of the Fraser River delta) and are very uncharacteristic for the cultures of Denby, Old

Whaling, Choris, Norton, and Ipiutak. However, the connections of the Old Bering Sea culture

appear to be closer with Ipiutak and Norton.

An even stronger influence on the formation of the Old Bering Sea culture is felt, as we have

already noted, from the Asiatic side of Bering Strait, from the labret-less North Chukotka and Ust’-

Belaia cultures, and in some measure from some other Far East Asiatic cultures (Dikov 1971a,

1971b:367–377, 1972:112–115).43

Perhaps the largest collection of elements similar to Old Bering Sea is found in the Ust’-Belaia

culture. Among its bone artifacts, foreshafts for arrow points are almost the same as in the Old

Bering Sea culture (Fig. 59:3–5). Of course, an Ust’-Belaia one-holed toggling harpoon head is

significantly more primitive than any belonging to Old Bering Sea, but this completely corresponds

with the substantially older age of the Ust’-Belaia cemetery, as well as with the circumstance that the

heads of toggling harpoons are the most variable form of artifacts in northeastern Siberia. The stone

artifacts are more conservative here. Possibly, therefore, in spite of the notable chronological break

in the stone inventory of the Ust’-Belaia culture, we see so many artifacts similar to Old Bering Sea.

There are narrow, leaf-shaped arrow points (I–3c) and truncated/leaf-shaped uniface points (K–

II–3b); larger stemmed points (VIII–9; X–13, 16); triangular, more or less broad, bifacially worked

arrow points with a straight base (II–4b; V–a, b; VI–b) and with a symmetrically concave base (V–

cy) or with lateral projections (VIII–22); as well as oblong points from incompletely retouched

lamellar blades (O–2) and stemmed points of partially retouched flakes (O–5). There are knife-like

lamellar blades, irregular and encountered in very small numbers, it is true, in sites of the Old Bering

Sea culture in distinction from Ust’-Belaia (I–1, 7). There are also completely retouched, rectangular

lateral insets from knife-like lamellar blades (I–9); long, segmented insets (I–11); short, triangular

43 This conclusion was soon seconded by R. S. Vasil’evskii (1973:212).
164 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

ones (I–12), and small, oval ones (I–18). There are broad, bifacially retouched segmented knives

(IV–2) and knives with the same working with a curved back (IV–16), knives on flakes (VII–2, 3),

with a beveled back (VI–4) and triangular (VII–5), as well as broad, ground knives of slate (VIII–

12). There are at times quite specific forms of scrapers or combination scraper-like tools, for

example, scraper-gravers (III–12, 14; IV–7, 19) and scrapers with a haft-stem (V–14), as well as

rather characteristic trapezoidal scrapers (II–1–12), almost round micro-scrapers (V–8; VII–5),

and pear-shaped scrapers (I–16, 18; II–16), not to mention scrapers on regular flakes (VII–10; X–

10; XII–4). Finally, there are polyhedral flint burins with a short, massive retouched haft (II–3);

punches with the same kind of haft (I–4); and wedge-shaped chisels rectangular in cross section

(VII–6). All the above-named analogs belong to the Ust’-Belaia cemetery and site proper. In

addition, stemmed arrow points (X–15) and oblong, irregularly leaf-shaped, double-bladed knives

belonging to the Ust’-Belaia culture and similar to Old Bering Sea, from a cache near Lake

El’gygytgyn (II–6), should be noted.

The dominant part of all these Ust’-Belaia analogs (specifically 39 of 55) are not repeated in the

Late Neolithic North Chukotkan culture or in the sites on the Amguema and Chirovoe Lake. The

exceptions consist only of triangular arrow points with a straight base (V–a, b), with a symmetrically

and asymmetrically concave base (V–bx, cy), elongated/leaf-shaped points (I–3c) and stemmed

points (X–15), as well as polyhedral burins (II–3), punches (I–4), knives with a flattened back (VI–

4), triangular knives (VII–5), ground slate knives (III–12), retouched knife-like lamellar blades (I–

7), and some insignificant forms of scrapers (VII–3, 5, 10; X–10).

Nevertheless, in the North Chukotkan culture we also find a small number of analogs not

encountered in the Ust’-Belaia culture: narrow, leaf-shaped arrow points pointed on both ends (I–

9b); rhomboid/leaf-shaped (I–5b); oblong truncated/leaf-shaped (II–3b); broad lamellar blades

retouched along the edges (II–1); narrower leaf-shaped knives (II–6); crudely worked, only partially

ground trapezoidal adzes (V–3, 8); scrapers on flakes (IX–7; X–8; VII–4; IX–1); and unique end

scrapers with a narrow transverse blade (II–19) and with lateral projections or “ears” along the

edges of the blade (II–20; IV–1); as well as punches with a retouched haft (I–16).

More southern Far Eastern Asiatic influences on the Old Bering Sea culture evidently passed

through northern Kamchatka from the central and southern part of the Kamchatka Peninsula and

the Kurile Islands, as well as from the northern Okhotsk coast, Sakhalin, and Primor’e. They are

reflected by the presence there during pre-Old Bering Sea times of items in part similar to Old

Bering Sea artifacts that are not found in the Ust’-Belaia or North Chukotkan cultures, and in some

cases not found in the early cultures of northwestern America.

In this regard we will examine in detail the Kamchatka (Tar’in) Late Neolithic culture of the end

of the first millennium B.C. for which a hunting-fishing way of life was characteristic and which, in

ethnic regard, is evidently proto-Itel’men, having probably still retained some proto-Eskimo-Aleut

features, judging by the presence in its sites of stone labrets and labret pins.

In this culture are many stone artifacts that have analogs in the Old Bering Sea culture, which

we noted above for the Ust’-Belaia and North Chukotkan cultures: leaf-shaped, stemmed, and

triangular arrow points, including with an indented base (I–3c, 5b, 9b, 10bM; II–2a, 4b; V–a, b, bx;

VI–b; O–5); segmented and triangular lateral insets (I–11, 13); segmented, leaf-shaped, and narrow

curved biface knives (IV–2, 6; II–6); end scrapers (I–12; II–16, 18, 20), combination scrapers (IV–

7), and spokeshaves (XII–4); and punches with a retouched haft (I–6).
Nikolai N. Dikov 165

In the Kamchatkan culture there is a significant number of stone artifacts not found in the Late

Neolithic cultures of Chukotka, more precisely laurel-leaf biface points (I–a); triangular lateral

insets (I–13); curved knives with a narrow blade (V–14) and with a broad blade (V–18), as well as

sharp-pointed oblong knives (VII–7); some kinds of end scrapers (I–7, 16; II–13; III–1; V–1; VII–

3); spokeshaves (XII–3); adzes rectangular in cross section and trapezoidal in plan (II–4), irregular

in cross section and tapering toward the butt (V–2, 7, 9), the same but with a lenticular cross section

(IV–3); as well as punches with a retouched haft (I–4); ground slate, pointed, double-bladed knives

with a hole (VIII–39), without a hole (VIII–38), and slate single-bladed knives (VII–6, 23).

Finally, in the Kamchatka Late Neolithic complex of stone artifacts being examined, tools are

represented that have not been found in the Late Neolithic either in Chukotka or northwestern

America and are therefore convincing indicators of a South Kamchatka origin for several elements

of the Old Bering Sea culture. To this group belong curved, narrow-bladed and broad-bladed

stemmed knives (V–14; IV–12); narrow, sharp-pointed knives (VII–7); ground slate, doublebladed, sharp-pointed knives (VIII–38, 39); and slate single-bladed knives of the Eskimo women’s

type (VIII–6); various end scrapers (I–7, 16; III–1; XII–23); ground trapezoidal adzes with

rectangular cross section (II–4) and partially ground adzes of lenticular cross section and pointed

butt (IV–3); and punches with a retouched haft (I–4).

Some of the latter group of Kamchatka artifacts are distributed in even earlier sites in the Kurile

Islands. To this collection belong, for example, almond-shaped adzes of lenticular cross section

(IV–1), which are dated in the Kurile Islands to the end of the second millennium B.C. (Chubarova

1960b:Figs. 1–17, 19)

It is also appropriate to remember the accurately observed (by Arutiunov in one of the Old

Bering Sea burials in the Uelen cemetery) stone imitation of a bronze sword or halberd, typical for

the middle Yaei, that is, for the beginning of the New Era, as well as the etymology of the Eskimo

name for copper “kanuia,” cited by the same author (Arutiunov and Sergeev 1961:124; Vorob’ev

1958:Fig. XX:1, 2, 6).

It is remarkable that both in Kamchatka at the end of the first millennium B.C. and in the Kuriles

(on Shumshu Island), labrets were in use, but there they probably belong to the Okhotsk culture

(Nakayama 1934). Unfortunately, the Kurile labrets have presently not been dated. However, the

presence of labret pins allegedly among the Middle Jomon (Vorob’ev 1958:Fig. XXX) would

permit assuming that the Kuriles were an intermediate region in the spread of these lip ornaments

and that there they also existed probably somewhat later than in the Tar’in culture. However, the

question of the presence of labrets in antiquity in the Japanese Islands is still unclear. Available

trustworthy data do not permit solving the dilemma at present: either cultural influences from the

south existed, which are reflected in the spread of labrets from Kamchatka in the first millennium

B.C., and then these influences intensified the Eskimo-Aleut component of the Old Bering Sea

culture, or the Eskimo elements of the culture, including labrets, were themselves spread at this time

from north to south. The second assumption, in general suitable to Arutiunov’s hypothesis about

the influence of the Esko-Aleuts toward the south, may turn out more probable (Arutiunov and

Sergeev 1969b).

The cultural origins of the Old Bering Sea culture, coming from a labret-less region in the

south—from northern Priokhot’e—are connected with a completely different ethnic component,

probably a Paleo-Asiatic one or, more precisely, Chukchi-Koryak. We have noted before that
166 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

labrets existed not only among the Eskimos, but among the Aleuts and Indians of northwestern

America (Dikov 1971a, 1971b, 1974a:111). I. S. Gurvich (1975b) also noted this. However, as

always, we use labrets not as an absolute ethnic marker, but only for delimiting Eskimo (or EskimoAleut) antiquity from Chukchi (Chukchi-Koryak). Among the latter, as is well known, labrets are

definitely not present, which is important to keep in mind.

Unfortunately, the northern Kamchatkan Old Koryak culture cannot at present be

satisfactorily dated. But it is no accident that in this region, where influences must have intersected

both from the southern Kamchatka Peninsula and from the northern coast of the Sea of Okhotsk,

Sakhalin, and Primor’e, we have a series of stone artifacts typical for Old Bering Sea: truncated/leafshaped, oblong biface points (II–3c), triangular arrow points (II–4b; V–b), leaf-shaped biface

knives (II–3, 6; IV–2), end scrapers (II–13, 16, 19), and crudely worked adzes that narrow toward

the butt (V–2).

Finds in the Upper site on Zav’ialova Island near Magadan are dated more definitely—

toward the end of the first millennium B.C.–beginning of the first millennium A.D. In their

composition, just as in Old Bering Sea, are triangular lateral insets (I–13a),44 segmented biface

knives (IV–2) (Vasil’evskii 1965b:Fig. 2:8), triangular-stemmed and triangular indented arrow

points (X–18; IV–cx) (Ibid.:Figs. 1:1; 2:9), and almond-shaped adzes slightly ground on the blade

(IV–1) (Ibid.:Fig. 1:1). The real basis of this culture, which is characterized by Vasil’evskii’s finds

on Nedorazumeniia Island, includes, in addition to the same adzes (IV–1) (Vasil’evskii

1970a:Fig. 4:1) and bifaces (IV–2) (Ibid.:Fig. 7:1), other artifacts close to Old Bering Sea as

well—curved knives (V–17) (Ibid.:Fig. 3:2), triangular (VII–5) (Ibid.:Fig. 2:9) and laurel-leaf

small combination scrapers (IV–19) (Ibid.:Fig. 2:5), and various arrow points: teardrop-shaped

(I–3a) (Ibid.:Fig. 1:17); subpentangular (II–3b) (Vasil’evskii, 1965:Fig. 3:9); truncated/leafshaped (II–3c) (Vasil’evskii 1970a:Fig. 2:10); triangular, subtriangular, (II–4b, V–a) (Ibid.:Fig.

1:22; 1:10), and triangular with an indented base (V–ax) (Ibid.:Fig. 1:4, 5), and among the latter

those with weakly marked lateral indentations (V–bz) (Ibid.:Fig. 1:16). This cultural base is close

in many ways to the Ust’-Belaia culture, but is differentiated from the latter by its almond-shaped

adzes (IV–1), curved knives (V–17), and the absence of knife-like lamellar blades and ceramics,

that is, features that bring it close to the Old Bering Sea culture, to which we have already turned

our attention (Dikov 1971b).

In southern Sakhalin are such tools, similar to Old Bering Sea, deserving mention: truncated/

leaf-shaped, oblong arrow points (II–3c) (Kozyreva 1960:39, Fig. 2:3), trapezoidal and almost

triangular adzes from the Susuia site of the second half of the first millennium B.C. (V–2, 10)

(Chubarova 1958:Fig. 42:6), and stemmed points with rounded end from the Starodubskii site of

the end of the second–first millennium B.C. (V–15M) (Kozyreva 1967:Fig. 15:5). The remaining

artifacts similar to those of Old Bering Sea—segmented biface knives (IV–2) (Ibid.:Fig. 4:7) and

stemmed (X–15), leaf-shaped (I–9b), pentangular (II–3b), and triangular (V–a) (Kozyreva

1960:39, Fig. 6), including those with an indented base (V–bx, VIII–22x), arrow points (Kozyreva

1967:Fig. 4:5–10, 12, 15, 16)—are repeated in the Late Neolithic on the northern coast of the Sea

of Okhotsk and in Chukotka. Thereby they show the interconnection and probably the succession

of these cultures and the general direction of their spread to the north toward Chukotka.

44The collections of M. G. Levin in 1930 on Zav’ialova Island, Museum of Anthropology MGU, Coll. 475/110.
Nikolai N. Dikov 167

Finally, in light of the data available then,

Okladnikov (1963) very convincingly assessed the

maritime culture of the eleventh–ninth centuries B.C.—

most clearly represented by the settlement on Cape

Peschanyi near Vladivostok—as the extreme southern

link of this chain of cultures oriented with their influence

toward the north. Actually, here we find several

artifacts similar to Old Bering Sea: ground slate points,

triangular (E–2) (Ibid.:Pl. 66:8) and stemmed (E–6)

(Ibid.:Pl. 90:8; Pl. 132:6); knives or, as Okladnikov

supposes, end blades from the heads of toggling

harpoons (VIII–39, 40) (Ibid.:Pl. 49:2; Pl. 66:4); and,

typical for Old Bering Sea, retouched axes with

lenticular cross section, almond-shaped (I–1) (Ibid.:Pl.

1:3) or trapezoidal (1–5) (Ibid.:Pl. 124:7) and ground,

with rectangular cross section (II–4, 7) (Ibid.:Pl. 80:6). It

is very remarkable that right on the coast in a site of the

ninth–eleventh centuries B.C. in Tetiukha almost the

same knife with “perviura” was found (VIII–48)

(Okladnikov 1959:Fig. 46:2). It is like the fragment of

one found at Uelen, which gave Arutiunov cause to

speak of the southern connections of the Old Bering Sea

culture, as we mentioned above.

Summing up all the above-noted analogies of the

Old Bering Sea culture with surrounding older cultures,

we conclude that it has the closest genetic connections

with the Norton, Okvik, and Ust’-Belaia cultures. At

the same time, we are convinced of the predominance

of Asiatic sources for the Old Bering Sea culture over

American ones.45 It is expressed in the prevalence in its

stone inventory of Ust’-Belaia elements, as well as

some, more southern ones. The Old Bering Sea culture

is thus a synthesis of labret-bearing Old Eskimo

cultures (Okvik, Norton, and possibly Ipiutak) and the

labret-less Ust’-Belaia culture, the ethnic determination

of which cannot at present be made precise, but it is

nevertheless thought to possess some Chukchi

anthropological features.

The fact that the Old Bering Sea culture is labretless, though it emerged in part on a base of labretbearing Old Eskimo cultures (Norton, Okvik, and

possibly Ipiutak), evidently testifies to the infiltration

Figure 81. Old Bering Sea man (reconstruction by G.

V. Lebedinskaia based on a skull from Burial 4 of the

Uelen cemetery).

Figure 82. Old Bering Sea woman

(reconstruction by G. V. Lebedinskaia based

on a skull from Burial 19 of the Uelen

cemetery).

45This conclusion was formed by the author earlier (Dikov 1971a,

1971b) and adopted by R. S. Vasil’evskii (1973).
168 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

into the Old Bering Sea ethnic sphere of a labret-less

northeastern Paleo-Asiatic population, one probably

connected with the Ust’-Belaia culture, most likely the

ancestors of the Chukchi. It also testifies to their

movement to the sea coast of Chukotka and their partial

assimilation of labret-bearing Eskimo. We offer such a

proposition as a working hypothesis that can, it seems

to us, explain the above-noted combination of sources,

as well as some other unintelligible peculiarities and

features of the Old Bering Sea culture and the physical

anthropology of its population.

In the area of material culture, this population is

especially similar, as Sergeev and Arutiunov noted, in

its crude, partially flaked skreblos (IX–1, 2; X–2, 4) to

the Kanchalan and Krasin sites (Arutiunov and Sergeev

1969:166) and the site at Sed’moi Prichal (98), that is,

judging by everything, not to the Eskimos but to the

interior Chukchi.

The extreme deviation in orientation of burials in

the Uelen cemetery becomes entirely understandable

under the conditions of mixing of the native population

with the new arrivals.

Meanwhile, in the area of still very scant physical

anthropological data, based on the materials of the

Uelen cemetery, as well as those of Ekven and Chini,

anthropological mixture and a mosaic of traits

peculiar to different groups of Eskimos and to the

Chukchi can be observed (Zubov 1969:194).

Interesting as well is the representation of the human

face on the “winged object” from the Enmynytnyn

cemetery (Dikov 1977b:color insert p. 160), sharply

distinguished by an emphasized very broad nose,

which is more typical not of Eskimos but of Chukchi

(Debets 1960). A mask from the Ekven cemetery is

similar (Arutiunov and Sergeev. 1975:Fig. 94). In this

connection, it is probably no accident that on tiny

Okvik bone masks, decorated with labrets, the face

and nose are always substantially narrower (Arutiunov

and Sergeev 1969:Fig. 99:1, 5) than on the famous

Okvik madonna (Bandi 1969:Fig. 24). We noted these

points as early as 1971 (Dikov 1971b). Later,

Vasil’evskii (1973:97) pointed out that a representation of the face on a cobble in early Aleut Chaluka also

has a long nose.

Figure 83. Reconstruction by G. V.

Lebedinskaia of the face of an Old

Bering Sea woman based on a skull

from a burial in the Uelen cemetery.

Figure 84. Reconstruction by G. V.

Lebedinskaia of the face of an Old Bering

Sea man based on a skull from a burial in

the Uelen cemetery.
Nikolai N. Dikov 169

The complex ethnic processes that occurred among the population of the sea coast of

Chukotka are corroborated quite evidently by the mixed character of the sites themselves. Old

Bering Sea sites and cemeteries are seldom found in a “pure” state, without admixture of other

cultures, especially Okvik. Perhaps this “pure” state applies only to the Enmynytnyn cemetery (115,

116) and the sites of Seshan (132) and Inchoun (120). In the larger part of the cemeteries both Okvik

and Old Bering Sea burials are found, the mutual penetration of cultures and ethnic groups

becoming even more pronounced, so that often within the bounds of one burial we run into a very

close intertwining of Okvik and Old Bering Sea styles and a mixture of Okvik and Old Bering Sea

types of harpoon heads and other items (for example, at the Uelen cemetery in burials excavated

by M. G. Levin in 1958—Nos. 5, 6, 22; and in 1959—Nos. 2, 3, 18:a, 20, 22, 23) (Arutiunov and

Sergeev 1969:42, 46, 51–60). This close inter-penetration of the Okvik and Old Bering Sea cultures

is reflected in the presence of the following material elements common to them: arrow points

retouched on both sides, with a truncated/leaf-shaped and elongatedly triangular form with a

straight base, as well as stemmed; stemmed ground end blades for darts or harpoons (E–4); oval

lateral inset blades (I–14); percussion flaked, rarely ground oblong adzes (IV–1; V–3); and finally,

crystal quartz used as a burin (V–9).

The connections of Okvik and the Old Bering Sea culture can also be noted in the bone

inventory and the ceramics, as is well known. An especially significant fact, in our view, is the

presence in both places of “winged objects” (more archaic in Okvik), as well as relief furrowed

ceramics (Bandi 1969:Fig. 23; Rudenko 1947:Pls. 21–26; 17, 15, 19).

All these Old Bering Sea-Okvik connections even further complicate a picture of ethnic

relations in the area of Bering Strait and can be viewed, in our opinion, as the farthest spread of the

ethnic influence that the Old Bering Sea people experienced somewhat earlier.

Consequently, the Old Bering Sea culture can no longer be viewed as the earliest Asiatic Eskimo

culture, nor especially as a pure Eskimo culture, from which, in the opinion of some authors,

emerged the cultures of the American Eskimos (Arutiunov and Sergeev 1969:30). It is possible that

in earlier times only Eskimos actually lived on the coast of Bering Strait, but the fact that we cite

remains of the Old Bering Sea culture that are marked by the imprint of early Chukchi influence

indicates that the Old Bering Sea culture may be related not only to the early Eskimos but also to

the ancestors of the Settled Chukchi, the genetic connections of which with the Old Bering Sea

culture Okladnikov (1945) assumed.

We find corroboration for this also in the Pegtymel’ petroglyphs which, as we indicated above,

belong in substantial part to the early Eskimos, who underwent the influence of the ancestral

Chukchi (Dikov 1971c).

At the same time, physical anthropological investigations should be taken into account. These

data indicate that the Old Bering Sea populations possessed features of undifferentiated protoEskimo-Aleut type (Alekseeva and Alekseev 1973) and simultaneously had the same genes as the

Chukchi, forming with the latter an identical serological type, in the formation of which the “founder

effect,” that is, the influence of the initial group, played a role (Movesian 1975:5). These

investigations contribute to the affirmation of the opinion of the genetic unity of the Eskimos and

Chukchi (Arutiunov and Sergeev 1975:194).
170 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

The Birnirk Culture

Approximately from the fifth to the ninth centuries A.D., when the climate in the Arctic was

about the same as it is now (Borisov 1970:68) and then gradually began to become warmer, the new,

so-called Birnirk culture spread onto the northern and partially the eastern shore of Chukotka. It

has been rather well investigated in a whole series of sites: on Chetyrekhstolbov Island (406)

(Beregovaia 1954), at Cape Baranov (402–405) (Beregovaia 1959), Chegitun, Enurmino (137),

Neshkan (140), Ekichuverveem (125), Ikolivrunveem (133), Vankarem (148–152), and Nuniamo

(109), as well as in Burials 10, 11, and 28, which we excavated in 1958 and 1963 at the Uelen cemetery

(119) (Dikov 1967a:76–78), and in Burials 4, 6, and 17, excavated there in 1957 by Levin, Kozyreva,

and Sergeev (Arutiunov and Sergeev 1969:40, 41). All these sites are characterized by toggling

harpoons of a distinctive type: small dimensions, often equipped with one lateral stone inset, and

notched or barbed on the opposite side (Fig. 85).

It is possible also that Burials 10 and 12 of the Uelen cemetery, excavated in 1959, are Birnirk.

Judging by the illustrations, the burials preserved Birnirk ceramics along with harpoon heads of Old

Bering Sea type, but unfortunately they are insufficiently published for definite judgement

(Arutiunov and Sergeev 1969:40, 41). Some finds are also known in assemblages mixed with Old

Bering Sea and Punuk remains on the southern Chukchi Peninsula, for example, a Birnirk harpoon

head at Sireniki (Rudenko 1947:Pls. 13, 19).

The center of spread of this Birnirk Old Eskimo culture is the northern coast of Alaska, the

region of Point Barrow (Ford 1959). This culture blossoms there after the Alaska Ipiutak and is

characterized by hunting small pinnipeds and caribou, in distinction from Old Bering Sea and

Punuk, which are connected with hunting large sea mammals: whales and walruses. It is

characterized by large dwellings, often on spits and terraces lower than Old Bering Sea settlements.

In the burials, together with an extended body position, bodies in the flexed position are often

found, as excavations in the Uelen cemetery (11, 28) indicated to us, oriented precisely the same as

in Okvik burials: head to the east.

The assortment of Birnirk bone artifacts was rich. In addition to toggling harpoons there are

points of arrows and darts, picks, protective plates for the arm for shooting a bow, a variety of

ornaments, and so forth.

The characteristic distinction of the stone inventory of the Birnirk culture in Chukotka is the

sharp predominance of ground slate tools over flaked ones (Fig. 86). To the latter belong only

stemmed points of darts or spears (X–16); broad, rectangular lamellar inset blades retouched on

both sides (I–9); leaf-shaped biface knives (II–3, 6); scrapers on flakes (VII–4, VIII–4); and oblong

lenticular axes with a lenticular cross section (I–5). Among the significantly more numerous ground

slate tools are various stemmed points of spears and darts (VI–3, 4, 5, 6, 8) and various knives:

stemless with a single working edge without a hole (VIII–1) and with a hole (VIII–46), stemless with

two working edges, without a hole (VIII–38) and with a hole (VIII–39), stemmed two working edges

symmetrical (VIII–41, 42) and asymmetrical (VIII–43, 44), as well as scraper-knives of the Eskimo

“ulu” type with a wide single working edge (VIII–3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 16, 19, 20). We note that only

knives with an asymmetrical blade (VIII–43) and rounded scrapers on cobble flakes (VIII–4), as at

Krasino (67), Kanchalan (189), and Sed’moi Prichal (105), can evidently be considered innovations.

The remaining artifacts named above are known both in Old Bering Sea and to some degree in the

Okvik sites of Chukotka.
Nikolai N. Dikov 171

Figure 86. Birnirk stone tools (1–22), labret (23), ceramics (24). 1, 10, 20—Neshkan (140); 7, 11—Uelen cemetery (119), Burial 28,

11; 12—Vankarem (148); the remainder—Cape Baranov (402), after A. P. Okladnikov and N. A. Beregovaia.

Figure 85. Birnirk toggling harpoon heads. 1—Vankarem (148); 2—Burial 11 of the Uelen Cemetery (119); 3—Neshkan (140),

surface; 4, 5—Burial 10 of the Uelen Cemetery (119).
172 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

The clay vessel, judging by finds of ceramic stamps, was decorated by a rich design of

concentric circles (Fig. 86:24). The Birnirk culture coexists in northern Chukotka and Alaska with

the late Old Bering Sea and early Punuk and, evidently, corresponds to a special ethnic group of

Eskimos.

Very interesting as an ethnocultural feature are the distinctive lip ornaments of the Old Birnirk,

the so-called labrets. One of them was found at the mouth of the Ikolivrunveem River (133) in

northern Chukotka, which does not coincide with Vasil’evskii’s view that there were no labrets in

northern Chukotka (Vasil’evskii 1973:95).

The Ikolivrunveem labret was in a cultural layer together with two broken Punuk toggling

harpoons heads, arrow points, knives of argillaceous slate, and a most original stamp in the form

of a paddle of walrus tusk decorated in a clearly Birnirk concentric pattern.

The labret itself is a small thing made of walrus tusk resembling a plug flattened on the sides

and with flanged edges, as on a hat (Fig. 86:23).

We remind the reader that the ancient custom of wearing labrets (koliuzhiny) was common until

quite recently among the Eskimos of the western North American Arctic—from the Bering Sea to

the Mackenzie River, into the Aleutian Islands and on St. Lawrence Island. Dezhnev saw “toothed

Chukchi,” that is, Eskimos adorned with labrets, during his voyage around Kamennyi Nos on one

of the islands in Bering Strait (Belov 1955).

The Birnirk people, like the Okvik, who certainly used labrets, were undoubtedly Eskimos in

ethnic regard. They underwent strong influence from the Thule Neo-Eskimo culture of the North

American Arctic. But Birnirk was closest of all to Okvik, and this connection probably bears a

genetic character. It is possible that Arutiunov and Sergeev are partially right, subjecting to question

our somewhat exaggerated hypothesis that the Birnirk and Okvik make up a special evolutionary

series in comparison with the Old Bering Sea-Punuk line (Arutiunov and Sergeev 1975:184, Dikov

1967a:78). However, ten pages later they contradict themselves, noting a still “somewhat greater

inclination of Birnirk forms toward Okvik prototypes, and Punuk toward Old Bering Sea”

(Arutiunov and Sergeev 1975:193).

Elements of Punuk, probably of Asiatic origin, are also noted among the Birnirk people in

Chukotka. Assuming direct succession of the Punuk culture from Old Bering Sea, it can be

supposed that a mixed Chukchi-Eskimo component in the Thule-Birnirk Old Eskimo ethnocultural

commonality on the sea coast of Chukotka is connected with these Punuk elements.
Nikolai N. Dikov 173

The Punuk and Thule Cultures

On a large part of the eastern and southeastern coast of Chukotka the Old Bering Sea culture

developed directly into Punuk. This process occured approximately in the sixth–eighth centuries.

By the ninth century the Punuk culture had pushed out the Birnirk and remained there until the

beginning of the sixteenth century.

Traces of settlements with the remains of material culture with Punuk appearance are presently

known, owing to Rudenko’s survey in 1946, at Uelen, Cape Dezhnev (173), Naukan (172), Cape

Chaplino (177), Yandogai (107), Avan’ (108), Plover Bay (181), Sireniki (106), Nunlingran (182),

and Enmylen (183) (Rudenko 1947). In addition, we later found them opposite the city of Anadyr’

at Sed’moi Prichal (105), as well as at Chegitun (126), Ekichuverveem (125), Vankarem (148–152),

Ikolivrunveem (133), and on Ilitlen Island (139).

Judging by the most recent paleogeographical investigations, the climate was again significantly

warmer during the eighth–twelfth centuries A.D. in the Arctic Ocean and on its coast. The iciness of

the Arctic basin has been evaluated by P. M. Borisov for this period of so-called small climatic

optimum as being two bally [points of valuation], which is two times less than at present (Borisov

1970:67). The average temperature during winter (September–May) was raised from –26° to –23°

C (at the present time it is –25° C) (Chizhov 1970:74). According to Borisov’s calculations, under

such conditions the ice in the polar basin completely melted in summer (Borisov 1970:62). O. P.

Chizhov contests this view, though he acknowledges that the iciness during the early medieval

warming was significantly less than at present (Chizhov 1970:72). However that may be, even by the

most moderate appraisals of Soviet investigators—paleogeographers, paleoclimatologists, and

paleozoologists—during the eighth–twelfth centuries it was substantially warmer in the Arctic, the

iciness of the ocean was insignificant, and in its seas a variety of sea mammals lived in abundance,

including seals (Chapskii 1970:172) and, it must be supposed, whales.

An analogous, in principle, point of view is also adhered to by the well-known French

researcher Jean Malaurie, who attaches great significance to the ecological factor in the development

of Old Eskimo cultures. The periods he emphasizes for Greenland and northern Canada, of

warming and cooling during the period of development of the Dorset and Thule cultures, do not

coincide completely with the stages of changing climate that have been determined by Soviet

paleogeographers, and the medieval period of warming continued, in his opinion, to approximately

A.D. 1500.

However, it is with this period that he connects the rebirth and efflorescence of maritime

hunting and sea travel among the Greenland Eskimos, and with the cooling in the sixteenth

century—their relapse to land hunting and at the same time the disappearance of the colony of

Greenland Vikings, which did not manage, like the Eskimos, to adapt quickly to new ecological

conditions (Malaurie 1970:21, 22). It is interesting that Malaurie considers it possible to explain by

this medieval warming the broad and, in his opinion, even original spread of kayaks and umiaks

within the Thule culture. It is documented to this period archaeologically by finds of a boat and the

remains of a kayak dated to the fifteenth century (Ibid.:22). It is, of course, unknown if they are the

remains of the earliest boats of the eastern North American Arctic, but it can be confidently said

that, judging by the Pegtymel’ petroglyphs, the first appearance of similar umiaks and kayaks in

northern Chukotka can be assigned to a substantially earlier time, and therefore Punuk navigation

is only a subsequent development of very early skills in Chukotka.
174 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Figure 87. Punuk toggling harpoon heads. 1, 6, 7—Chegitun (129); 4—Chegitun (126); 2—Sireniki (106); 5—Sed’moi Prichal

(105); 3, 8—Nuniamo (109).

It is evidently in connection with the warming that freed the sea from continuous ice sheets and

broad coastal ice during the Punuk period, which coincides with a period of small climactic

optimum, that whale hunting on the Arctic coast of Chukotka attained a genuine, hitherto

unprecedented efflorescence. This is corroborated by the extensive use of whale bone during this

time as a material for structures and artifacts. Large pit houses were constructed from skulls, ribs,

and lower jaws of whales; high drying racks for storing the baidar and drying meat and fish were built

from long whale bones. The villages and the populations in them grew: meat procured in abundance

provided the stability for a more lasting settlement of the maritime hunters than previously.

Toggling harpoons acquired a simple, more rational form, with large heads, specifically for whaling,

being used more often than before (Fig. 87).

Ceramics now take on a somewhat different appearance than in Old Bering Sea. Now they do

not as often have hatch marks, but rather are predominantly smooth-walled. External lugs for

hanging appear on vessels.

Stone artifacts (Fig. 88) are less diverse in comparison with Old Bering Sea. New types of stone

tools did not appear after Old Bering Sea. On the contrary, their assortment is significantly

diminished. Predominating are roughly flaked and ground truncated-trapezoidal adzes with a

pointed butt; ground slate skreblos; knives; and points of spears, darts, or harpoons (the foreparts

of toggling whaling harpoon heads).
Nikolai N. Dikov 175

Figure 88. Punuk complex of stone tools. 1, 2, 8, 9, 12, 16–21—Sed’moi Prichal (105); 3, 10, 13—Vankarem (152); 4—Chegitun

(129); 11—Chegitun (128); 7—Chegitun (126); 14—Ekichuverveem (125); the remainder after S. I. Rudenko.
176 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

The bone inventory is more diverse (Figs. 89, 90). In addition to toggling harpoons heads,

always with a single hole and open socket (Rudenko 1947:Pl. 19:19, 22), the collection contains the

most varied bone arrow points (with bifurcated and rod-like stems, flat leaf-shaped and three-sided,

with lateral notches and without, with pointed and blunt ends) (Ibid.:Fig. 13:9–11; Pls. 19:19; 21:20);

bone knives of walrus tusk with a lateral hole at the base (Ibid.:Pl. 33:26, 27); handles for iron and

stone burins; picks; rods; sockets for stone adzes; bolas; bone spokeshaves for taking fat off hides;

Figure 89. Punuk bone arrow points. 1–8, 11—Chegitun (127–129); 9, 10, 12–18—Sed’moi Prichal (105); 19–23—Sireniki (106).
Nikolai N. Dikov 177

snow glasses; coat-of-mail slats for armor; wrist guards for shooting a bow; traction blocks from

a dog harness; and statuettes of humans, whales, bears, and other animals or simply bear teeth with

holes drilled in them for suspension (Ibid.:Pls. 6:17; 12:19; 16:4; 18:18; 21:5; 16:12, 20; 29:6–17).

Thus, significant shifts in the development of transportation (dog harness) and war equipment

(armor) can be seen in the bone assemblage. At the same time, the decline of graphic art strikes the

eye. The representational style of the art of engraving bone is sharply simplified: patterns of straight

Figure 90. Punuk artifacts. 1, 12—Nuniamo; 7, 16—Sed’moi Prichal; the remainder after S. I. Rudenko; 1, 19—wood; 18—ceramics;

the remainder of walrus tusk.
178 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

lines and circles with dots within begin to predominate. Typical ritual objects at this time are the

rather mysterious tridents (Ibid.:Pl. 29:24) that replace the Okvik and Old Bering Sea “winged

objects” (Fig. 90:2).

Judging by the list of elements in the Punuk culture cited here, a large part of them, that is,

all of Punuk culture, is inherited from Old Bering Sea. In ethnic regard, the archaeological culture

being examined is most probably a subsequent synthesis of Eskimo and Chukchi. It can be

supposed, though more definite archaeological and especially anthropological evidence is

necessary here, that the Punuk culture reflects a deepening of this assimilation of the ancestors

of the Eskimos by the ancestors of the Chukchi, which began as long ago as the Old Bering Sea

stage. Concerning this and meriting attention is the supposition expressed earlier that the

simplification and geometrization of the Punuk representational style are connected with strong

influence on the Punuk culture by the culture of interior Paleo-Asiatics of the Chukchi-Koryak

group in connection with their transition to reindeer herding (Rudenko 1947:112). This

essentially quite probable assumption can, in our view, be made more complete and precise by

assigning the beginning of the origin of reindeer herding on the Chukotka tundras during the socalled first little ice age, which advanced after the early medieval climatic optimum and which

lasted in its culmination phase from 1550 to 1850 (according to P. M. Borisov 1970:67) or from

1500 to 1800 (according to J. Malaurie 1970:21, 22). According to Borisov, the ice of the small

glacial epoch is estimated at 6 points [bally] (in the small climatic optimum it was equal to 2 points

[bally], and its present state is 2 points [bally]) (Borisov 1970:67). The maximum thickness of the

ice was then two times greater than in the medieval warming (7 m instead of 3.5 m) (Chizhov

1970:74), and the dryness of the air was correspondingly higher.

The Eskimos of northern Greenland (in the Thule region) evolved at this time from a maritime

Thule culture to a culture reminiscent of early Dorset with a predominance of hunting musk oxen.

It is quite permissible to assume that the necessity of adaptation to new severe conditions, connected

with the reduction of possibility of maritime hunting, also prompted the population in Chukotka

to search for a solution to economic problems in the tundra, where the cold dryness of the climate

creates the most favorable conditions for ungulates. Thus, consistently and further correlating the

development of the economy with the development of natural conditions one can evidently arrive

at a solution to the most complex problem of the origin of Chukchi reindeer herding, find the

specific causes of its origin, specify a date, explain its comparatively later origin, and finally,

eventually understand those unexpected changes and influences in the Punuk culture that were

discussed above. We set forth this ecological hypothesis of the origin of large-herd reindeer

breeding in Chukotka for the first time in 1971 (Dikov 1971b:395–396, 1974c:70, 71). This

hypothesis was supported by I. S. Gurvich (1975b) and I. I. Krupnik (1975:28). Krupnik, on the

basis of careful analysis of social and ecological factors, concluded that the formation in the

Eurasian north of large-herd reindeer breeding “happens to be possible either in the short favorable

period of 1570–1650, or (as it turned out) in the more lengthy favorable period of 1720–1830, when

a sharp increase in the population of domestic deer actually begins in all regions of the Eurasian

tundra” (Ibid.:40).

The cooling of the little ice age period and the search for less severe places to occupy

evidently explain the clearly reflected western direction of the spread of the Greenland-Canadian

Neo-Eskimo Thule culture. The very last Punuk sites and cemeteries of Chukotka attest to the

strong influence of this culture. Such sites are Chegitun (119), Ekichuverveem (118), and
Nikolai N. Dikov 179

Vankarem (141–143), which we investigated in 1963. Others are more southern sites known

earlier—as far as the mouth of the Anadyr’ River, in particular at Sed’moi Prichal (98)—and the

sites investigated by Rudenko at Uelen, Cape Dezhnev, Naukan, Cape Chaplino, Sireniki,

Nunlingran, and Enmylen (Rudenko 1947:Pls. 7:19, 21; 19:26; 31:3; 33:13, 14). It is interesting

that traces of this influence in the form of toggling harpoon heads typical of the Thule culture are

also definitely present on the northern Okhotsk coast, for example at the P’iagino site, excavated

by Vasil’evskii,46 where they could easily have found their way by the shortest route across the

narrow neck of northern Kamchatka, bypassing the Kamchatka Peninsula. Comparatively small

harpoon heads of the Thule type are found in all the named sites of Chukotka and the northern

Okhotsk coast. These have a specific form and are a good indicator of strong cultural influence

from the western sector of the North American Arctic. It is very possible that the influence was

connected with the strengthening in Chukotka of the ethnic Eskimo component, with the

restoration by the Eskimos of their position, partially lost there under pressure of the maritime

ancestors of the Chukchi.

At the end of the seventeenth century in Chukotka, according to the calculations of B. O.

Dolgikh, about 4,000 Eskimos still lived there who were settled in four tribes, with different

dialects (the Vuteen, Ainu, Peek, and Uelen), from Serdtse-Kamen’ Mountain near Kresta Bay

to Cape Ryrkaipiia (Cape Shmidta) (Dolgikh 1960:554). In accordance with C. Merck (end of the

eighteenth century), part of them might have been associated with the Settled Chukchi

(Etnograficheskie materialy . . ., 1978:98–100).

The Eskimo problem is still far from solved, and in this we agree entirely with Malaurie, who

graphically compared the status of its study with an iceberg: the submerged part, that is, the largest,

consists of the unstudied issues.

New materials that we have procured in recent years permit us to examine the origin and

development of Old Eskimo cultures in Chukotka and their interaction with surrounding cultures

somewhat broader and more deeply than was possible formerly. At the same time, they do not give

the researcher complete satisfaction. The Eskimo problem is not yet solved. Because of the

insufficiency of archaeological and anthropological materials we only have possible directions

toward its solution even now. As before, the words of Knut Rasmussen, spoken in 1928, remain

valid: “The Eskimos do not resemble any other people in the world . . . The more we know, the more

we want to know about them, and each new expedition, successfully attaining new goals, leaves

behind a whole series of new unresolved problems” (Rasmussen 1928).47

46The collection is preserved in the Magadan District Regional Museum.

47Rasmussen is cited here by the author, but reference is given in the bibliography.—Trans.
180 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

The Cultural Complexes of the Lower Anadyr’ and

Kanchalan Rivers and the Northeast Coastal Areas

Adjoining Them

Archaeological sites are known on the lower reaches of the Anadyr’ River, near the mouth of

the Kanchalan River, on the northern shore of the Anadyr’ estuary, and farther to the northeast

along the coast of the Bering Sea as far as Cape Nizkii. These evidently do not consist of a single

culture, but nevertheless they reveal definite historical interconnections. These are sites and

workshops on the Osinovskaia and Krasnenskaia Spits (63, 64, 67–70), the Kanchalan site (189),

the site at Sed’moi Prichal (101), and the very recently examined site at Cape Nizkii (Dikov 1978).

Judging by the characteristics of their economic lifeway and the geographical location, they reflect

a gradual movement toward the sea and a transition from an interior mode of life to a maritime one

based on sea mammal hunting. Their ethnic group has not been definitively determined, but they

are most probably predominantly Chukchi.

The earliest of these sites is evidently the finds on the Osinovskaia (63, 64) and Krasnenskaia

(66–70) gravel spits. Here among a huge quantity of obsidian flakes, skreblos, scrapers, leaf-shaped

biface knives, and arrow points are also three-sided blanks that are sometimes simply blanks of

prismatic cores, which can be traced back to North Chukotkan three-sided points, as well as

occasionally knife-like blades (a total of two pieces) (Dikov 1977b). McNeish (1959:18), as is well

known, assigned these—then only partially published finds (Dikov 1958c)—to the Paleolithic. It

is difficult to agree with this, since they were collected on spits that originated only in the early

Holocene. As was noted above, we have here a case of finds of mixed age, among which are

examples of large, broad biface knives, probably traceable to the relict Paleolithic, similar to

Akmak in Alaska (Anderson 1970:Fig. 44). On the whole, however, later skreblos and scrapers

from massive cobble flakes (often with remnants of cobble cortex) predominate. These are very

characteristic for the cultural layer with the pit house on this same Osinovskaia Spit, where they were

found together with crude smooth-walled ceramics, a lamp of the Chukchi-Eskimo type (with a

longitudinal projection on the bottom for the wick), a leister prong, and a foreshaft from a toggling

harpoon (Fig. 91:2, 4, 6, 7, 22–25) (Dikov 1977b:Pls. 90, 91).

The Kanchalan site with its same cobble skreblos and coarse, thick-walled ceramics (with

external applied “ears”), as well as with a single-barbed harpoon head and points of picks-mattocks

of walrus tusk (Fig. 91:3, 5, 8–21), reveals a definite closeness to the late finds from the Osinovskaia

Spit (Dikov 1964; Okladnikov and Naryshkin 1955). Just as in the Osinovskaia cultural layer, bone

of wild reindeer predominated here and the economy was therefore complex (hunting, fishing, and

sea exploitation). The age of the site, judging by the ceramics, which are clearly of the Punuk type,

cannot be older than the end of the first millennium A.D. The clearly expressed similarity of the

Kanchalan complex and the Osinovskaia cultural layer permitted us some time ago to unite them

in one so-called Kanchalan culture (Dikov 1971a, 1971b, 1974c:66).

A very recently found site of maritime hunters at Cape Nizkii, 120 km northeast of the

community of Anadyr’, is of special interest and in many ways still enigmatic. Its cultural remains,

assigned to the 4 m terrace, turned out to be quite distinctive. A dwelling found there was very

unusual for the known maritime cultures of Chukotka, as the excavations indicated. It is represented

by a barely distinguishable depression of a pit house in the ground surface more than 10 m in
Nikolai N. Dikov 181

diameter, the floor of which was covered with slabs and boards. Above them a stone hearth had

been constructed. The slab enclosure of the hearth was propped up on all four sides by four short

logs laid on the floor around the hearth in a rectangular frame. Within the slab frame of the hearth

three layers of horizontally laid stone slabs were preserved. These evidently served for separating

the hearth from the wooden floor. In the dwelling were many bones, predominantly of sea

mammals; shells of bivalve mollusks; various artifacts of bone, wood, and walrus tusk; coarsely

flaked scrapers made from cobbles almost of the Kanchalan type; and some small ground slate

Figure 91. Stone and bone artifacts of the Kanchalan culture. 1–4, 6, 7, 16–18, 22–25—Osinovskaia Spit (64); 5, 9, 14, 15—

Kanchalan (189), after T. M. Dikova; 8, 10–13, 19–21—Kanchalan (189), after A. P. Okladnikov and V. V. Naryshkin.
182 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

knives; as well as fragments of coarse, thick-walled, badly fired clay vessels and the wooden handle

of a pressure flaker (Fig. 92). Radiocarbon dates were obtained on charcoal from the hearth in the

dwelling and on wood from its floor and collapsed roof: 1605 ± 45 B.P. (MAG–387), 1505 ± 60

B.P. (MAG–389), 1800 ± 50 B.P. (MAG–388), 1880 ± 50 B.P. (MAG–386). A date of 2320 ± 100

B.P. (MAG–391) was obtained on wood from a pit containing bones, excavated to a deeper level

than the dwelling. The pit also had small chalcedony flakes and was assigned to a cultural layer earlier

than the dwelling.

Here, in a cutbank of the shoreline bluff, at the level of a house floor in 1976, before we

conducted our excavations, geologist V. Kichanov found the remains of a human skeleton,

including the skull, characterized, according to a preliminary determination by physical

Figure 92. Artifacts from the early house at Cape Nizkii. 1, 3, 4—of bone and walrus tusk; 5—ceramics; 2—wood; 6–10—stone.
Nikolai N. Dikov 183

anthropologist A. A. Zubov, as having non-specialized Mongoloid traits and thus sharply

different from skulls of the Arctic race (Chukchi, Eskimo, and Koryak). Such an unexpected

difference of the skull can probably be explained by it being relict and by its genetic connections

to a very early ethnic stratum containing Paleo-Indian features that were characteristic, judging

by later anthropological remains, for the large region of the Pacific Coast of Northeast Asia up

to Cape Lopatka.48

In this connection it must be noted that Okladnikov has long expressed the conviction that the

Kanchalan site, which is characterized by some features of genetic closeness with the site at Cape

Nizkii (scrapers and ceramics), cannot be assigned to either the Eskimo or the Koryak culture

(Okladnikov and Naryshkin 1955). Setting out from this postulate, Vdovin was inclined to consider

the Kanchalan site as Old Chukchi,49 with which we agreed (Dikov 1971a:35). It is interesting that

Simchenko in his recent work, accenting the significance of the Old Yukagir stratum, is inclined to

consider the Kanchalan settlement as Yukagir (Simchenko 1976:19). With respect to the physical

anthropology, it seems to me more probable that both the dwelling at Osinovskaia Spit (more likely

containing a Chukchi lamp, not Yukagir) and the Kanchalan site, which is close to it in the

construction and character of the stone tools, are more connected with the Chukchi ethnic group.

Regarding the earlier site on Cape Nizkii, it might be either Old Chukchi or Old Eskimo. The site

at Sed’moi Prichal is rather indeterminate in ethnic association, unfortunately, though there is some

basis for considering it Chukchi rather than Eskimo. Well dated by Thule-Punuk harpoon heads and

Punuk ceramics with lateral lugs, and having a distinctly clear association to the Arctic race through

its physical anthropological remains, this site is connected with the Osinovskaia and Kanchalan sites

by having common stone-working technologies (identical scrapers and skreblos on cobble flakes)

and, evidently, identical ceramics. The predominance at the Sed’moi Prichal site of split bone of

wild reindeer is very characteristic, which also connects it with the named sites. At the same time,

the bone industry and working of walrus tusk reaches a higher development here.

Thus, on the sea coast of Chukotka, bordering the mouth of the Anadyr’ River on the northeast,

from the middle or end of the first millennium A.D., a complex economy was developed, a rather

complete representation of which is provided by the Kanchalan site and the site at Ced’moi Prichal.

They are characterized by a wealth of split bone of deer and sea mammals—an obvious sign that

the economy still had not succeeded in becoming as specialized as among the Coastal Chukchi of

later times. Evidently, these two maritime sites belonged to people of the tundra, probably

Chukchi, who went only gradually, and probably at the time still sporadically, to the sea, who began

to abandon their remote sites on the spits of the Anadyr’ River and at the deer crossings on the rivers

for the sake of settling, like the Eskimos, on the sea coast in order to adapt to this new mode of life

as sea mammal hunters.

If they really were the Chukchi, then this theory would conform well with historical sources on

the settlement of the Chukchi in the seventeenth century, according to which the southeastern group

of Chukchi, south of Kresta Bay, inhabited only the lower reaches of the Anadyr’ River and the

mouth of the Kanchalan River (Ogorodnikov 1922:270).

48A. A. Zubov, who graciously acquainted himself with the anthropological remains of the northwestern Bering Sea and Cape

Lopatka, arrived at this preliminary conclusion.

49Istoriia Dal’nego Vostoka [The History of the Far East], bk. 3 (draft), 1976, p. 110. (This citation does not appear in the

reference section—Trans.)
184 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

The Anadyr’-Main (Vakarevo) Culture

In some inner regions of Chukotka during the Remnant Iron Age the former way of traditional

life of deer hunters and fishermen was stable. At least this is the way the descendants of the early

tribes of the tundra, the Yukagir, and on mainland North America, the Caribou Eskimo, still lived

in the nineteenth–twentieth centuries.

A more definite picture of the life of the population of Chukotka of this time is given by sites

found in the Anadyr’ River valley and along the Main River: Vakernaia (53), lower Ust’-Belaia (56),

Ust’-Mainskaia on the left bank (54-a), and Chikaevo (74). They are all located on spits. The last,

however, is located on an 8–12 m terrace above a spit.

The first two of them (53, 56) are unmixed and, as was indicated above, may serve to delineate

the culture being examined.

In the mixed sites of this culture were ground stone axes, “flaking adzes,” retouched and

ground knives (III–7; VIII–25), leaf-shaped arrow points, scrapers (VII–16, VIII–14, and others),

and numerous flakes (Fig. 93). The ceramics here were represented by round-bottomed vessels,

smooth-walled or with a rich design of rectangular-pectinate stamp (Fig. 94), similar to decorations

characteristic of the late culture of the Bronze Age in Yakutia (Okladnikov 1955a).

In the cultural layer of the early site, located on a low bank at Ust’-Belaia (56), the richness is

striking, demonstrating the almost absolute predominance of bone as the material for the

preparation of tools and weapons (Figs. 95, 96), which is very characteristic for the Yukagir (Narody

Sibiri, 1956:891). These included principally bone adzes (Fig. 96:5, 9), mattocks (Fig. 96:1, 10),

knives specially adapted for cutting up fish (Fig. 96:2), and broad blade-like needles with an eye,

destined for piercing and stringing caught fish (Fig. 96:3). With the aid of such a clever device the

fisherman could have easily borne his heavy catch.

The excavations of the Chikaevo site provided especially plentiful material, though

unfortunately mixed. Its rather thick cultural layer enclosed a multitude of artifacts of stone and

bone, including flaking adzes (Dikov 1977b:Pls. 105, 106). Some iron things were found there also:

steel for kindling fire and leister prongs (Fig. 96:6, 7).

For dating the Anadyr’-Main culture, the so-called flaking adzes (Fig. 93:10) have decisive

significance. It has already been noted that such stone adzes, rounded in cross section with a conical

pointed end and a girdle in relief for attachment to a handle, were distributed not only in Chukotka

but both in Alaska and in the Okhotsk region (De Laguna et al. 1964:Pl. 5; McNeish 1964:Fig.

95:11).50 In the Okhotsk region they were found by V. E. Lipovskii in 1950 in Old Koryak pit houses

at Cape Trekh Brat’ev,51 later assigned by Vasil’evskii to the Atargan stage (Vasil’evskii 1966).

Accompanying them are very distinctive bone knives with two holes for attachment to a handle. We

excavated similar knives, together with toggling harpoons heads of the Thule type, at the Sed’moi

Prichal site (98) on the north shore of the Anadyr’ estuary. With the aid of these harpoon heads the

date of “the culture of the flaking adzes” in Chukotka can be determined. They are certainly related

to one of the types of Thule-Punuk culture. The latter is assigned approximately to the tenth–

fifteenth centuries A.D., which conforms well chronologically with the presence of these artifacts in

50In the Magadan District Regional Museum there is a flaking adze from the site of Atargan (see Vasil’evskii 1964b:Fig. 3).

51V. E. Lipovskii’s report on excavations on the Okhotsk coast (preserved in the Magadan Regional Museum).
Nikolai N. Dikov 185

the Atargan culture of the thirteenth century A.D. and to a certain extent determines their age in

Chukotka. A radiocarbon date on charcoal from the Vakarevo cultural layer of 500 ± 50 B.P. (LE–

674) restricts the date to being toward the very end of the Atargan and Thule-Punuk stages. Thus,

the Anadyr’-Main culture should generally be assigned to the middle of the second millennium A.D.

The Punuk look (see Fig. 89) of some bone arrow points, three-sided with a stemmed base

(Fig. 95:16–19) and flattened two-barbed or one-barbed with the same kind of base (Fig. 95:12,

13), corroborates such a date, just as some bilaterally barbed flat-stemmed points (Fig. 95:6, 7)

are similar to Atargan ones (Fig. 101:14). In general it must be said that with the Koryak, and even

more so with the Kerek, points (excepting two, see Fig. 95:21, 28), similarity is found in an

Figure 93. Stone artifacts of the Vakarevo culture. 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 14–16—Vakarevo site (53), after A. P. Okladnikov and I. A.

Nekrasov; 2, 3, 5, 8, 10–13—Ust’-Belaia (lower) site (56).
186 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

incomparably smaller number of bone points in this culture. The very distinctive points here are

few (Fig. 95:22, 27).

All these numerous arrow points and the wealth of split deer bone in the cultural layers of the

Anadyr’-Main sites being examined affirm that their inhabitants occupied themselves a great deal

with hunting on land. But they occupied themselves even more with fishing. Their heavy flaking

adzes are very convenient for primary work on tree trunks, for flaking them into boards. With the

aid of these tools they, like the Tlingit (De Laguna et al. 1964:90–92), were able to prepare tree

trunks for the subsequent making of boats, so necessary for fishing in the tundra-forest zone—which

is what the Yukagir were doing. Set in a longer handle these stone adzes could also serve as a weapon

similar to the Tlingit tomahawk and to “axes seated on long handles,” which were employed by the

Yukagir-Anaul (Stepanov 1937:220).

Ground slate knives (VIII–25) from the Vakernaia site, in A. P. Okladnikov’s opinion, are,

by their form, also precise prototypes of the most recent Yukagir knives (Okladnikov and

Nekrasov 1960). It is interesting that one of the burial grounds that we found near Markovo can

probably be viewed as being associated with this culture. It is located on a hill that is named

Yukagirskaia Sopka (71).

Figure 94. Ceramics of the Vakarevo culture. 1—Ust’-Main (54-a); 2, 4—Vakarevo (53); 3—Ust’-Belaia (lower) site (56).
Nikolai N. Dikov 187

Figure 95. Bone arrow points of the Vakarevo culture. 1–3, 5–11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21–23, 25–29—Ust’-Belaia (lower) site (56); 4, 12,

14, 17, 19, 20, 24—Yukagirskaia Sopka (71).
188 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

It is very probable that the early Yukagir lived in the sites of the original culture. They appeared

in the basin of the Anadyr’ and Main Rivers at this time, taking everything into account, for the first

time wedging themselves between the Chukchi and the Koryak, having driven them into the

northeastern and northwestern regions of Chukotka, where Russian explorers encountered them

in the seventeenth century. This hypothesis (Dikov 1964a, 1964b:22), which we proposed as long

ago as 1964, is emphasized at present by Vdovin (1973:257, 1972). Following E. A. Kreinovich

(1958:245–246) and S. V. Ivanov (1954:531), he stresses the isolation of the Yukagir in relation to

the northeastern Paleo-Asiatics in language, art, and, in particular, in that only among them, in

distinction from the Chukchi, Koryak, and other peoples of the Northeast, a special pictographic

writing was developed.

The Anadyr’ Yukagir, later assimilated by the Koryak, were, in Vdovin’s opinion, transformed

into the Chuvan people (Vdovin 1973:269, 270). The fact cannot be excluded that the Anadyr’-Main

archaeological culture with its quite noticeable Koryak elements (flaking adzes, bone knives, arrow

points, and ceramics) marks the beginning of this assimilation.

However, another hypothesis is possible. The Vakarevo culture might be Koryak, which was

exposed to the influence of Yukagir culture, which at this time had pushed from the west into the

valley of the Anadyr’ River, settling its spits as far as the mouth.

Figure 96. Bone (1–5, 8–10) and iron (6, 7) tools of the Vakarevo culture. 1–5, 8–10—Ust’-Belaia (lower) site (56); 6, 7—

Chikaevo (74).
Nikolai N. Dikov 189

The Old Koryak Culture

Since this culture has been examined in recent times by Vasil’evskii, who published a special

work about it, we will confine ourselves to its most general characteristics, devoting primary

attention to interpretational conclusions, and for the details we direct the reader to the book of the

indicated author (Vasil’evskii 1971).

According to Vasil’evskii, the region of the Old Koryak culture extended from Largab’en

Ravine, opposite Nedorazumeniia Island (in the present region of Magadan), to the Kavran River

on the western shore of Kamchatka and, crossing to its eastern shore, reached the Anadyr’ River

in the north and the Uka River in the south (Ibid.:48).

Vasil’evskii isolated several stages of development of pre-Koryak and Old Koryak culture on

the northern Okhotsk coast on the basis of excavated materials that he procured there.

To the first two stages, belonging to the Neolithic period, he ascribed as synchronic to the north

Kamchatka Ust’-Palana complex (Fig. 97) the sites on Nedorazumeniia Island (387, Fig. 98) and

Oiru (388), having dated them to the second millennium B.C., as well as the Upper site on Zav’ialova

Island (381, Fig. 99), which belongs, he suggests, to the first millennium B.C.

Figure 97. Neolithic stone artifacts from Kavran and Ust’-Palana (1–34). 1, 2—Kavran; the remainder—Ust’-Palana, after A. V.

Semenov.
190 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

The following five stages are characterized by sites with semisubterranean dwellings. These,

according to Vasil’evskii, make up Old Koryak history proper of the Remnant Neolithic and Iron

Age. They are distinguished by the arrangement of sites and dwellings, by the types of bone objects,

and in particular by the heads of toggling and non-toggling harpoons, as well as by the look of the

stone tools and ceramics. Since Vasil’evskii does not give summaries of the artifact assemblages in

these stages, we did this ourselves on the basis of his illustrations of some of the sites. These

complexes, by stages (Figs. 100–102), help to more graphically represent the stages of Old Koryak

culture outlined by Vasil’evskii. We enumerate them here with indications of the sites assigned to

them by Vasil’evskii:

Zav’ialova stage (500–800 A.D.)—the sites of Orochan (374) and one on the terrace of the left

bank of Rassvet Bay on Zav’ialova Island (382).

Bogurchan stage (approximately 1000 A.D.)—the sites of Bogurchan (378), Nargab’en (375),

and Naidenov Bay (379).

Figure 98. Bone and stone artifacts from the site on Nedorazumeniia Island.
Nikolai N. Dikov 191

Atargan stage (tenth–thirteenth centuries A.D.)—the sites of Atargan (380), one on the terrace

of the right bank of Rassvet Bay (382), Cape Trekh Brat’ev (369), the cape of Astronomicheskaia

Bay (367), Astronomicheskaia Bay (368), Cape Alevina (377), Avara (376), Sivuch (372), and

Naiakhan (354).

Lengel’val’ stage (thirteenth–fifteenth centuries A.D.)—Sredniaia Bay (365), some of the

dwellings at Siglan (373), Nantandzha (366), Kip-Kich (364), Itkilan (363), Varganchik (361),

Bokidzhakchan (371), Kushka (356), Impoveem (351), Nerivdan (370), Kulka (328), and Kavran

(323).52

Sites of the fifteenth–seventeenth centuries A.D.—Cape Travianoi (359), some of the dwellings

in Siglan (373), and on the lower terrace in Sredniaia Bay (365).

Figure 99. Bone and stone artifacts from the upper site on Zav’ialova Island (1–30).

52Items from the Kulka and Kavran sites are not included in Figures 100–102.
192 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Figure 100. Stone and bone artifacts and ceramics of the Old Koryak culture. Lower section (21–47)—Zav’ialova stage; upper section

(1–20)—Bogurchan stage.
Nikolai N. Dikov 193

Figure 101. Bone and stone artifacts and ceramics of the Atargan stage of the Old Koryak culture (1–50).
194 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Figure 102. Bone, stone, and ceramic artifacts of the Old Koryak culture. Lower section (1–23)—Lengel’val’ stage; upper section

(1–7)—sites of the sixteenth century.

There are still more than 20 Old Koryak sites known in the eastern part of the Old Koryak area,

which (except for Kulka and Kavran) are not mentioned by Vasil’evskii in this chronology.

Many of them were discovered on the western coast of Penzhina Bay and on the Okhotsk coast

of Kamchatka by Jochelson (Kulka—328, Kavran—323), A. V. Semenov (Lyvat—344,

Kamenka—342, Mikino—347, Anadyrka—334, Palana—332, Ornochiki—345, Ol’khovka—

346), V. I. Ruban (Ust’-Kavran right—324) and by us (at the mouth of the Penzhina River on Cape

Zelenyi—47 and Cape Bol’shoi—49). Also an early Koryak site is known at Pervorechensk (343),

as well as at the mouth of the Penzhina River, discovered by V. P. Pokhialainen, and at Rekiniki

(340), discovered by V. I. Zaiarnov. The basic types of stone artifacts from these sites are

represented in a table (Fig. 103) that we created based on unpublished materials, as well as on the

first published complex of stone and bone items from Rekiniki (Fig. 104),53 probably related to the

Atargan stage.

In the summarized complex of stone artifacts from the western Kamchatkan Old Koryak sites

of Kulka (328), Kavran (323), Pervorechensk (343), Manily (49), Cape Zelenyi (47), and Cape

53Stored at the Kamchatka District Regional Museum.
Nikolai N. Dikov 195

Figure 103. Complex of stone artifacts of the Old Koryak culture from the northwest coast of Kamchatka. 1, 3–5, 9, 18, 19, 29, 32,

39, 40—Manily (49); 2, 6, 10, 34, 42, 46—Pervorechensk (343); Cape Bol’shoi (46); 14, 15, 25—Cape Zelenyi (47); 7, 8, 12, 13,

17, 20–23, 24, 26, 28, 30, 33, 36, 37, 43–45, 48, 49—Kavran (323); 10, 16, 27, 31, 35, 38, 41, 47—Kulka (328).
196 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Figure 104. Old Koryak bone artifacts from Rekiniki (340) on the northwest coast of Kamchatka (1–16).

Bol’shoi (48) are large trapezoidal axes and adzes (I–3, III–6) and smaller ones (IV–8, VI–3); leafshaped projectile points (I–1a, 1b, 1c, 3b, 3c, 4a, 9b), truncated leaf-shaped points (II–1a, 1b, 1c,

3b, 4a, 4b), and stemmed points (VIII–9, X–3, VIII–22—with constricted neck); leaf-shaped,

stemless biface knives (II–2, 3, 4), stemmed knives with a straight axis (III–1), knives with a lateral

projection (V–7) and curved (V–6), stemmed knives with a constricted neck (V–13), with button

stems (V–16, 20), and ground slate knives with a convex blade (VIII–3); end scrapers (I–6, 11, 23;

II–6, 11, 16, 19), stemmed scrapers (II–26), round micro-scrapers (I–23, II–23), bifacial end

scrapers (IV–2, V–1, 2, 3), side scrapers (VII–6), and more or less large, crudely made skreblos of

various types (VIII–29, IX–2, 6, 7, 10, 12; X–6, 9). For an adequate chronological breakdown of

this summarized complex there is at present no satisfactorily stratified and well-documented data.

It is possible only to express the supposition that a significant part of the material, assigned by

Vasil’evskii to the Lengel’val’ stage of the sites of Kulka (328) and Kavran (323), for example,

stemmed and button-stemmed stone knives (Fig. 103:16, 41, 43, 44), belongs to a substantially

earlier time, at least to the Atargan stage and possibly to even earlier periods. To clarify this question

on these sites, investigations were conducted by the Western Kamchatka Division of the Northeast

Asian Archaeological Expedition (Ruban 1977).

On the eastern coast of northern Kamchatka, Old Koryak sites are known in several places

from Kavachi to the Ozernyi Peninsula (203–221), but they are still inadequately investigated and

finds from them, particularly those belonging to V. N. Maliukovich (203, 204, 205, 207, 211, 214,

215, 216, 218, 219), have not yet been introduced to scientific circulation. The most interesting of

them are the obsidian biface points, a scraper, and fragments of ceramics (lined and with applied

ribs), found by Iu. M. Stefanov on the Ozernyi Peninsula near the Uka River (221, Fig. 105:2–8),

as well as a simple bone socketed harpoon head from Tilichiki (208, Fig. 105:1) with one opening,

similar to harpoons of the Zav’ialova stage (Dikov 1964b:Fig. 10:2).
Nikolai N. Dikov 197

Figure 105. Toggling harpoon head from Tilichiki (208) and stone projectile points, a piece of a biface, and a fragment of ceramics from

Ozernovskii Peninsula (221).

54Vasil’evskii (1971:48, 1973:147, 1974:23, 29) also concluded this.

This harpoon head, typical for the early stage of the Old Koryak culture of the Okhotsk coast,

permitted us in due course to conclude that the Koryak, already at that time hunting sea mammals,

lived on both shores of Kamchatka, that is, that their culture had spread not only along the shores

of the Sea of Okhotsk, but even of the Bering Sea (Dikov 1971a:35, 1971b:407–408).54 And this

circumstance, as we noted above, must have contributed to the development of cultural

connections between the early Koryak and the early Eskimos, which can be seen if only in the

similarity of this type of harpoon head with some heads from the Old Eskimo cultural level on Cape

Denby in Alaska (Giddings 1964:Pl.6:16–17). The earliest prototype of this kind is probably the

simple socketed head with one opening, found at Choris, an even earlier Eskimo culture (the

beginning of the first millennium B.C.) also in Alaska (Bandi 1969:Fig. 22).

In Vasil’evskii’s (1971:46, 190, 192, 200) opinion, the early Koryak culture is distinguished by

“highly eclectic” heterogeneous elements. It emerged as a result of the synthesis or alloying of

cultures of interior Neolithic reindeer hunters, who had gone to the sea, with influences from coastal

cultures of the southern Far East (predominantly the left bank of the lower Amur). This point of

view is formed not without the influence of our hypothesis on the origin of the coastal culture in

northern Chukotka. The coastal culture of northern Chukotka also emerged, judging by the

character of the sites on Aion Island, on a foundation of cultures of interior reindeer hunters who

systematically went each summer to the sea, finally settling on it (Dikov 1961b). Actually, a similar

Neolithic culture of reindeer hunters was probably the base of cultural development on the sea

coasts of Northeast Asia. Although, looking beyond such a base in light of the most recent ideas

on the antiquity of sea exploitation here, there could still be a coastal sea ecosystem (mollusks,
198 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

seaweed, and the like) to which Paleolithic hunters of mammoths had been forced to turn in

consequence of extinction of the latter at the end of the Pleistocene. Such a point of view is held,

for example, by Malaurie (1970, 1972).

Be that as it may, available archaeological materials attest to the development in the early

Holocene on the upper Kolyma of the Siberdik and Maltan industries of knife-like blades, as well

as to the subsequent spread of similar technology to the northern coast of the Sea of Okhotsk,

including Kamchatka. This is indicated by the Late Neolithic complex of stone implements with

knife-like blades at Ust’-Palana discovered by A. V. Semenov (Fig. 97, except the first two cores)

(Vasil’evskii 1973:Fig. 17; Pl. XXII–XXV), a single knife-like microblade that we found in 1962 on

the surface of the terrace on the right bank of the Dukcha River at kilometer 9 of the Kolyma Road,

and possibly a microblade from the Kony Peninsula, which Vasil’evskii cursorily mentions

(Ibid.:146; Vasil’evskii 1975a), as well as prismatic and conical cores found in 1911 by Jochelson in

Kavran (323). Investigations undertaken by Ruban on the western coast of Kamchatka attest to the

presence there, in Kavran, on Cape Andreevskii I (326) by the mouth of the Tigil’ River, and on the

right bank of the Kulka River (329) (Ruban 1977:238) of definite traces of a pre-Koryak nonceramic Neolithic culture with knife-like blades, probably related to the second–beginning of the

first millennium B.C.

Vasil’evskii attaches special significance, in connection with his search for the origins of Old

Koryak culture, to the complex of stone and bone objects from Nedorazumeniia Island, assigning

this complex to the second millennium B.C. Vasil’evskii thoroughly explains the etymology of the

name of the island, but unfortunately writes almost nothing about the circumstances of discovery

of this early site. In fact, builders of a fish processing plant were the first to discover stone

implements here. When Vasil’evskii, after receiving the collection from them at the Magadan

District Regional Museum, arrived at their invitation on the island in the winter of 1960 from

Magadan, the ancient site was already so damaged and built over that interpretation of its

stratigraphy was rather difficult.

A close examination of the complex of stone implements from Nedorazumeniia Island (Fig.

98) does not permit us to agree completely with the dates given to it by Vasil’evskii. Their so-called

Neolithic character is extremely deceptive. Small arrow points in the Northeast are still not a

conclusive sign of the Neolithic. They are also characteristic for the Bronze Age of neighboring

Yakutia (Istoriia Sibiri. . ., 1968) and Chukotka and for the Remnant Neolithic of the Kurile Islands.55

They are also found in later stages of Old Koryak culture in the Iron Age (Figs. 100, 101).

The complete lack of knife-like blades (and cores, from which they had been flaked) in the

complex of Nedorazumeniia Island, so typical for the Neolithic of Northeast Asia, is, in our view,

decisive for dating it.

Regarding the Neolithic form of knives from Nedorazumeniia Island, the stemmed knives,

sometimes found even in the Atargan stage of Old Koryak culture (Fig. 101), are widespread in the

Upper site on Zav’ialova Island (381), which is dated, according to Vasil’evskii, to the first

millennium B.C. (Fig. 99), though in fact, it is probably associated with a later time, which will be

further discussed below. Knives with lateral constriction above the shoulders (Fig. 98:15) are often

found in Kamchatka at the Domashnee Lake site (Fig. 7), which, judging by radiocarbon dates of

55Storage of MAE, Coll. 6032—stone points of Iturup Island.
Nikolai N. Dikov 199

the Kultuk site (5) (covered by ash layer IVa), can be assigned to the second half of the first

millennium B.C.

Thus, only through misunderstanding [nedorazumenie] is the Nedorazumeniia Island site

assigned to the second millennium B.C. It can be more correctly assigned not to the second

millennium B.C., as we indicated based on Vasil’evskii’s data in the summary table (Dikov

1977b:242, Table 4), but to the second half, or probably even to the very end of the first

millennium B.C.

For the second and beginning of the first millennia in Northeast Asia, a developed industry of

knife-like blades is very characteristic, which is clearly reflected in the materials of the North

Chukotka and Ust’-Belaia cultures and Cultural Layers III and IV of the Ushki sites in Kamchatka

and is corroborated by the Ust’-Palana complex, as well as the above-mentioned finds of knife-like

blades on the northern and northeastern coast of the Sea of Okhotsk. And there is no basis at all

to think that on the northern coast of the Sea of Okhotsk, simultaneously with this well-developed

technology of knife-like blades, a bladeless culture emerged similar to that present on

Nedorazumeniia Island.

The early cultural complex of Nedorazumeniia Island belongs primarily to the same culture as

the probably somewhat later Upper site of Zav’ialova Island (381). They have much in common.

In the Upper site of Zav’ialova Island we find elongate/leaf-shaped, thick arrow points, as well as

stemmed and triangular points with a concave base, just as on Nedorazumeniia Island. Of course,

such small points are significantly fewer there, but a knife-like blade (Fig. 99) has been discovered,

as well as two segmented, uniformly retouched, lateral insets. Thus, on Zav’ialova Island (Fig. 381)

there are even more Neolithic signs than on Nedorazumeniia, though of course they could have

existed there until the Remnant Neolithic. The presence of an iron chisel (Fig. 99:4) in the complex

of Zav’ialova Island (381) convincingly attests to this. Of course, this complex of the Undeveloped

Iron Age and the Remnant Neolithic can be assigned, taking everything into account, either to the

end of the first millennium B.C. or, more probably, to the beginning of the first millennium A.D. (its

broad date within the boundaries of the first millennium A.D. set by Vasil’evskii [1971:133] appears

entirely unjustified to us).

It is interesting and very significant that at the Nedorazumeniia Island site a double-barbed

harpoon head (Fig. 98:1) was found, almost the same as occurs in the later Zav’ialova stage (Fig.

100), and in the complex of the Upper site of Zav’ialova Island (381) there are heads of toggling

harpoons: single-holed, with an open socket (Fig. 99:1), as well as a blank (Fig. 99:2). They still look

very primitive, which attests to a significant lag in harpoon development here on the Okhotsk coast

in comparison with the Eskimo region, where harpoons almost like this appear in the Kachemak

I culture in southern Alaska by the first millennium B.C., as they do in the Dorset culture in Canada

(Bandi 1969:Figs. 31:1; 56; 59), not to mention earlier (second millennium B.C.) rather welldeveloped toggling harpoon heads, with a single-hole, in the northern Greenland Independence II

culture (Bandi 1969:Fig. 64) and on Wrangel Island (Fig. 67:1).

In light of these data, the hypothesis maintained by Vasil’evskii about two independent

locations for the original formation of sea mammal exploitation appears entirely unconvincing: one

with barbed non-toggling harpoon heads (early cultures of the Koryak and Aleuts, as well as the

Okhotsk culture), and one with almost no non-toggling but with well-developed toggling harpoons

(the Old Eskimo culture) (Vasil’evskii 1971:196, 199). The facts support the idea that both these
200 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

complexes of hunting equipment go back to a single common base—the earliest stage of sea

mammal hunting, noted by toggling harpoon heads with a single-hole. The southern complex

(including Old Koryak), going back to the named common base, developed under perceptible

Eskimo, predominantly Dorset, influence, to which some researchers have already turned their

attention (Befu and Chard 1964; Kozyreva 1967:112). Finds of the Zav’ialova stage of Old Koryak

culture (Fig. 100) eloquently attest to this. Here we also find small stone arrow points, almost like

those in the Nedorazumeniia site (387), while toggling harpoon heads are very close to Dorset types

(Fig. 100)—barbed points being still completely nonspecific (Bandi 1969:Fig. 57, 59). These same

types of toggling harpoons are found in the Bogurchan stage (Fig. 100). Only in the Atargan stage

do harpoon heads of the Old Koryak culture acquire sufficient distinctiveness so that we can talk

of some special location for their development. During this time, instead of the previous

widespread, common, unilaterally and bilaterally barbed non-toggling harpoon heads, very specific

types of them often begin to be encountered—stemmed or socketed with two or three pairs of

symmetrically placed annulations, often with a stone point at the end (Types 1, 2, and 3 according

to Vasil’evskii 1971:153, Pl. LXVIII:1–6). Some of them survive into the Lengel’val’ stage along

with simpler forms. One of the earliest prototypes of these specific barbed heads can probably be

seen in the stemmed and barbed head with a chalcedony end blade in the assemblage of the Choris

Paleo-Eskimo culture, found in Alaska north of Bering Strait and dating to the first half of the first

millennium B.C. (Bandi 1969:Fig. 22; Giddings 1967:Fig. 77:a). Toggling harpoon heads also begin

to become more distinctive only in the Atargan stage and are now significantly different from

Dorset (Types 6 and 7 according to Vasil’evskii—with one basal spur and with a V-shaped slot for

the end blade; and type 11—with two barbs and stemmed) (Vasil’evskii 1971:150, Pl. LXVII:8, 9).

The distinctness of these harpoons is also evoked in significant measure by the fact that they were

made not from walrus tusk, as those of the Eskimos, but from bone, which Arutiunov and Sergeev

(1975:187) point out.

Thus, only from the Atargan stage, that is, from the tenth century A.D., is it possible to speak

of some kind of significant difference in Old Koryak harpoons from those of the Eskimos. Now

they are more similar to harpoons of the Okhotsk culture and comprise with them, as well as with

early Aleut harpoons, a well-expressed typological commonality.

Leroi-Gourhan (1946) turned his attention to localizing barbed harpoons in the northern zone

of the Pacific Ocean and to investigating the culture to which he dedicated his work. Vasil’evskii uses

his distribution map (Ibid.:Map 29) of barbed harpoons when arguing for two primary locations in

the formation of sea mammal hunting (with barbed harpoons and without them). However, in his

reproduction of this map, Vasil’evskii (1971:Fig. 49) does not have marked on it Leroi-Gourhan’s

barbed harpoons on the coast of the Arctic Ocean north of Bering Strait—in which there are now

other well-known finds of barbed harpoons: in the Choris culture (Bandi 1969:Fig. 22) and in other

later Eskimo sites (at Sireniki and in the Uelen and Ekven cemeteries) (Arutiunov and Sergeev

1969:Fig. 67:1, 1975:Fig. 46:2; Rudenko 1947:Pls. 22–31, 32).

Defending the idea of two independent locations of origin of coastal adaptation, Vasil’evskii

attempts to find support in the spread of distinctive stone knives, curved, with an waist anterior to

the shoulders, and a “handle.” In his opinion, the area of these knives coincides with the area of

barbed harpoons (Vasil’evskii 1973:201). However, this is far from being so. The map of

distribution of these knives (Ibid.:Fig. 25) created by Vasil’evskii is far from being complete. Similar

types have been known for a long time in the zone of the early Eskimos—in the Ipiutak and Uelen
Nikolai N. Dikov 201

cemeteries (Fig. 77:35) (Arutiunov and Sergeev 1969:Fig. 91:19; Larsen and Rainey 1948:Pls.

13:19, 20; 14:17), in Old Eskimo sites on the Chukchi Peninsula (Rudenko 1947:Pls. 17:8, 37:13),

and in the Canadian Arctic, which is also quite apparent on the distribution maps of these knives

created by Leroi-Gourhan (1946:Maps 24, 25). They were also recently discovered on Wrangel

Island, in the Paleo-Eskimo Chertov Ovrag site (167) (Tein 1978). Moreover, a series of typical

implements, for example scrapers with stems (Larsen and Rainey 1948:Pl. 18:3, 5) or simple singleholed harpoon heads with an end blade (Types H, I, J, K, L, M in Leroi-Gourhan’s classification),

are spread evenly both in the Arctic Eskimo zone and in the more southern zone—in the northern

Pacific Ocean (Leroi-Gourhan 1946:Maps 32, 33).

Nor can we agree with Vasil’evskii’s conclusions that the single-holed Ust’-Belaia toggling

harpoon head (Pl. 95:13) of the beginning of the first millennium B.C., supposedly the earliest in Asia

and America, is associated with the area of formation of only the northeastern Paleo-Asiatics

(including the Koryak), and that the Eskimos began to spread into Chukotka only since the Okvik

stage (Vasil’evskii 1971:197, 198). The discovery of an earlier (second half of the second millennium

B.C.) single-holed harpoon head (Fig. 67:1) on Wrangel’ Island in a Paleo-Eskimo complex once

more indicates in our view the presence of a common tradition in the harpoon equipment for sea

mammal hunting in the second and first millennia B.C., both among the ancestors of the northeastern

Paleo-Asiatics and among the early Eskimos.

The dissimilarity of Old Koryak toggling harpoon heads, stressed by Vasil’evskii, with the

developed forms of the early Eskimos (with lateral insets) (Ibid.:176, 177) can be explained by their

later indigenous development and the peculiarity of the material from which they were made, which

was discussed above.

Thus, Vasil’evskii’s distinction of two independent centers for the initial formation of sea

mammal hunting cultures is not sufficiently substantiated. Here, a more profound and

comprehensive approach is demanded. The formation of two cultural traditions (with

predominance of barbed or toggling harpoons) could have been brought about by the later

dynamics of ecological conditions, which, on the one hand, separated the Eskimos at a certain stage

by the methods of hunting sea mammals in the north (ice hunting) and the south (hunting on the open

sea) and, on the other, unified other ethnic groups, not connected genetically in linguistic regard

(Koryak, Aleuts, and the mysterious bearers of the Okhotsk culture), by hunting on the open sea.

Thus, one cannot speak of an initial, independent origin of sea mammal hunting among the

ancestors of the Koryak on the Okhotsk coast, that is, not connected with a common (for Eskimos)

cultural-economic substratum, nor about its distribution from this center into the islands of the

Pacific Ocean (Sakhalin, the Kuriles, and the Aleutians) (Vasil’evskii 1971:199).

It is possible to speak only of their divergent development, beginning approximately in the

middle of the first millennium A.D., primarily since the Atargan stage or somewhat earlier, but in any

case, not from the first or second millennium B.C., as Vasil’evskii asserts (Vasil’evskii 1971:196,

1973:209, 1974:29).

It is since the Atargan stage that the Old Koryak culture attains full bloom both in domestic

and in socioeconomic respect, which is very well indicated by Vasil’evskii in his interesting and

detailed outline of the domestic and social life of the early Koryak (Vasil’evskii 1973:139–173). In

sea mammal hunting, the hunt for whales begins to acquire more significance, together with
202 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

continuing procurement of sea lions and seals, the collection of sea mollusks, fishing, and the use

of dogs both as meat and as draught animals. The communities were large and composed, in

Vasil’evskii’s opinion, of big families. Semisubterranean dwellings, previously not large (6–10 m in

diameter) and round, now become more square (22–30 m) with rectangular stone hearths and built

not only of wood but of whale bone as well (later Koryak pit houses became octagonal and adopted

special funnel-shaped snow-protection structure on the roof around the entrance-smoke hole).

Highly developed sea mammal hunting, whale hunting in particular, provided a stable settlement

and later played, with the origin in the tundra of wandering reindeer herders, a substantial role in

the appearance of the first large social division in labor. Stressing this progressive role in sea

mammal hunting, Vasil’evskii thereby adopts a point of view that we expressed earlier on sea

mammal hunting as a distinctive substitute for farming in the process of social division of labor in

the Northeast, and in particular in Chukotka (Dikov 1969a:235; Vasil’evskii 1971:139). During the

Atargan stage the primitive society of the Koryak apparently enters a period of military democracy.

Implements of these new relations are now noticed in sites of this stage—for example, armor plates

and fortified towns enclosed by ditches and ramparts on the rivers of Kulka and Kavran and in other

places—territories bordering the Itel’men.

It is evidently possible to agree with several researchers about the great significance of

cultural connections of the early Koryak with Old Nivkhi tribes. These connections are reflected

in similarities of mythology, semisubterranean dwellings, and even harpoons (Taksami 1977:28,

29; Vasil’evskii 1971:191, 192; Pl. LXX). In addition, some similar elements of culture, for

example, toggling harpoon heads, could have passed either from there to the Okhotsk coast or

in the opposite direction. However, archaeological investigations in intermediate regions are still

required, as many researchers correctly note (between the lower Amur and the northern coast

of the Sea of Okhotsk, in the territory inhabited by the Nivkhi) (Ibid.:201; Arutiunov and

Sergeev 1975).

There is no doubt about the connections, which have been noted by Vasil’evskii, of the Old

Koryak culture with the so-called Okhotsk culture, which are reflected in the similarity of dwellings,

harpoon heads, tubular bone needle-cases, ceramics, and other things (Vasil’evskii 1971:186). The

explanation for this similarity is seen in a southwestern migration to the Okhotsk area by a

generalized Eskimo-Aleut complex (Befu and Chard 1964), or in an Esko-Aleut substrate

(Arutiunov and Sergeev 1975), or in a counter movement of hunters into the Northeast at the

beginning of the first millennium B.C. or earlier (Vasil’evskii 1971:198), or in an early indigenous

component (Ibid.:187). It should, however, be noted that these connections of the Old Koryak

culture with the Okhotsk took place mainly in its later stages, beginning basically with the Atargan,

and therefore cannot be considered only as an early component.

The question about the connections of Old Koryak culture with early Aleut culture is very

complex. One cannot think of Vasil’evskii’s (1973:202) hypothesis about a late—from the end of

the first millennium A.D.—migration of Aleuts through the Commander Islands to Kamchatka in

connection with a warming trend and farther to the north across its narrow isthmus to the Okhotsk

coast, as well as to the south into the northern Kuriles, as being correct. This proposition relies on

the too scanty and insignificant finds of E. P. Orlova in the Commanders: some flakes and a

trapezoidal adze, very common to later cultures, which Vasil’evskii arbitrarily interpreted as Tar’in

(Ibid.:202, Fig. 24). More probable is the settlement of the Kuriles from the south by bearers of

Okhotsk culture, the mysterious Tonchi—inhabitants of early Sakhalin (Kozyreva 1960, 1967:113).
Nikolai N. Dikov 203

Vasil’evskii does not see genetic connections of the North Okhotsk culture with earlier

Eskimo cultures, though he does not deny the presence in these cultures of similar elements (for

example, almost identical Dorset harpoons) (Vasil’evskii 1971:152). More significance is given

to these connections by Vdovin, who showed the principal similarity of North Okhotsk sea

hunting tools with those of the Eskimos, having demonstrated the presence of traces of Eskimo

substrate in the language of the Koryak-Aliutor people and in the toponymy of eastern

Kamchatka and Tauisk Bay, as well as in physical anthropological features of the coastal Koryak

(Vdovin 1961; 1973:262, 264–266).

The idea of a broad Esko-Aleut substrate, forced out by northeastern Paleo-Asiatics, including

the Koryak, is chief in the ethnogenetic construction of Arutiunov and Sergeev (1975). They suggest

as well that Old Koryak culture was formed in the first centuries A.D. under strong Old Bering Sea

influence and that its distinctiveness, in particular the distinctiveness of Old Koryak harpoons, is

not real. They explain the difference of Old Bering Sea and Okhotsk (including North Okhotsk)

harpoons by the use of different materials in their manufacture (walrus tusk among the Eskimos and

tubular bone in the Okhotsk culture) (Ibid.:187, 190, 191).

Thus, the early Koryak created their own original culture, which by no means developed in

isolation from other cultures. However, as we have shown, there is no basis to say that there was

a special center for the original formation of sea mammal hunting on the north coast of the Sea of

Okhotsk in the area of the Old Koryak culture, which spread from there to the North Pacific islands

(Vasil’evskii 1971:199).56 The psychological pressure of his material has apparently adversely

affected Vasil’evskii’s view—the psychological factor, the role of which many scholars recognize,

including Vasil’evskii himself (Dikov 1971b:272–273; Vasil’evskii 1973:7).

The Old Koryak culture, which we examined, has still been studied in only a very superficial

and generalized way. Judging by the physical anthropological, linguistic, and ethnographic

investigations of the Koryak (Debets 1951:114; Skorik and Vdovin 1973), of this most

heterogeneous (in the aspects mentioned) Paleo-Asiatic people, the Old Koryak culture certainly

must be very complex in structural respect and must consist of various indigenous archaeological

cultures, which at present have still not been entirely revealed. The presence of indigenous

ethnographic groups of Koryak—the people of Karagin, Aliutor, Apuka, Palana, the Settled

Koryak of the northwestern coast of the Sea of Okhotsk, and the Koryak reindeer herders (Vdovin

1973)—clearly differing by dialect and in several cases by the peculiarity of economy (for example,

the hunting of walrus only among the Bering Sea Koryak) obliges archaeologists to trace their origin

in the archaeological material. Special detachments of the Northeast Asian Archaeological

Expedition began research in this direction, both in Okhotsk and on the Bering Sea coast.

Below we will characterize one such indigenous culture—of the northwestern Bering Sea—

which at present is revealed most clearly and coincides essentially with the area of the Kerek and

partially with the Apuka Koryak.

56American archaeologists are also categorically opposed to this concept (see McCartney 1974).
204 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

The Northwestern Bering Sea (Old Kerek) Culture

In the extreme northeast of the Old Koryak area, on the northwestern coast of the Bering Sea,

approximately between Cape Oliutorskii and the Anadyr estuary, traces of a separate indigenous

or even independent archaeological culture are preserved that has recently been interpreted as Old

Kerek (Beliaeva 1968; Dikov 1974c:67, 68; Leont’ev 1976). It was investigated by one of the

divisions of the SVKNII DVNTs AN SSSR (Orekhov 1976, 1977), and at present—before the

publication of the new archaeological materials—only the most general preliminary judgements can

be made about this interesting culture.

The base on which the culture emerged, just as everywhere in Northeast Asia, is characterized

by a technology of knife-like blades, to which a prismatic core attests, discovered in 1973 by I.

Ivtegin on the Rytkyl’veem River (200).

The earliest stage of this culture, Beringovsk (or Lakhtina), recorded right on the sea coast, is

represented by a non-ceramic site near the village of Beringovsk on the shore of Lakhtina Bay (104).

Only flaked stone tools were discovered in this dispersed dune site (104), if one does not count

a partially ground adze. They have a crude skreblo-like form and were made predominantly of

siliceous slate. Only two of the end scrapers of finer manufacture were made of flint (Dikov

1977b:Pls. 120, 121).

The technologically archaic nature of these tools is very evident. They cannot be compared at

all with well-manufactured implements, chiefly finely ground tools of Neo-Eskimo cultures—

Okvik and Old Bering Sea—to say nothing of later ones. The somewhat Paleo-Eskimo radiocarbon

age—2330 ± 225 B.P. (MAG–197)—determined on charcoal that we took from a fire place at the

Lakhtina site (104) in 1975 corresponds to the archaic appearance of the tools.

The economy of the inhabitants of this site was composite. Fishing is attested to by the

comparative abundance among the finds of stone net sinkers. Sea mammal hunting is indicated by

the remains of whale bones in the site, but the complete absence of tools of a harpoon complex

meanwhile speaks of a lack of development of sea mammal hunting.

Later sites of the northwestern Bering Sea contain ceramics; stone knives and adzes with

ground edges; screblos, knives, points of arrows and spears (including obsidian leaf-shaped ones)

manufactured by percussion and pressure flaking; stone sinkers; and lamps, as well as bone points

of arrows and spears of a very distinctive type—with a socketed stem—which have been

encountered here for a long time and are the most characteristic implements of the Kerek (Fig. 106).

These sites contain numerous settlements of pit houses, which were preserved from a more

developed stage of the northwestern Bering Sea culture (or even from several of its stages) at Cape

Otvesnyi (194), in Amaam Lagoon (195), in Gavriila or Kanyiun Bay (196), on Vaamochka Lake

(198), at the mouth of the Khatyrka River (199), on Capes Lagunnyi and Rifovyi, at the entrance to

Opuka Lagoon, on Anna Lagoon, in Nataliia Bay, and others (Orekhov 1976b, 1977). Then there

are those sacrificial places marked, as a rule, by lower jaws of whales set vertically in the ground and

surrounded by walrus skulls—at Etchun, on Cape Otvesnyi, at Kammakynot Mountain, at the

entrance of Opuka Lagoon, at Gavriila Bay, at Nataliia Bay, and in other places, generally at early

settlements, which in some cases, for example at Etchun, have simulated traces of the feet of the

“spirit master,” like the large (about 40 cm) notorious traces of Bigfoot (Orekhov 1976b, 1977).

Finally, there are caves, for example, the one known for a long time in Omaian Bay (202).
Nikolai N. Dikov 205

Figure 106. Kerek bone arrow points. 1–3, 5–11, 13, 20–22, 25–27, 32, 33—Omaian Cave (202), in the depository of the Primor’e

Regional Museum in Vladivostok, Coll. 401; 4, 14–16, 18, 19, 23, 24, 28—in the depository of the Chukotka Regional Museum in

Anadyr’, Coll. 1487–41 (1–18); 12—Ugol’naia Bay (192), in the depository of the Hermitage, Coll. 5135; 17—Ugol’naia Bay (192),

in the depository of the Primor’e Regional Museum in Vladivostok; 29–31—shrine at Vetvei River (209), after I. S. Vdovin (1/5

actual size).
206 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

These sites, of course, by no means outline the entire area of the coastal Kerek culture. Surveys

have still not been conducted south of Nataliia and Omaian Bays, though meanwhile the presence

of Kerek toponymy (for example, Aiin River) on the south side of Cape Oliutorskii permits

suggesting a settlement there of early Kerek.

The enumerated sites attest to the profound distinctiveness of the archaeological culture of

northwestern Bering Sea and to its genetic connection with ethnographic material and spiritual

culture, successfully revealed recently by Leont’ev (1976b:223).

Especially characteristic are the dwellings of this culture—semisubterranean, built with a

wooden rectangular framework (with sides to 2 and 4 m), resting, judging by the preliminary data,

on four posts and having a leaning support on all sides. On the outside this structure was solidly

covered with sod, so that the dwellings appeared as scarcely noticeable earthen hills. Their

rectangular hearths of vertically embedded stone slabs—such hearths were found in Gavriila Bay

(Leont’ev 1976b:84, 224)—are similar to hearths in Old Kerek pit houses of the northern coast of

the Sea of Okhotsk. But in distinction from the latter, the entrance here was evidently not through

the smoke hole in the roof, but rather by a short corridor, which, judging from ethnographic data,

might have been longer and made of snow, as at an Eskimo igloo (Leont’ev 1976b.:145). In

Leont’ev’s opinion, near the dwellings that he investigated in the eroded areas on Gavriila Bay (196),

special external fire pits were built, paved with stones and served for baking and stewing meat and

fish by the Kerek method of puialk’yn (Leont’ev 1976b:110, 111).

Earlier settlements are probably represented by a complex system (kuimaiaan’a) of several pit

houses grouped around the largest communal pit house, connected by corridors, and occupied by

several families of the genetic community. Later, the Kerek possibly began to live in individual

common, large pit houses with three or four families in each (Leont’ev 1976a:160, 161).

The economy during this stage was, as before, complex, but sea mammal hunting had already

begun to play a more significant role. Some investigators evidently underestimate it when they point

out that the Kerek were not true sea mammal hunters (Leont’ev 1976b:205). Probably closer to the

truth is Bogoras who notes that the Kerek formerly had skin baidars and lived by hunting walrus

(Bogoras 1934:41). The largest socketed bone points with prominent barbs (Fig. 106:17) might be

considered as archaeological evidence of sea mammal hunting. Some of them were probably

“whaling arrows” (Leont’ev 1976b); others might have been used for hunting walruses. The

presence of distinctive toggling harpoon heads (Leont’ev 1976b) in ethnographic collections from

Kerek territory permits one to think that early Kerek harpoon heads simply have not been found

at present, just as “bear cudgels”—the well-known kaluvianan, which served to dispatch sea

mammals at their hauling grounds, have not been found (Leont’ev 1976b:146, 147). However that

may be, the abundance of walrus skulls at the shrines and the bones of a variety of sea mammals,

including whales, in the cultural levels clearly indicate an intensity of sea mammal hunting among

the early Kerek. Bird hunting, to which they also quite actively applied themselves using special nets

(Leont’ev 1976b:89–90) and special blunt points of arrows (bunts), could not, of course, be the

basic source either of food or especially of skins for clothing, nor could hunting ground squirrels

and hares or even sheep and wild goats, which they shot with a special kind of arrow (chutchum)

(Leont’ev 1976b:218, 146). Nevertheless, these kinds of hunting on land are very characteristic of

the complex economy of the early Kerek, as is, by the way, hunting large fish with leisters (atchina)

(Leont’ev 1976b:218, 146), for which two-pronged socketed points could be used (Fig. 106:28).
Nikolai N. Dikov 207

Burials related to the culture under examination have at present not been investigated, though

it is known that the deceased were sometimes buried in the ground (head to the west) (Leont’ev

1976b:218, 146). It is also known that another rite, burial at sea, was widespread among the Kerek

(Jochelson 1908:104).

Among artistic items, the enigmatic sculptural representation of an “owl with a seal’s head”

(Leont’ev’s interpretation) merits special attention. It is probably of a mythological personage and

has no analogy in other early or ethnographic cultures. This bone figurine was found by Leont’ev

in the cultural layer of a site in Gavriila Bay, which, judging by the hatch-marked ceramics (analogous

to that of Old Bering Sea) found there by Orekhov, is evidently one of the earliest in the postLakhtina period being examined (sites with crude, smooth-walled ceramics are probably the latest).

It is consequently possible to speak of the stable artistic tradition of the Old Kerek culture inasmuch

as Kerek figurines of N. Gondatti’s ethnographic collection were made in a similar style. Leont’ev

cited the similarity of the Kerek figurines (from Gondatti’s collection) with the “owl” (Coll. MAE,

No. 442–28; Leont’ev 1966b). Thus, the clear ethnic connection of the early culture with the modern

Kerek should be recognized as well.

The sacrificial place found by Vdovin on the Vetvei River, in which bone bunts with socketed

shafts were encountered (Vdovin 1971:Pl. I), points to either a connection of the Old Kerek coastal

culture with a neighboring indigenous group of Koryaks or to its vast, though not investigated, early

hinterland.

Its northern contact zone is marked by sites in Geka Land (190) and on the Tumanskaia River

(191), which differ by a well-expressed Eskimo cultural influence, that is, having vessels typical

of Punuk with external attached “ears” and no Kerek vessels at all, but with Koryak-ChukchiEskimo arrow points with stemmed hafts (Orekhov 1976). Orekhov was probably correct when

he suggested that the Kerek here were subjected to Eskimo influence, but it is also possible that

the Koryak in Geka Land and on the Tumanskaia River underwent this influence and that their

descendants were encountered here in a “korg” by S. Dezhnev in 1652 (Russkie arkticheskie

ekspeditsii . . ., p. 139).

The origin of Old Kerek culture cannot yet be definitively comprehended. It is probably a relict

of a very archaic ethnocultural stratum, perhaps even similar to Paleo-Indian, and the same for

proto-Eskimo-Aleuts and the earliest Itel’men, which we talked about earlier (Dikov 1973b,

1974b).57 Influence is noted in the Old Kerek culture of Koryak culture and especially of Itel’men

and Eskimo, and ethnographer U. G. Popova finds in it some connection with the culture of the

mysterious “Foot Tungus” of the Okhotsk coast (Leont’ev 1976b:227). In this instance of Old

Kerek culture, the manifestation of the tendency toward ethnocultural differentiation is quite

clear—from a broad, earliest ethnic community to narrow, indigenous, ethnographic groups,

which we have repeatedly discussed (Dikov 1964b).

57Such a proposition agrees well with the tentative conclusion of the physical anthropologist A. A. Zubov about the

unusual gracility and softened, almost Paleo-Indian Mongoloid features of the skulls he examined from Cape Lopatka,

from the early site at Cape Nizkii, and from the Kerek burial at Opukha, representing, in his opinion, a relict of a very early

common initial ethnic stratum.
208 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

The Middle Kamchatkan (Nikul’skaia)

Variant of the Old Itel’men Culture

Vdovin’s ethnolinguistic research has indicated the isolated position and independent origin

of the Itel’men in relation to the Koryak and, at the same time, close mutually penetrating

connections between them at the frontier contact zones (Vdovin 1973:271). It was also

ascertained that on the western shore of Kamchatka live Kamchadalized sedentary Koryak

(Vdovin 1973:276), and on the eastern shore the Koryakized Itel’men, and that the Itel’men were

consequently still spread to the north there in the eighteenth century, significantly farther than

they were later, up to Karaginskii Island inclusive and possibly farther toward the area of the

Kerek (Vdovin 1973:21, 274).

It is also known that at the beginning of the eighteenth century the middle and southern parts

of Kamchatka were occupied by a few indigenous groups and tribes of Itel’men (the northern

Itel’men, Chuiagzhu, Avacha Itel’men or Suaachiu-ai, Kykshai-ai, Lingurin, Kules, and others)

(Dolgikh 1960:563–568).

But the archaeological materials begin to reveal the essential differences in the Old Itel’men

culture, which, on the whole, correspond to the indigenous groups of Itel’men, though much is still

unclear and problematic here. The most substantial differences can be seen between early Itel’men

culture in the Kamchatka River valley and in the south of the peninsula, where Itel’men culture was

subjected to Ainu influence. Cultural variants are also noted on the western and eastern shores of

Kamchatka, where special crews of the Northeast Asiatic Archaeological Expedition carried out

special research to expose local differences in the Old Itel’men culture.

Considering the complex structure of Old Itel’men culture as a whole, it is expedient to view

it not as a unit, but on the basis of its indigenous variants, at the same time limiting ourselves to

focusing on only two of its variants: Middle Kamchatkan (Nikul’skaia) and South Kamchatkan

(Nalychevo), which probably go back to the local subdivisions of the Tar’in culture.

We will assign to the indigenous Middle Kamchatkan (Nikul’skaia) variant of the Old Itel’men

culture58 archaeological sites in the Kamchatka River valley discovered and investigated by our

expedition in 1961–1966: the first layer of the second Ushki site (2), the lower site at Doiarki (10),

Sites 1 and 2 at Kliuchi (12, 13), the cultural layers and burials at Kamaki (17, 18, 19), and the

Nikul’skaia fortified site (16). We will combine in one local group all the named sites on the basis

of their chronological closeness, determined by a series of radiocarbon dates, and on the basis of

similarity of the complexes of stone artifacts preserved in them.

The radiocarbon dates from the type sites at Ushki (1 and 2), as well as Doiarki (10), permit

assigning the cultural commonality being examined to the end of the first millennium and a

substantial part of the second millennium A.D., evidently up to the sixteenth–seventeenth

centuries. At the end of this period, for example, in the twelfth century A.D., along with fishing

sites (1, 2, 10, 12), fortified villages of predominantly rectangular pit houses, often surrounded

by berms and ditches, also appear in the Kamchatka River valley. We excavated one of them,

58Below, for brevity, we will call it the indigenous Middle Kamchatkan culture, and the second variant, the indigenous South

Kamchatkan culture.
Nikolai N. Dikov 209

Nikul’skaia (16), almost completely. It provided a wealth of material, while from others site plans

were made (1, 18, 20–37) and only insignificant artifacts were extracted from the trenches.

However, they all, judging by tephra-stratigraphic data, belong precisely to the final stage of

development of this indigenous culture, evidently going up to the appearance in the Kamchatka

River valley of the first Russian settlers.

The physical remains from all these sites and fortified villages are typically Neolithic. But no

ceramics were discovered in them. Almost all the tools are of stone, more rarely of bone, and no

iron tools were found at all, though it is possible that they were already used in insignificant numbers,

which can be guessed from Krasheninnikov’s description of the life of the Itel’men, as well as from

the aggregate of archaeological information on the spread of iron during the Remnant Neolithic on

the Okhotsk coast and in Chukotka and southern Kamchatka.

Of 88 types of stone artifacts from the Middle Kamchatkan variant of the Old Itel’men culture

only 38 can be considered as traditional, that is, inherited from the earlier Tar’in culture. Of these,

25 are directly associated with sites in the Kamchatka River valley, 28 are connected with the South

Kamchatkan group of sites of the Tar’in culture, and 16 are common for both.

To the first group of traditional elements (Fig. 107), dating to the Neolithic of the Kamchatka

River valley, belong unifacially convex (III–6) and trapezoidal (V–7) adzes; large leaf-shaped biface

points (I–5b) and smaller ones (I–4b, 6b; II–4b); triangular arrow points (V–a, b), stemmed ones

on flakes (V–4); unretouched knife-like blades (I–2) and retouched along the edges (I–6, 7), curved,

stemless biface knives (IV–6), knives on flakes (VII–3, 4, 6, 9); subtriangular and pear-shaped end

scrapers with a rounded working edge (I–11, 16, 18); grooved spokeshaves (XII–4); and lateral and

angle burins carelessly made on flakes (IV–3, 5).

Figure 107. Complex of traditional stone artifacts from the Middle Kamchatkan (Nikul’skaia) variant of the Old Itel’men culture. 1, 3,

5–7, 10, 13, 14—Nikul’skaia fortified site (16); 2, 8—Kamaki (18); 4, 9—Doiarki (10), under Ash Layer 2; 11, 12—Kliuchi (12).
210 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

The dominant place in the structure of the complex of stone artifacts belongs, as we have

already said, to innovations and new elements, to 44 types of artifacts that are absent in the Tar’in

culture or, at least, have not yet been found in it (Fig. 108).

An exceptionally large number of the new types of artifacts turned out to be axes and adzes.

Their number is almost twice as great as the number of tools of this category inherited from the

preceding culture. These are axes of varied trapezoidal and rectangular outline with an irregular

lenticular or rectangular cross section (I–4, 5, 6, 7, 8), adzes with a rectangular cross section of very

different dimensions (II–2, 3, 6, 9, 10), small, thin adzes of lenticular cross section (IV–5, 7, 9), small

adzes of geometrically irregular cross section (V–5, 8), and rectangular chisels (VII–7).

Among the new types of projectile points, leaf-shaped (I–3c, 2b) predominate, but there are

also triangular ones with lateral indentations (VIII–22x) and without them (O–8).

New are two types of inset blades (I–8, 9); truncated leaf-shaped (II–9) and triangular (II–8)

biface knives, ground knives of slate (VIII–4, 25, 26); trapezoidal end scrapers (I–2, 12, 18), varied

combination scrapers (III–9, 16, 22, 23; IV–6, 19, 24), biface scrapers (V–7, 12), lateral and

rounded scrapers on flakes (VII–11,13, 14); and massive adze-like and pentangular skreblos (VIII–

30, 31; IX–6).

Finally, we must assign some dihedral burins (III–5; IV–6) and punches (I–2, 3) to the

innovations in this complex.

The complex of artifacts with which we just became acquainted introduces us to an early

indigenous culture, until now completely unknown in the Northeast, though very close to the one

that Jochelson, Okladnikov, and then Rudenko distinguished based on finds on Kuril’skoe Lake

in southern Kamchatka. Even with all the similarity, they differ substantially by the composition

of the stone artifacts. The most distinguishing difference of the two indigenous cultures is that

ceramics are not at all characteristic of the Middle Kamchatkan, whereas for the South

Kamchatkan culture ceramics are very characteristic and moreover the ceramics are extremely

distinctive—with internal lugs.

It should be noted that the term “Middle Kamchatkan variant of Old Itel’men culture” does

not correspond in the territorial or chronological sense with the “Middle Kamchatkan culture,”

which, along with the South Kamchatkan, was distinguished by Jochelson, Okladnikov, and

Rudenko. These authors understood the Middle Kamchatkan as the earliest of the Neolithic

cultures then known in Kamchatka, which was represented by finds at Tar’ia near PetropavlovskKamchatki. We, ourselves, assigning sites of the Remnant Neolithic in the Kamchatka River

valley to the indigenous Middle Kamchatkan culture, connect with the synchronic indigenous

South Kamchatkan culture sites not only in the vicinity of Kuril’skoe Lake, but also those

somewhat to the north of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatki, for example in Nalychevo (253–255).

Thus, we picture the indigenous South Kamchatkan culture of the Remnant Neolithic

significantly broader in territorial regard, occupying an expanse of southern Kamchatka possibly

from Cape Lopatka to Nalychevo, and possibly even farther to the north, thus entirely occupying

the territory of both the South Kamchatkan and the Middle Kamchatkan cultures (according to

Jochelson, Okladnikov, and Rudenko).

Following the principle of Occam’s Razor, we do not have to search for genetic connections

of the indigenous Middle Kamchatkan culture to find analogies to all types of artifacts of this
Nikolai N. Dikov 211

Figure 108. Complex of innovations in the stone inventory of the Middle Kamchatkan (Nikul’skaia) variant of the Old Itel’men

culture. 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18–20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30–33, 36, 37, 39, 40—Nikul’skaia fortified site (16); 2, 29, 34, 42—

Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer 1; 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 21, 23, 26, 35, 41—Doiarki (10), under Ash Layer 2; 11—Kliuchi 1 (12); 13—

Ushki III (Kultuk) (5); 17, 38—Kamaki (18).
212 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

culture known to us. It is sufficient to analyze the similarity only of its innovations with artifacts

of other cultures.

In doing this it is found that of 42 types of innovations only 16 have analogies in surrounding

cultures of the first millennium B.C.–second millennium A.D. The remaining analogies are earlier and

by virtue of their incommensurable chronological separation from the culture being examined are

of no interest to us.

Of the 16 types of artifacts that we find of interest, the largest quantity—15 types—we note in

the Ust’-Belaia culture in Chukotka, 8 in North America (predominantly in Alaska), 3 on the

northern Okhotsk coast, 2 on Sakhalin, 4 in Primorye, and 1 each in the Kurile Islands, on the Amur,

and in Zabaikalye. In general, analogies have not been found anywhere at present for 6, and thus they

are probably purely endogenic innovations (tiny adzes [II–12; IV–5, 9; V–5] and combination

micro-scrapers/gravers [III–23; IV–24]).

Among the Ust’-Belaia analogies we note adzes (rectangular in cross section) that are

rectangular (II–9), with a pointed butt (II–3), and stepped (II–6), as well as tiny ones with a

lenticular cross section (IV–7); triangular arrow points with lateral grooves (VIII–22x) and

unifacially worked leaf-shaped ones (O–1); lateral insets (I–8, 9); knives on flakes (III–16);

trapezoidal end scrapers (II–12) and combination scrapers (III–22; IV–19); as well as bifacially

retouched leaf-shaped burins (V–12) and lateral burins (VII–11). A large number of parallels in

the Ust’-Belaia culture can probably be explained not only by a commonality that underlies the

two cultures, but also by significant cultural infiltration from the Ust’-Belaia culture, which was

earlier than the Middle Kamchatkan.

Among the North American Arctic analogies are several known Ust’-Belaia ones (grooved

points [VIII–22x] in the Old Whaling culture at Cape Krusenstern and scrapers in the Aleutian

Islands [II–12] and at Ipiutak [V–12]) (Giddings 1961:Fig. 7:2–7; Larsen and Rainey 1948:Fig. 23,

Pl. 15:13–16), as well as trapezoidal adzes of amorphous cross section (V–8) at Ipiutak (Larsen and

Rainey 1948:Pl. 10:2), leaf-shaped arrow points (I–2b) on the southwestern Yukon in the first

millennium A.D. (McNeish 1964:Fig. 88:3), biface scrapers (V–7), and punches (I–2; II–3) in the

Norton and Ipiutak cultures (Larsen and Rainey 1948:Fig. 26:d; Giddings 1964:Pls. 57:11, 12;

53:20).

Into the number of northern Okhotsk parallels fall elongated leaf-shaped points (I–3c), end

scrapers (I–2), and tiny combination scrapers (III–22), all found in the Upper site on Zav’ialova

Island dating to the end of the first millennium B.C. (Vasil’evskii 1965:No. 1, Fig. 1:25; Museum of

Anthropology of MGU, Coll. No. 475–104, 106).

Things that are probably of Sakhalin origin are elongated trapezoidal axes of lenticular and

amorphous cross section (I–5, 6), found at the Susuia and Nevel’skaia sites of the first millennium

A.D. (Kozyreva 1967:Fig. 15:3, 9).

The same axes (I–5, 6) are characteristic in Primorye—of course in earlier (second half of the

first millennium B.C.) sites than on Sakhalin—at Zaisanovka I and in the shell middens at Pos’et I and

on Peschanyi Peninsula (Andreev 1957:Fig. 4:1, 4; 1960:Fig. 11:3; Okladnikov 1963:Pl. 124:7). In

the last site, as well as in a later (end of the first millennium B.C.) one on Cape Sedlovidnyi and at the

earlier (third–second millennia B.C.) Primoryan site of Pkhusun, rectangular adzes of Type II–2 were

encountered (Okladnikov 1963:Pls. 1:1; 5:2; 1964:Fig. 8; Andreev 1959:Fig. 52:1, 2, 6, 7). Adzes
Nikolai N. Dikov 213

similar to them also turned up in the Voikovskaia culture on the middle Amur at the Osinovoe Lake

site (Okladnikov 1966a:Fig. 2:2). “American-like” triangular arrow points with lateral indentations

(VIII–22x) also take us toward Primor’e. They are encountered there at Tetiukha (third millennium

B.C.) (Okladnikov 1959:Fig. 15:9). We mention that they were also recorded later, at the end of the

second–beginning of the first millennium B.C. on Sakhalin in the Starodubskoe II site (Kozyreva

1967:Fig. 4:1). These characteristic points, just like the rectangular adzes, may serve as indicators

of cultural influences from Primor’e to Sakhalin and farther to the north, including Kamchatka and

Alaska, where they were found in the Ipiutak complex (Larsen and Rainey 1948:Pls. 36–37).

Still fewer analogies are known in the Kurile Islands, which include only leaf-shaped arrow

points I–3c from the Bol’shaia site on Shumshu Island.59

Thus, the largest number of the exogenic innovations of the Middle Kamchatkan culture occur

in Chukotka, the Okhotsk coast, and Sakhalin. Judging by everything, their path of penetration into

Kamchatka was Chukotka and the mainland Okhotsk coast. Very few cultural elements are known

from the Kurile Islands. These islands evidently did not play a significant role in the formation of

the Middle Kamchatkan culture of the Remnant Neolithic.

If we turn to cultural connections proper, that is, to connections of a contact character, we again

see a large number of similarities with Middle Kamchatkan types of artifacts in the Ust’-Belaia

culture. However, they were also all widespread in the preceding Tar’in culture, and therefore there

is no need to interpret them as synchronic connections with the Chukchi culture. The mentioned

types of artifacts most probably have an autochthonous origin and their similarity with Ust’-Belaia

comes through tradition from the Tar’in culture.

It is possible to judge more definitely the more or less synchronic and therefore probably

diffusional connections with the northern Okhotsk coast (at Kip Kich we find adzes II–4 and curved

knives IV–6 in Rassvet Bay on Zav’ialova Island) (Vasil’evskii 1959:Fig. 14:1, 22; 1960:Fig. 4:8),

Sakhalin (adzes II–4, 6, and V–2 at the Nevel’skaia site) (Kozyreva 1965:Fig. 5:2, 1967:Fig. 15:5),

the Kurile Islands (adzes III–6; IV–3; knives IV–1; punches I–6 at the Kuibyshevskaia site on Iturup

Island and on Shumshu Island (Chubarova 1960b:Fig. 4:3, 13),60 and the Aleutian Islands (adzes V–

2; knives IV–1) (Jochelson 1925:Pls. 15:38; 47:6).

The life of the population of Central Kamchatka during the Remnant Neolithic is

reconstructed mostly on the basis of data from excavations from the upper layer of the Ushki I site

(1), which reveal the characteristic picture of a fishing camp. In its huge area were a multitude of pits

for preserving fish that had been dug around a comparatively small (about 12 m2) pit house

reminiscent in appearance of an Old Itel’men dwelling with a lateral corridor and an entryway

through the smoke hole in the roof (Dikov 1977b:63, Figs. 17, 18).

Thick layers of burned fish bones in the pit house fireplace attest to the long duration of

occupation at this rich fishing spot. Here supplies of chum, coho, and other kinds of large salmon

were prepared for future use. Here also sacrifices were brought for the deity—patron of

fishermen, evidently very similar to the Itel’men Khantai, who, according to Krasheninnikov’s

description, had a half fish-half human appearance. The remains of such a scorched wooden

59Museum of Anthropology MGU, Coll. No. 503–15.

60Museum of Anthropology of MGU, Coll. 503–1 (Podkovyrkin’s collections).
214 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

image of the deity in the form of a fish, composed of pieces of wood and birch bark, were

apparently discovered in a special pit under the ruins of a tent that had been constructed over it.

Under and over this fish-like image were traces of sacrificial fires, and in its head part were the

small bones of fish heads brought to the sacrifice.

It can hardly be doubted that the upper layer of the Ushki site and sites similar to it at Doiarki

and Kliuchi belong to the ancestors of Itel’men fishermen who had densely settled the coasts of

Kamchatka in the eighteenth century.

It is evident that the numerous, in some cases even younger, fortified villages along the banks

of the Kamchatka River (17–18, 20–37) also belong to the ancestors of the Itel’men. We have

already noted that pit houses at these sites have a rectangular, sometimes almost square, form with

rounded corners.

The occupants of these fortified sites used wooden or birchbark vessels instead of clay. They

boiled water in such vessels by putting in hot rocks. The fortified sites were often reinforced with

ditches and walls, frequently two or even three. One of the pit houses, as on Cape Sivuiskii, had larger

dimensions.

All this shows that at least by the beginning of the first millennium A.D. the lifeway of the Itel’men

had been completely formed, which Krasheninnikov colorfully describes in his well-known book

A Description of the Land of Kamchatka.

“They made yurts (that is, the Itel’men—N.D.),” we read in Krasheninnikov, “by the following

method: they dig out the earth to a depth of two arshin,61 and in length and width depending on the

number of occupants. Almost in the middle of the pit they place four thick support posts, and on

them they lay out the ceiling, installing a rectangular opening almost in the middle, which served as

a window, door, and chimney. They lean logs from the ground up against the mentioned

crossbeams. The lower ends of the logs are buttressed on the ground surface with a latticing of poles

between them. They cover this with grass and heap on earth so that the yurts have the appearance

on the outside of small round mounds, but inside they are rectangular, with two sides almost always

longer and two shorter. By one long wall, between the upright posts, is usually the fireplace and from

it is the exit, the external opening of which is significantly lower than the one just mentioned. This

exit was made so that the air entering through it would expel the smoke from the yurt through the

upper opening.

“Within the yurt, by the wall, they make shelves on which families sleep side by side. But there

are no shelves opposite the hearth since the household vessels are usually there, the wooden bowls

and troughs in which they cook food both for themselves and the dogs, while in some yurts there

are no shelves; there logs are arranged around the places where they sleep, and the places themselves

are covered with matting.

“There is no decoration in the yurts except that on some walls are hung mats woven of grass,

or chirela, as they call them” (Krasheninnikov 1949:374).

Excavations in 1962 at the Nikul’skaia fortified site (16) revealed a picture very close to the

description by Krasheninnikov cited above. Nikul’skaia pit houses, as we have indicated (Dikov

61An arshin equals 28 inches or 71.12 cm.—Trans.
Nikolai N. Dikov 215

1977b:95–101), were built very much like those of the Itel’men,

having central support posts and an additional entryway through

the smoke hole above the hearth; on the floor and walls the

remains of charred mats were preserved, and stones (volcanic

bombs) for boiling water were found.

At the very beginning of the excavations, human remains

were found at a depth of 15 cm in the peat among the roofing

(which had fallen into the fire as the result of a conflagration) of

the smaller of two paired pit houses (No. 2). The remains were

a part of a skull and long bones. Taking everything into account,

this was a burial in the Itel’men ceremonial tradition. Based on

Itel’men custom, described by Krasheninnikov, the deceased

were placed out on the roof of the pit house, after which the

occupants built themselves a dwelling elsewhere.

Before the entryway into the corridor leading from the small

pit house (No. 2), a piece of charred wood was found on the

floor—half of a short (20 cm long) poplar block split lengthwise,

with traces of having been worked with a stone axe. The block of

wood stood exactly perpendicular to the floor, the flat side

toward the first pit house. Its lower end was conical, evidently

having been pointed for ease of driving into the ground. It looks

as if the preserved piece of wood is the lower part of an idol,

possibly similar to the Itel’man Khantai or Azhushak, burnt in

the pit house during the conflagration. Krasheninnikov gives the

following evidence for the worship of idols:

“The northern Kamchadal have two idols in each yurt, one of which is called Khantai, the other

Azhushak. The Khantai is like a mermaid, that is, the upper body is like a human and the rest like

a fish, and it ordinarily stands near the hearth, but why and why its form, no other reason could be

elicited aside from the fact that there is a spirit by this name. This Khantai idol is made new annually

during the purification of sins and stands next to the old one. By the number of these it is possible

to determine the number of years since the construction of the yurt.

“The Azhushak is a small post with a trimmed upper part similar to a human head. It is set above

the household vessels and worshiped as a watchman that drives forest spirits from the yurt. The

Kamchadal feed it every day and anoint its head and face with boiled sarana or fish”

(Krasheninnikov 1949:376).

The occupants of the Nikul’skaia fortified site, just as those of other Kamchatkan fortifications,

underwent the last phases of clan structure and entered into a stormy time of military democracy.

Krasheninnikov illustrates a true and clear picture of the internecine warfare so characteristic for

disintegrating clan relations. “The Kamchadal,” he writes, “waged war so often among themselves

that a year did not pass in which there would not be some fortified sites destroyed.

“The main intent of their clashes consisted of acquiring captives, whom they used in heavy

work, and especially women, whom they took as concubines and as wives, and they did not argue

Figure Figure 109. Fragment of a

bone needle case from a Nikul’skaia

dwelling (16).
216 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

much whether one or the other was the reason and whether it was legitimate or not. Sometimes

neighboring forts were stirred up against each other because their children were quarreling, or if

whomever, having been invited, was not entertained as was required, then it was considered such

an offence that revenge had to be carried out on them, such as the destruction of the entire fort in

which the enemy act occurred.

“They rushed into the enemy fortifications at night, which they were able to do without

hindrance since the latter had no guards. Thus, with a small number of people they destroyed a

substantial part of the enemy without any danger and opposition to themselves. All the difficulty

of winning the victory consisted of running up to the yurt quickly and not allowing anyone out of

it by standing over the window with a club or chekushaiu, since by the nature of the structure the

beleaguered occupants had to climb up out of the yurt through the window one at a time, where the

besiegers were able to both strike them and take them in small numbers” (Krasheninnikov 1949).

Taking everything into account, the creators of the indigenous Middle Kamchatkan culture

were the northern Kamchadal (Itel’men), in Krasheninnikov’s terminology, which differ, as this

scholar noted, by dialect from the southern. We were able to note the tendency toward separation

of the two groups already in the preceding, Tar’in, culture, formed by two local complexes: in the

north, without ceramics, and in the south, with ceramics.

The South Kamchatkan (Nalychevo)

Variant of the Old Itel’men Culture

At several points in southern Kamchatka—on the shore of Lake Nalychevo, on Cape

Nalychevo, on the shore of Listvennichnyi Strait, in the upper layer of the site on Mishennaia Sopka

(43), at Tar’ia (28), at the source of the Ozernaia River (302), and on Cape Sivuiskii in Kuril’skoe

Lake (303)—Jochelson, Orlova, and Shnell often found in pit houses, generally like those on the

Kamchatka River, fragments of very distinct clay vessels, with so-called internal ears, together with

iron artifacts. The author had occasion to find a fragment of such ceramics at Petropavlovsk in the

upper layer of the site on Kirpichnaia Street (44), and in 1975 similar ceramics were found at the

site of Bol’shaia Medvezhka I (248) by A. K. Ponomarenko (Antropova 1949; Jochelson 1928;

Ponomarenko 1978; Shnell 1932).

The presence in the mentioned “fortified yurts” of these very characteristic ceramics, typical,

as is well known, for the late Ainu Neidzi culture, prompts examining this group of sites separately,

though in the complex of its stone artifacts no significant differences are seen from the indigenous

Middle Kamchatkan culture, which we just analyzed.

In genetic regard, the structure of this complex includes elements common (1) for the

preceding Tar’in culture on the whole, (2) for its southern Kamchatkan zone, (3) for its central

Kamchatkan zone, and finally, (4) for the central Kamchatkan culture synchronic with the

indigenous Old Itel’men.

In common with the preceding Tar’in culture, both in the southern peninsula and in the

Kamchatka River valley, are flat trapezoidal adzes (V–7), unifacially convex adzes (III–6), points

(I–18), and scrapers (I–11).
Nikolai N. Dikov 217

Inherited only from the southern Kamchatkan group of sites of the Tar’in culture are adzes

(II–4; IV–3; V–1, 2); narrow leaf-shaped points (I–1c), stemmed (X–10); stemmed knives (V–6;

X–14); almost round micro-scrapers (I–23; II–23), pear-shaped and trapezoidal scrapers (II–11,

24), scrapers with “ears” (IV–2); and punches (I–6).

Into the group of sites of the Tar’in culture, located on the Kamchatka River, fall truncated leafshaped points (II–1b), end scrapers on blades (I–1), and subtriangular and pear-shaped scrapers,

including biface scrapers (I–6; II–16; V–1).

Twenty-one of 48 types of artifacts (Fig. 110) can be classified as innovations characteristic for

the synchronic indigenous Old Itel’men culture of the Remnant Neolithic in the Kamchatka River

valley: adzes that are elongated-triangular and unifacially convex (III–5, 6), trapezoidal with a

rectangular cross section (II–4), trapezoidal with a lenticular cross section (IV–3, 4), and with a

geometrically irregular cross section (V–2, 11); arrow points that are leaf-shaped (I–2b), with a stem

(X–5; XI–5), triangular (V–b), and incompletely retouched (O–8); knives that are stemmed with

a straight back and convex working edge (V–8), with a curved back (IV–7), and truncated leafshaped (II–8); end scrapers on blades (I–1), pear-shaped (I–11; II–11), high trapezoidal (VIII–24),

discoid (IX–13), and scrapers with “ears” (IV–2).

Figure 110. Complex of stone artifacts from the South Kamchatkan (Nalychevo) variant of the Old Itel’men culture, also common for

the Middle Kamchatkan (Nikul’skaia) variant. 9—Nalychevo (254), after S. I. Rudenko; the remainder—Cape Sivuiskii (303), in the

depository of GIM, W. I. Jochelson’s collection.
218 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

The majority of types (25 of 48) are innovations peculiar only to this indigenous southern

Kamchatkan group of sites of the Nalychevo type, with ceramics of the Neidzi type (Fig. 111): adzes

partially ground and oblong (IV–1), grooved (IV–2), and several other types of adzes (V–4, 6, 8,

10, 11), including chisel-shaped (V–12); arrow points that are leaf-shaped (I–5a), stemmed (X–15),

truncated leaf-shaped (II–3b), and triangular (V–b, ay, VaMx); knives that are leaf-shaped and

bifacial (II–1, 2, 3), truncated leaf-shaped (II–8), and narrow-bladed and stemless with a curved

back and with a convex back and concave working edge (V–15); triangular biface scrapers (V–2);

and crudely flaked end skreblos (VIII–25, 29) and round skreblos (IX–10, 13).

Figure 111. Complex of stone artifacts found only in the South Kamchatkan (Nalychevo) variant of the Old Itel’men culture. 1, 7, 8,

21—Cape Sivuiskii (303), after S. I. Rudenko; 2, 30—Cape Suvuisk (303), after W. I. Jochelson; 5, 11, 13, 15–20, 22, 23, 25, 26,

28, 29—Cape Sivuiskii (303), in the depository of GIM, W. I. Jochelson’s collection (11—Kavran, after S. I. Rudenko); 6—Cape

Nalychevo (255), after W. I. Jochelson; 9—southern Kamchatka, after S. I. Rudenko; 10—Savoiko (Elizovo?—42), after S. I.

Rudenko; 14—Cape Nalychevo (255), in the depository of GIM; 24, 27—southern Kamchatka, in the depository of GIM.
Nikolai N. Dikov 219

In summary, all the innovations of this southern Kamchatkan group of sites fall into 29 types,

and the number of all the traditional types is only 19. Thus, the qualitative difference of this complex

of stone artifacts from the preceding Tar’in is evident. There is no doubt that most innovations (25)

are peculiar only to the southern group of sites of the latest Remnant Neolithic Kamchatkan culture

and only five of all these new artifacts (V–8 adzes, I–2b and II–3b points, II–9 knives, and IX–13

scrapers) are common for both the southern and northern indigenous groups.

A similar disproportion is also observed in quantitative composition: of 19 traditional

elements, 17 have an indigenous southern Kamchatkan origin, five of them can be viewed as

common for both the southern and middle Kamchatkan part of the Tar’in culture, and only four

items have an exclusively middle Kamchatkan origin.

This is also confirmed by the collection of stone lamps from excavations on Cape Sivuiskii

(303) assembled by Jochelson. Round, elliptical, and subtriangular like a flatiron (Figs. 112, 113),

they differ substantially from those of the Koryak and Aleuts, and even more from those of the

Figure 112. Stone lamps from W. I. Jochelson’s excavations at Cape Sivuiskii (303) (depository of GIM) (1–4).

Figure 113. Stone lamps from W. I. Jochelson’s excavations at Cape Sivuiskii (303) on Kuril’skoe Lake (303) (1–2) (depository of

GIM).
220 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Eskimo and Chukchi. The most original types of them are subtriangular, sometimes with an “ear”

hole, as on the roundish Koryak lamps. Roundish stone lamps probably go back to the Tar’in type

of lamps with ornamental hatching along the upper edge (Dikov 1977b:Pl. 49:8) (ornamental

designs are encountered occasionally also on Sivuiskii lamps).

Thus, it is natural to conclude that the source of some of the distinctiveness in the complex of

stone artifacts of southern Kamchatka during the latest Remnant Neolithic period came from the

Tar’in culture. The origin of a large number of the innovations may be endogenous or exogenous.

This can be ascertained only by comparing them with corresponding elements of surrounding

cultures.

Before proceeding to such comparative-historical analysis it is necessary beforehand—and as

reliably as possible—to place in time the indigenous South Kamchatkan archaeological culture we

are examining. The basic indicators of its age are the Neidzi ceramics, which spread from the Kurile

Islands only in the seventeenth century (Befu and Chard 1964; Kozyreva 1967:109–118), as well as

coins found by Jochelson in pit houses near the mouth of the Ozernaia River and on Cape Sivuiskii

in Kuril’skoe Lake (Bada 1939; Dikov 1969a:Fig. 129; Jochelson 1928). They show that the Sivuiskii

and Ozernaia sites existed up to the arrival in Kamchatka of Russian explorers and that they were

synchronic with the Neidzi culture of the Ainu on Sakhalin and in the Kurile Islands. Of course, only

the upper boundary date of the group of sites can be determined this way. A few earlier sites can

be found among them.

Such a late date for this indigenous culture limits very much the possibility of establishing its

connections by means of analogies to its stone artifacts. In the surrounding cultures, even in

Northeast Asia, not to mention more southern and western regions, the Neolithic stone-working

industry had either disappeared long ago or has been so much degraded that it does not fit into any

comparison with the excellently preserved stone industry, which is still properly Neolithic, of the

sites with Neidzi type ceramics.

Nevertheless, we find many analogies with the latest pre-Russian stone artifacts of southern

Kamchatka in the surrounding regions, but we find them in sites more or less earlier than South

Kamchatkan. But such analogies may have genetic significance and thus are of interest for clearing

up the origin of innovations in the indigenous South Kamchatkan culture.

Along with the above-noted large number (21 of 48) of similar innovations in the synchronic

Middle Kamchatkan culture in the Kamchatka River valley, there are some, though in smaller

number, similar types in the late sites of the northern Okhotsk coast, Sakhalin, and the Kurile and

Aleutian Islands.

North Okhotsk analogies are narrow, flaked adzes with a pointed butt and lenticular cross

section (IV–1) and probably ground, grooved adzes (IV–12) from the upper site on Zav’ialova

Island (500–800 A.D.) (Vasil’evskii 1965:Figs. 1–11), stemmed projectile points (X–15) and

triangular scrapers from the same place (Ibid.:Fig. 2d),62 as well as knives that are truncated leafshaped (II–9) and leaf-shaped with a lateral projection (V–3) and discoid scrapers (IX–10) from a

still earlier site (which weakens their significance for this comparison) on Nedorazumeniia Island

(Ibid.:Fig. 1:5). In this same site, those flaked adzes (IV–1) that are characteristic also for the later

62Museum of Anthropology MGU, Coll. 310–10 (M. G. Levin’s collection).
Nikolai N. Dikov 221

Zav’ialova stage of development of the Old Koryak culture (500–800 A.D.) appeared for the first

time (Vasil’evskii 1968b:314).

Among the Sakhalin analogs, of interest are leaf-shaped biface knives (II–1) from the

Nevel’skaia site of the first millennium A.D. (Kozyreva 1965:Fig. 5:3, 5). But from the Kurile Islands

we have somewhat more of them: flaked adzes (IV–1) from the Kuibyshevskaia site on Iturup Island

that were already noted on the Okhotsk coast (second half of the first millennium A.D.) (Chubarova

1960b:Fig. 3:11), an adze (V–6) from the earlier Kasatkinskaia site on the same island (end of the

first millennium B.C.–beginning of the first millennium A.D.) (Ibid.:Fig. 1:20), grooved adzes from

the same site (Ibid.:Fig. 1:19), and curved knives (V–15) from an undated collection from Iturup

Island.63

The analysis of the above-cited analogies to new elements of the indigenous South Kamchatkan

culture confirms its very close connection with the Tar’in culture and with the synchronic indigenous

culture in the Kamchatka River valley. All three groups of sites apparently make up an ethnic unity,

and of course it must be defined as Itel’men. The analogies in the Okhotsk, Sakalin, and Kurile

cultures attest to the definite role of the latter in the formation of the indigenous South Kamchatkan

culture. This conclusion also applies to the Neidzi type clay vessels with “ears.” The presence of such

ceramics among the remains of the late South Kamchatkan culture should most probably not be

considered as definite evidence of its purely Ainu association, but influence on it by the Ainu Neidzi

culture cannot be denied.

These distinctive vessels add to the South Kamchatkan archaeological complex exactly that

unique quality which permitted us to separate it as an indigenous variant of the archaeological

culture. However, we do not have sufficient basis, just from the presence of Neidzi ceramics, to

assign it only to the Ainu. We probably have here Itel’men in its basic indigenous culture, which only

borrowed Ainu ceramics and perhaps some very few other elements. It was very easy for Ainu

ceramic production to be introduced to the Itel’men of southern Kamchatka since until then they

generally had no ceramics, as archaeological materials have indicated. Therefore, suitable Ainu

vessels spread rather quickly and quite far to the north along the peninsula beyond Avacha Bay up

to Nalychevo into the region where, according to historical evidence, by the seventeenth century

the Avacha “Suaachiu-ai” Ite’men lived and not the Ainu, with which Krasheninnikov (1949:888)

and Dolgikh (1960) are in accord.

Not so simple, however, is the question of settlement by the Ainu of southern Kamchatka,

Cape Lopatka, and the nearby Kurile Island of Shumshu.

From Cape Lopatka meanwhile there are generally no archaeological finds, and from Shumshu

Island, only the chance undated finds of B. A. Podkovyrkin. They are leaf-shaped and stemmed

obsidian and basalt projectile points and knives, as well as bone toggling harpoons (Dikov

1946:Fig. 3),64 and there is no assurance that they can be connected with the Ainu, who, as has been

established, appeared on Sakhalin only in the fifteenth century A.D., and in the Kurile Islands only

in the seventeenth century (Kozyreva 1967:108). Krasheninnikov suggested that those who lived on

Cape Lopatka and Shumshu Island, the so-called Near Kuriles people, were not the Ainu, though

they possessed the Ainu language along with the Itel’men, but rather the Kamchadal (Itel’men), who

63In the depository of the MAE AN SSSR, Coll. 6032.

64Museum of Anthropology MGU, Coll. No. 503.
only mixed somewhat with the Ainu and borrowed from them some customs, among which he

notes that they “are not Azhushaki, but they have struzhki [wooden idols] in the yurts”

(Krasheninnikov 1949:739). But the fact that they worship struzhki, which is very typical of the Ainu

inau, a cult very characteristic of the Ainu, compels one to doubt the interpretation of the Near

Kuriles as Itel’men who were exposed only to the influence of the Ainu. Consequently, Dolgikh is

evidently correct, as is Gurvich, who, on the basis of written sources, came to the conclusion that

the “Near Kuriles” of Cape Lopatka and Shumshu Island were Ainu (Dolgikh 1960:573, 574;

Gurvich 1966:268, Maps).65 It is even more probable that only in this way will the influence be

understood that they undoubtedly rendered on the southern Kamchatkan Old Itel’men culture,

which was expressed in the distribution of ceramic vessels “with internal ears” up to Nalychevo, that

is, substantially to the north of Avacha Bay.

However, the problem is in identifying certain archaeological sites with the “Near Kuriles”

(that is, with the Ainu). Such sites are presently unknown, and the materials from Jochelson’s

excavations on Kuril’skoe Lake and the Ozernaia River that are customarily identified with them

(Jochelson 1930; Rudenko 1948) cannot be Ainu since they are identical to finds in early pit houses

at Nalychevo (where there are vessels with “ears”), which by their geographic location can be

assigned only to the Avacha “Suaachiu-ai” Kamchadal.

Consequently, Neo-Ainu archaeological sites in Kamchatka may still be discovered, and they

will probably be found in the very south of the peninsula, on Cape Lopatka, where no archaeological

surveys had been conducted until those carried out recently by T. M. Dikova. The discovery in

Kamchatka of Ainu sites would be a substantial contribution to the problem of the northern

boundary of the Ainu, which in recent times has attracted the most steadfast attention of many

scholars (Arutiunov 1970; Chard 1970; Levin 1958:249–295).

Thus, both the Middle Kamchatkan and the South Kamchatkan indigenous cultures of the

second millennium A.D. to the seventeenth century are Old Itel’men. We identified the first with the

northern Kamchadal (according to Krasheninnikov’s terminology) and the second with the

southern Kamchadal. And such a double unity of Old Itel’men culture is not strange if one considers

that also among the Eskimos early culture was embodied in a large number of special, distinctive

archaeological cultures, such as Old Bering Sea, Okvik, Birnirk, Thule, Punuk, and the like.

The nearness of the early, presently still unnamed Late Neolithic inhabitants of the Kurile

Islands, and then of the Ainu, exerted strong cultural and ethnic influence on the southern Itel’men,

but, taking everything into account, it did not bring about their complete assimilation. As a result,

the technology of the Stone Age was preserved in the southern Kamchatka Peninsula in its

“original” form up to the arrival of Russian explorers at the end of the seventeenth century.

65These data on the Ainu of Kamchatka were summarized recently by the Japanese historian Shichiro Murayama (1970).

222 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia
Common Regularities and

Basic Features of Historical

Development in Extreme

Northeast Asia

Investigation of archaeological sites in extreme Northeast Asia as a historical resource

permitted us to draw a picture, although a generalized one, but nevertheless rather definite and

concrete, of the development of culture from the Upper Paleolithic to the Undeveloped Iron Age

and late Remnant Neolithic.

Now, at the end of investigation, it is necessary to touch upon some general theoretical

questions and draw basic conclusions resulting from our research and the characterizing common

tendencies, principles, and features of development in Northeast Asia.

Analyzing the course of cultural-historical development in Northeast Asia, it is easy to note

the general tendency of gradual local differentiation of early cultures. Thus, the vast cultural zone

of the late Paleolithic, in which the complexes of Cultural Layers V–VI of the Ushki sites and

Diuktai Cave on the Aldan are included, is replaced in the Northeast by narrower zones of the

Maltan and Sumnagin Mesolithic, which was followed by separation in the Early Neolithic of the

Ushki and Amguema complexes having arrow points with a rhomboid cross section. In this

substrate in the Developed and Late Neolithic, two cultural spheres emerge: a Neolithic with

ceramics—in Chukotka (the North Chukotkan and Ust’-Belaia cultures), and a Neolithic without

ceramics or almost without them—in Kamchatka (the complexes of Ust’-Palana and

Nedorazumeniia, second Ushki, and then the Tar’in culture and the complex at Chertov Ovrag

on Wrangel’ Island). During the Remnant Neolithic in the Northeast a substantially larger

number of separate cultures evolved: several variants of coastal cultures with more or less welldeveloped sea mammal procurement (Okvik, Old Bering Sea, Birnirk, Thule-Punuk, North

Okhotsk with its five stages [Zav’ialova, Bogurchan, Atargan, Lengel’val’, and Final Sixteenth

Century], northwestern Bering Sea, Kanchalan, and one represented by a site with distinctive

houses investigated in 1977 on Cape Nizkii), as well as cultures of inner-continental type,

predominantly fishing: the Anadyr’-Main or Vakarevo, Middle Kamchatkan (Nikul’skaia), and

South Kamchatkan (Nalychevo) indigenous cultures. This ethnic commonality is probably

related to the earliest Esko-Aleuts, who replaced the population here that participated in the

ethnogenesis of the Paleo-Indians at the beginning of the Holocene.

The formation of local differences in the economy and culture in the area being examined

reflects the processes of ethnic differentiation. Thus, in the late Paleolithic in Kamchatka there were

probably tribes that were a part of some vast ethnic commonality marked in the west by the Diuktai

culture and in Alaska by the Denali culture.
224 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

This ethnic commonality, marked by labrets, is probably related to the earliest Esko-Aleuts

who replaced the population here that participated in the ethnogenesis of the Paleo-Indians. At

the beginning of the Holocene, communities (the Maltan complex and the Siberdik and Sumnagin

cultures) were formed here that at present have not been precisely defined. One such later

community (Ushki, Cultural Layer IV) is possibly related to the forming of proto-Itel’men. The

labret-bearing Late Neolithic Tar’in culture has been more definitely connected with them. In

Chukotka and adjoining regions to the west and southwest the initial labret-less Chukchi-Koryak

ethnic community of Northeastern Paleo-Asiatics was probably formed at this time and even

somewhat earlier. With this, the Ust’-Belaia and North Chukotkan cultures undoubtedly made

up the essential component not only of Chukchi-Koryak ethno- and cultural-genesis but, judging

by paleo-physical anthropological and archaeological data, probably that of the Neo-Eskimo as

well. In addition, it has been established that during this time Paleo-Eskimos already lived on

Wrangel’ Island. During the Remnant Neolithic period, the demarcation of cultures generally

corresponds to the settlement of the ancestors of all the basic contemporary aboriginal peoples

of Kamchatka and Chukotka, except the Even. The Ainu lived on the southern approaches to

Kamchatka or even on its very southern edge, in the region of Cape Lopatka, and rendered a

strong influence on the southern Itel’men. The latter occupied the southern part of the peninsula

(the Nalychevo culture). In its central part, in the Kamchatka River valley, lived the northern

Itel’men (the indigenous Middle Kamchatkan culture). Neo-Eskimos occupied the sea coast of

northern and eastern Chukotka (the Okvik, Old Bering Sea, Birnirk, and Thule-Punuk cultures).

The Chukchi (the Kanchalan culture) began to settle closer toward the south, on the sea coast of

Chukotka. In the basin of the Anadyr’ and Main Rivers, a fishing culture emerged during this time,

the ancestors of the Yukagir. They were wedged between the Koryak and the Chukchi, having

pushed the latter into the northwestern and northeastern regions of Chukotka, where Russian

explorers encountered them in the seventeenth century.

In all stages of the history being examined, cultural connections with northwestern America can

be observed, the most intensive during the late Paleolithic and Mesolithic, and later reflected in the

spread of Eskimo culture.

We also examined the cultural connections of Kamchatka, Chukotka, and the Kolyma with

surrounding regions of the Old World over a wide chronological range. At various stages they are

characterized by a different breadth and intensity, depending on the level of the culture and the

concrete historical environment.

Careful study of the connections of each of the early cultures in the Northeast that we have

examined has permitted tracing their dynamics from the Paleolithic to the Remnant Neolithic and

uncovering the essential principle of the dynamics leading finally in the early Iron Age and Remnant

Neolithic to the isolation of extreme Northeast Asia, and along with it the whole North American

continent as well, from the relatively more highly developed cultures of the Old World.

The dynamics of the cultural connections are well defined. Approximately from the second

millennium B.C. their circle begins to shrink noticeably, shifting at the same time toward the north

from the steppe into the taiga and tundra, where they begin to embrace almost the whole

circumpolar zone, and to the Northwest Coast of North America along the islands of the Pacific

Ocean.

Summarization of the total aggregate of data available to us on cultural connections of the early

population of the Northeast during various stages of its historical development and theoretical
Nikolai N. Dikov 225

understanding, in particular, of this very characteristic dynamic of development of connections,

leads us to conclude that the connections had a naturally determined dependence on the relative

economic-cultural level of the surrounding cultures. The reason for the shrinking and reorientation

of cultural connections of the Northeast toward the north, in our view, can ultimately be explained

by the unevenness of development of production forces in the initial broad zone of cultural contacts

and by the emergence in the Neolithic of an economic barrier between agricultural peoples and

livestock breeders of the steppe, on the one hand, and hunters and fishers, on the other.

In the northern subtropical zone of the Old World during the Holocene events took place

that had great significance for further development of ethnic and cultural connections. The vast

world of hunters, fishers, and collectors gradually ceased to be unique. In the Near and Far East,

under the most favorable natural conditions, people changed from collecting ready-made

products of nature to producing them. They began to occupy themselves with agriculture and

livestock breeding.

This revolutionary process was later spread even farther to the north in some regions,

embracing, for example, the tundra-steppe valley of the upper and middle Lena, reaching here

almost to the Arctic Circle itself—to the limit of possible spread at this time of highly developed

livestock breeding.

If earlier in the Upper Paleolithic, and even the Early Neolithic, it was all the same to hunters

and fishers where they settled so long as there was no insuperable natural hindrances along the route

and there were animals for hunting and fish to catch, and if the change in the climate, which

incidentally was almost imperceptible during the centuries-long movement of peoples, did not

frighten them, then the transition now of the population to livestock breeding and agriculture

sharply curtailed the stimuli of population movement on the continent toward the Northeast, into

the taiga and tundra, beyond the middle Lena steppe toward North America.

Therefore, southern inner-continental connections were gradually curtailed from the second–

first millennia B.C. and a long period of relative isolation began for the extreme Northeast, as well

as for North America, from the more well-developed livestock breeding-agricultural cultures of the

Old World that were emerging in the south.

A very significant sign of this occurrence can be seen in the fact that the Bronze Age, which

reached Chukotka (confirmed by bronze burins in the 3,000-year-old Ust’-Belaia cemetery), did not

cross Bering Strait into North America (arrow points with a three-sided and rhomboid cross

section also did not cross there). This fact alone clearly attests to the weakening of connections

directed from inner-continental Asia toward North America. Later, in the early Iron Age, these

connections are curtailed even more. Gradually all of extreme Northeast Asia and North America

were excluded from continuous contact with the ever more progressive livestock breedingagricultural continental cultures of eastern Asia. Something akin to a distinctive “closing” of

America is begun, as of the regions of extreme Northeast Asia adjoining it, in which the huntingfishing way of life is preserved. A significant break in the development of connections between the

Old and New Worlds occurs, the essence and significance of which cannot be underestimated.

But even at this time the isolation of our Northeast and North America, of course, was not

absolute. The dissolution of connections evidently occurred very slowly, like the settlement of the

region. Besides, the decrease in stimuli for migration and connections from inner-continental Asia

as a result of the emergence there of highly developed types of economy (livestock breeding and
226 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

agriculture) did not exclude the existence of peripheral routes for the spread of culture and

population movement along the sea coasts.

As many researchers note, at this time a rather homogeneous circumpolar culture of deer

hunters spread along the Arctic Ocean from Norway to Greenland (where a route of human

migration from Asia to America probably existed during the Paleolithic) (Simchenko 1976).

Penetration of iron (though in paltry quantities)—as well as some elements from southern

cultures, such as curvilinear design—into the Northeast and farther, into Arctic North America, to

the ancestors of the Koryak and Eskimos occurred along the Okhotsk and Pacific shores and the

islands of eastern Asia. Under conditions of isolation, the development of technology went

backward for a while, back to the Stone Age and continued its course in the form of the Remnant

Neolithic. Features of the Stone Age were peculiar to almost all of Chukotka and Kamchatka up

to the seventeenth century and even later.

In the archaeology of the Northeast, in spite of its long historical isolation, we find confirmation

of common regularities of progressive development in the unity of productive forces and

production relationships. As in most regions of the earth, progressive development from an

economy that only appropriated ready-made products of nature to a producing economy occurred

here, from a natural division of labor to a communal one.

The manifestation of common features were also here. The most essential of them was the

absence of sufficiently good conditions for the emergence in the past of agriculture and highly

productive livestock breeding. This feature in combination with the long (up to the opening up of

the territory by the Russians in the seventeenth century and later) survival of Stone Age technology

placed a distinct imprint on all the aboriginal history of the population of the Northeast, in

consequence of which we observe here a quite distinctive course in the development of the primitive

economy. Because of unfavorable natural conditions, it remained only an appropriating economy

a millennium longer than in other regions of the earth.

Its apogee on the sea coast was sea mammal procurement, which emerged 3,000 to 4,000 years

ago. Harpoons with toggling heads that disengaged, invented by the ancestors of the Eskimos and

Coastal Chukchi, provided abundant procurement from the sea. From that time the inexhaustible

resources of the sea in the form of the meat of sea mammals (seals, bearded seals, walruses, and then

whales) began to be used by people here. This highly productive procurement does not lose its great

significance even now. It predestined the transition of the coastal part of the population of Chukotka

to sedentism and, although weak, it was nevertheless a substitute for a settled agricultural economy

in the communal division of labor (Dikov 1958b, 1969a).

As for livestock breeding, it appeared here comparatively recently, no more than a few

centuries ago, in the rather primitive form of reindeer herding. This in itself very progressive shift

in the development of productive forces in a tundra population, formerly hunters, having the

significance of being the first great communal division of labor, secured a nomadic way of life for

the other, tundra part of the population of Chukotka. And up to now this type of economy, much

more advantageous than simply hunting wild deer, connected with the nomadic deer-herding way

of life, is the only way of mastering the huge reindeer-moss pastures of Chukotka.

The development of production relationships in the Northeast occurred in direct connection

with the progress of productive forces, which can be traced rather well in an archaeological

perspective over a period of 15,000 years from the Paleolithic to most recent times.
Nikolai N. Dikov 227

The earliest, so-called Paleolithic, population of the Northeast, which probably collectively

conducted drives in hunting mammoths and other large mammals, still jointly possessed simple

property and calculated kinship, it can be supposed, based on the maternal line. Approximately the

same stage of social development was also later experienced by Neolithic hunters of wild deer—

the ancestors of the Chukchi. Incidentally, among them also, as in the Paleolithic, the drive hunt was

widely practiced, but now on reindeer at their river crossings. These hunters of the Neolithic and

Undeveloped Iron Age of Chukotka, in essence still Paleolithic based on their hunting methods, left

us magnificent cliff illustrations, among which figures of ancestors and spirits clearly of the female

sex predominate.

Maternal clan organization also predominated among the Itel’men, who lived chiefly by fishing,

judging by the written sources, up to the seventeenth century. This stage is also recorded for them

by the archaeological data. Early Itel’men fortified sites always have, along with pit houses of

medium dimensions, large communal houses that are evidently special men’s houses (Okladnikov

1953a), so characteristic for the maternal clan. Such men’s houses—kazhim—are also encountered

in early Eskimo sites. The presence of the maternal clan stage, common to all hunting peoples of

the Northeast, is evident also in the broad distribution of remnants, be this womanlike shamans

among the Chukchi or koekchuchi of the Itel’men or such transformed female spirit rulers like the

Eskimo Sedna, who, as Bogoras pointed out, could have become part of the paternal clan through

inheritance only from the maternal clan. This initial stage of development of society is attested also

by such a widespread vestigial custom in the Northeast as avunculate (that is, the typical priority of

the maternal clan in family relations between nephew and maternal uncle).

The transition of part of the population of the Northeast to a higher degree of development

in aboriginal society—to the paternal clan—had already occurred in connection with that

distinctive social division of labor, about which we spoke above, probably with the transition to

marine hunting, and especially with the separation of deer herding as an independent branch of the

economy. Ethnographic data authenticated by written sources of the seventeenth–eighteenth

centuries are predominantly decisive for such a conclusion, as are archaeological data. It is necessary

to take into consideration such an essential feature of social development as the disintegration of

clan connections among the Chukchi before the arrival there of the Russians, which was evidently

a consequence of the very dispersed settlement of nomadic deer herders (Anisimov 1967;

Shternberg 1933; Vdovin 1948, 1950, 1965).

With the paternal clan, primitive society enters, as is known, the phase of its disintegration.

Tendencies begin to gradually develop in it toward private ownership. It is possible that the

deepening of this process was connected in the Northeast with some elements of military

democracy. This is confirmed by several archaeological sites in Chukotka: the ruins of fortified sites

on rocky capes on the sea coast, where places of battles have been revealed.

Since the seventeenth century, after the northeastern extremities of Siberia became part of the

Russian state, the process of disintegration of relations of the primitive communal system increased

even more and on the basis of further development of productive forces, social division of labor,

and trade resulted in the formation of a variety of neighboring communities (nomadic and

sedentary). The peoples of the Northeast changed to neighborly communities by various courses:

the Chukchi, Koryak, Even, and Reindeer Yukagir—from a patriarchal large-family community—

and the Eskimos, Itel’men, and Yukagir hunters and fishers—from a maternal clan community that

was still unsuccessful in reorganizing itself into a patriarchal one. The result, however, was about the
same: along with communal property in the pasture and hunting areas, private property was

asserted in the deer herd and tools of production, and the monogamic family with a man at the head

was strengthened. Here the same processes occurred as in many other disintegrating communities,

in particular among the Indians of North America.

We thus see how specific features of local historical development in Northeast Asia correlate

with the common social regularities of the historical process. Attention has already been turned to

the importance of this theoretical-methodological aspect of historical investigations (Zhukov

1975:7–24).

The total aggregate of archaeological information that we have investigated illustrates that

progressive development was a feature of the Stone Age of Northeast Asia and that the ancestors

of its native inhabitants had their deeply original history. They made a substantial contribution to

the history of world culture. This is attested by the early domestication of the dog in the Paleolithic,

the early harpoon complex of the Eskimos, and rather well-developed northern art (it is sufficient

to recall the highly artistic carving on a walrus tusk or the Pegtymel’ petroglyphs), and many other

examples. But their greatest historic feat was the opening up of the severe north and, in this

connection, their historical role in the initial settlement of America.

228 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia
Conclusion

This work is based on the previous book of this author—Archaeological Sites of Kamchatka,

Chukotka, and Upper Kolyma (Moscow, 1977/NPS, 2002). The writer continues the study of

archaeological cultures in Northeast Asia and undertakes to interpretation them. The particular

questions treated are the problems of the initial peopling of Northeast Asia and America during the

Paleolithic and of the cultural-economic and ethnic development of Northeast Asia during the

Mesolithic, Neolithic, and Undeveloped Iron Age.

The Paleolithic cultures of Kamchatka, the Kolyma, and Chukotka are very important for

solving the first problem. The multilayered Ushki sites of Kamchatka, studied by the Northeast

Asian Archaeological Expedition, are the reference and key sites for these cultures. The sites reveal

the most representative Northeastern (and Yakutian) series of Paleolithic and later cultures

featuring very clear stratigraphy that is ideally controlled by volcanic ash layers. In terms of stages,

the oldest among the presently known Northeast Asian Paleolithic cultures (including Diuktai in

Yakutia) is the early Ushki culture of Cultural Layer VII (14,300 ± 200 B.P.) with stemmed bifacial

arrow points, which seem traceable back to the Alaskan British Mountain culture with its

nondeveloped stemmed points. A significant result of the excavation of sites of the Ushki culture

is the discovery of remnants of burials and large above-ground dwellings consisting of adjacent

pairs of huts with fireplaces lacking stone enclosures (the Ushki I and V sites). This complex features

an underdeveloped technology of wedge-shaped cores and thus differs significantly from sites of

the Verkholenskaia Gora type (including sites of the Diuktai culture in Yakutia) and from the culture

of the overlaying Ushki Cultural Layer VI, as well as from Japanese pre-ceramic cultures. Judging

from its general Paleo-Indian appearance and dates, one can assume that the complex itself or its

influence could have penetrated to the cultural area beyond the glaciers of western North America,

where there are no wedge-like cores and where some 12,000–10,000 years ago and later very similar

stemmed points were common (Marmes, San Dieguito, and others).

A very different image is peculiar to the later (Late Sartan glaciation: 10,760 ± 110 and 10,360

± 350 B.P.) Paleolithic culture of Cultural Layer VI at the Ushki I, IV, and V sites. It is represented

by the remnants of large villages, one of which (Ushki I) is perhaps the world leader among the

settlements of the Upper Paleolithic with respect to the number of dwellings found in it. More than

16 houses discovered there belong to two general types: large ones above-ground and smaller,

somewhat semisubterranean ones that have corridors and circular stone fireplaces. Residents of the

settlements hunted horses, bison, and moose, fished for salmon, and bred domestic dogs. Stemmed

points were not abundant here, and leading among the stone artifacts were narrow, leaf-shaped

bifacial arrow points and wedge-like cores. This culture is synchronous with the Diuktai, has many

features in common with it, and also can be assigned to the Verkholenskaia biface tradition.

Judging from the fact that the Ushki culture of Cultural Layer VI is similar to the Denali culture

and to some degree to Anangula, it may be referred to as proto-Eskimo-Aleut and can be related

to subsequent migration from Asia to America, this time exclusively to the Alaska area. The

following may be considered as intermediate traces of that migration: mixed sites featuring leafshaped biface points, wedge-shaped cores, and ski-shaped rejuvenation spalls at Inas’kvaam River

(southern Chukotka) and wedge-shaped cores from the mixed Chikaevo site on the Anadyr’.
The following can be attributed to the final early Holocene Paleolithic—a complex of the

Ushki I, II, and V sites (8790 ± 150 B.P.) that is a chronological continuation of Cultural Layer VI

and the Siberdik culture of the Upper Kolyma (Siberdik, 8480 ± 200 B.P.; Kongo, 9470 ± 530 B.P.)

with choppers, microblades, and wedge-shaped cores. The latter are used by the author as a

distinctive feature for differentiating Paleolithic and Mesolithic developmental stages in Northeast

Asia. As a result, subsequent cultural complexes and cultures (Sumnagin, Maltan, and Kukhtui) that

are characterized by a developed blade industry based on prismatic and conical cores, scrapers on

massive lamellar spalls, and percussion-flaked adze-like tools with a total absence of wedge-shaped

cores are interpreted by the author as Mesolithic. These also include some of the sites at Tytyl’ Lake

(the upper reaches of the Aniui River in western Chukotka) discovered by the Northeast Asian

Archaeologic Expedition, sponsored by the Northeast Interdisciplinary Scientific Research

Institute of the Far East Science Center of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1977.

During the Neolithic and Undeveloped Iron Age there was a general increase in the tendency

toward gradual local differentiation of early cultures that reflects ethnic differentiation. This

appears to be the principal mechanism for the origin of Paleo-Asiatic peoples of the Northeast,

though it is not improbable that migration from the southern areas contributed to it, which can be

attested by similarities between the mushroom images on the cliffs in Saiany Canyon (Tuva) and old

Chukchi petroglyphs featuring humanoid fly-agarics (the Pegtymel’ River area).

The 1975 discovery of the first and oldest Asiatic Paleo-Eskimo culture (3360 ± 155 B.P.) in

Chertov Ravine (Wrangel Island) was valuable indeed for investigation of early stages of Eskimo

ethnic history. R. S. Vasil’evskii’s hypothesis, suggesting two independent centers of appearance of

sea-mammal hunting: the ancestors of the Eskimo and Northeastern Paleo-Asians (Koryaks and

Chukchi), is becoming very contradictory now. A proper statement should imply only a divergence

in an initially single sea-mammal hunting complex.

Development of culture and means of production in Northeast Asia, as finds in the earliest

Paleolithic stages reveal, was very progressive in character, which is supported by the high level of

stone technology, usage of hunting bows and arrows, and a multifaceted household characterized

by hunting large herd animals, the early taming of dogs, early settlement, and well-developed house

construction. The Upper Paleolithic of Northeast Asia could not have been any less developed than

in Europe, otherwise its population would have failed to resist the cold climate and would never

have reached North America in the Arctic latitudes. However, since the Holocene, and particularly

during its second half, there commenced a notable delay in the development of production means,

which was brought about by the nonuniformity of historic evolution. This was considerably aided

by isolation in this harsh region, and in America, from the southern areas of the Old World. Highly

productive livestock breeding and agriculture could not have penetrated the tundra and taiga

expanses of the Northeast. Characteristically, primitive Stone Age techniques persisted here until

the arrival of the first Russian explorers in the seventeenth century. A remarkable fact is that in spite

of this they had a very progressive economy including specific sea mammal hunting techniques on

the coast and nomadic reindeer herding in the tundra.

230 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia
Appendix

Index of Distribution of Similar Forms of Stone Artifacts

in the Archaeological Sites of Kamchatka, Chukotka,

and the Northern Okhotsk Coast

This appendix contains explanatory text for Tables 1–10. In these tables all the diversity of

basic categories of stone artifacts of the extreme Northeast are illustrated and noted by a type index.

Correspondingly, we first give a short definition of them here and then subsequently cite the

combined data on their occurrence in the sites of the region.

It should be kept in mind that in the body of the text of our work alluding to this or that form

of stone artifact we often limited ourselves for the sake of economy of space to only the indication

of its numerical index in the mentioned tables and in this appendix, not yielding, where it was not

necessary, to repeated wordy characteristics.

Thus, it must be pointed out that the

tables consist not of abstract generalized

types, but rather of concrete items from

those sites the name of which stands

directly after the numerical index.

Cores (Table 1)

We arrange cores of the northern

Okhotsk coast into five basic groups.

Into Group I fall prismatic doubleplatform cores with parallel striking

platforms and single-platform cores:

crude with rather irregular facets of

longitudinal flaking (1), regular elongated (2), short and wide (3), and flat on

one side (4).

Group II is made up of conical cores:

large with relatively irregular faceting (1),

small and finely faceted (2), with a

flattened (oval) cross section (3), pencillike, not completely symmetrical (4), and

pencil-like with fine symmetrical longitudinal facets (5).

Table 1.
232 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Group III is made up of semi-wedge-shaped cores: with a beveled striking platform (1); with a

straight (horizontal) striking platform (2); unifacially flattened, with a beveled striking platform (3);

wide and unifacially flattened, with a straight striking platform (4); and narrow and unifacially

flattened, with a straight striking platform (5).

Into Group IV fall eight varieties of wedge-shaped cores: with a straight horizontal platform

and a wide, rounded wedge (1); narrow, with a pointed blade and a straight platform (4); elongated

(5); elongated, crudely formed (6); and “tailed,” the upper, bifacially retouched edge of which is

similar to a blade (7, 8).

To Group V we assign all the rest, predominantly atypical cores (1–4).

The spalls from the cores have a different shape corresponding to the forms of the cores (Table

2). Among them can be distinguished amorphous flakes (I–2–5; II–1–7) and knife-like blades (I–

1), microblades (IV–1), ski-shaped spalls split from wedge-shaped cores for rejuvenation of the

striking platform (III–1, 2), corner spalls from prismatic cores (IV–2), and spalls taken from their

ends (III-5).

Group I

I–1. Ushki I (1); El’gygytgyn (188); Yakitikiveem (186).

I–2. Ushki (surface); Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer V; Ushki IV

(3), Cultural Layer VI; Ust’-Belaia (72); Amguema, at 102 km, Site 4 (81); Chikaevo

(74).

I–3. Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer IV; Ust’-Belaia (72), Kurgan 14.

I–4. Ushki (surface); Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer IV; Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer V; Ushki II

(2), Cultural Layer IV; Ust’-Belaia (72); El’gygytgyn (188).

Group II

II–1. Markovo (Sokol’nikov’s collections).

II–2. Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer IV; Ust’-Belaia (72); Chikaevo (74).

II–3. Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer IV; Chikaevo (74); Amguema, at km 145 (88).

II–4. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer IV; Ust’-Belaia (72); Chikaevo

(74); Amguema, at km 102 (1) (78); Amguema, at km 102, Site 4 (81).

II–5. Ushki I (2), Cultural Layer IV; Ust’-Belaia (72); Chikaevo (74); Amguema, at km 102,

Site 3 (80).

Group III

III–1. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer IV; Ushki (surface); Ust’-Belaia (72).

III–2. Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer IV; Ust’-Belaia (72).

III–3. Ust’-Belaia, Kurgan 8 (72); Yakitikiveem (93).

III–4. Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer IV.

III–5. Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer IV; Amguema, at km 102, Site 4 (81); Chikaevo (74);

El’gygytgyn (188).

Group IV

IV–1. Ushki (surface); Ust’-Belaia (72); Chikaevo (74).

IV–2. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI; Ust’-Belaia, Kurgan 15 (72).
Nikolai N. Dikov 233

IV–3. Ushki (surface); Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer V; Ushki I (1),

Cultural Layer VI; Ushki IV (3), Cultural Layer VI; Chikaevo (74); Ust’-Belaia, Kurgan

8 (72).

IV–4. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer V; Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer

IV; Ushki IV (3), Cultural Layer VI.

IV–5. Ushki (surface); Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer V; Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI; Ushki IV

(3), Cultural Layer V.

IV–6. Ushki IV (3), Cultural Layer VI; El’gygytgyn (188); Chikaevo (74); Ust’-Belaia, Kurgan

15 (72); Amguema, at km 102, Site 4 (81); Amguema, at km 115 (82).

IV–7. Ushki (surface); Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Ushki II, Cultural Layer V (2).

IV–8. Ushki I (1), top layer.

Table 2.
234 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Points of Arrows, Darts, and Spears (Tables 2 and 3)

Based on the character of manufacture, these tools are divided into: (1) bifacially worked by

retouch—bifaces (without an index); (2) incompletely retouched—unifaces on knife-like blades

and flakes (noted “0” in the Index); and (3) ground (“E” in the Index).

Based on type of cross section they are divided into:

1. Flattened lenticular cross section (without index).

2. Massive, of thick oval-lenticular cross section (H).

3. Unifacially convex cross section (K).

4. Rhomboid cross section, four-faceted (P).

5. Three-faceted (T).

Based on planar form they make up 11 basic groups of predominantly flat biface points: leafshaped (I–1–10), truncated leaf-shaped (II–1–4), rhomboid (III–1, 2), truncated rhomboid (IV–1,

2), subtriangular with convex lateral sides (V), triangular (VI), leaf-shaped with a lateral indentation

at the base (VII), leaf-shaped stemmed (VIII), rhomboid stemmed (IX), subtriangular stemmed (X),

and triangular stemmed (XI).

Also distinguished are special features in the form of the base of stemless points: symmetrically

grooved base (x); asymmetrical base, that is, with one barb (y); and asymmetrical with lateral

notches (z).

Stemmed points, besides the form of the blade, differ by the form of the stems themselves

(triangular, rounded-triangular, rectangular, with lateral notches, button-shaped, and irregularly

shaped). However, these features are not noted in the indices since they are taken into account in

the sequence of arrangement of stemmed points in the series in the table (1–24) (Table 3).

Finally, points with a rounded front end (M) are distinguished. The usual pointed end is not

noted in the index.

Considering the named features, we grouped all projectile points in the following typological

groups, which are divided into two tables (Tables 2 and 3).

Stemless Points (Table 2)

Group 1

I–1b. Ushki I, Cultural Layer VI; Domashnee Lake (7); Kozyrevsk (8); Staraia Sopka (15);

Tar’ia (282), Gur’ev’s collections, MAE (210-213); Osinovskaia Sopka (66); Ust’-

Belaia (72).

I–1c. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI; Yavino (306); Golygino (308), Bogdanovich’s

collections.
Nikolai N. Dikov 235

I–2b. Ushki IV (3), Cultural Layer V; Nikulka (16); Bukrich (17); Sivuiskii (GIN) (303);

Kulka (328); Chikaevo (74); Chini (110); Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI; Domashnee

Lake (7); Doiarki (10); Staraia Sopka (15); Sopochnoe (319), (Kamchatka Museum);

Pervorechensk (343); Yavino (306); Golygino (308), Bogdanovich’s collections;

Sivuiskii (303), GIM; Staryi Ostrog (Elizovo), Gerts’s collections (42); Chikaevo (74);

Chini (110); Uelen (119); Vankarem (148–152); Inchoun (120); Ust’-Belaia (72).

I–2c. Ushki (surface); Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI; Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI; Ushki IV

(3), Cultural Layer VI; Kozyrevsk (8); Domashnee Lake (7); Kirpichnaia (44); Nikulka

(16); Staraia Sopochka (15); Bukrich (18); Khapitsa (18); Nalychevo (GIM) (254–255);

Seshan (131); Aion (163); Ust’-Belaia (72); Amguema, Site III (80); Sed’moi Prichal

(105); Manily (49).

I–3b. Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer I; Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer IV; Bukrich (18);

Osinovskaia Sopka (66); Chikaevo (74); Domashnee Lake (7); Doiarki (10);

Amguema, Site III (80); Aion (163).

I–3c. Nikulka (16); Manily (49); Pervorechensk (343), Kamchatka Museum (surface material); Kamenskoe (50).

I–5a. Sivuiskii (215), GIM; Osinovskaia Sopka (66).

I–5b. Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer II; Staraia Sopka (15); Nizhne Kamchatsk (37), Kamchatka

Museum (surface); Seroglazka (262); Sivuiskii (303); Nalychevo (253, 255), GIM;

Utkholok (325), Zmiev’s collections; Chini (110); Aion (163).

I–8a. Ust’-Belaia (72).

Table 3.
236 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

I–9a. Domashnee Lake (7); Bukrich (18); Nalychevo (253–255), GIM; Ust’-Belaia (72);

Uelen (119).

I–9b. Domashnee Lake (72); Kozyrevsk (8); Kliuchi (13); Kirpichnaia (44); Mishennaia

Sopka (43); Kameshki (58), Kamchatka Museum (surface material); Uelen (119),

collections of Arutiunov and Sergeev; Vankarem, Site 4 (152); Aion (163).

I–10bM. Ushki I, Cultural Layer VI.

Group II

II–1b. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer V; Ushki II (2), upper layer; Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer II;

Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer V; Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer VI; Doiarki (10);

Domashnee Lake (7); Kamaki (18); Nalychevo (253–255), GIM; Kamchatka Museum

(surface); Chikaevo, Cultural Layer III (74); Chini (110).

II–2a. Chikaevo (74).

II–2b. Kamchatka Museum (surface material); Elizovo (42), Jochelson’s collections, GIM.

II–3a; II–3b.

Kliuchi (13); Krasneno, Spit 4 (67); Amguema, Site IV (81); Chini (110).

II–3c. Kamchatka Museum (surface material); Karaga (216), Gondatti’s collections;

Chikaevo (74); Chini (103).

II–4b. Domashnee Lake (7); Kozyrevskii, Sovkhoz (9); Penzhina (49); Ust’-Belaia (72); Chini

(110); Uelen (119), collections of Arutiunov and Sergeev.

II–1bx. Golygino (308); Yavino (306).

II–1ax. Aion (163).

II–3cx. Yavino (306); Golygino (308).

Group III

III–1b. Zav’ialova (381).

Group IV

IV–1b. Elizovo 1 (42).

IV–2a. Yavino (306); Golygino (308).

IV–2ax. Golygino (308).

Group V

V–a; V–b.

Domashnee Lake (7); Kamaki (18); Ust’-Belaia (72); Chirovoe (51); Chini (110);

Seroglazka (262), GIM, Kamchatka Museum (surface material); Domashnee Lake (7);

Kozyrevsk (8); Doiarki (10); Kliuchi (13); Penzhina (49); Staraia Sopka (15); Elizovo

(42); Kirpichnaia (44); Bukrich (18); Ust’-Belaia (72); Chikaevo (74); Chini (110);

Uelen (119); Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Sopochnoe (319), Kamchatka Museum,

collections of geologists; Utkholok (325), Zmiev’s collections; Chikaevo (74).

V–Ax; V–bx.

Domashnee Lake (7); Kliuchi (13); Amguema, Site III (80); Ust’-Belaia (72); Chikaevo

(74); Aion (165).

V–cx. Amguema (Ekiatap-95); Ust’-Belaia (72).

V–ay. Yavino (306); Golygino (308), Bogdanovich’s collections; Ust’-Belaia (72); Chikaevo

(74); Chini (110); Uelen (119).
Nikolai N. Dikov 237

V–by. Ust’-Belaia (72); Chini (110).

V–az; V–bz.

Ust’-Belaia (72); Chini (110).

V–bw. Chini (110); Dzhenretlen (142).

V–aMx. Maltan (170); Aion (165).

V–Mx. Kuril’skoe (303), Rudenko.

V–cMx. Ust’-Belaia (72).

V–aMy. Chikaevo (74).

Group VI

VI–a. Chirovoe (51); Ust’-Belaia (72).

VI–b. Tar’ia (282–284); Bukrich (18); Ust’-Belaia (72); Chini (110).

VI–c. Ust’-Belaia (72).

VI–ax. Ust’-Palana (332).

VI–bx. Kamchatka (?).

VI–aMx. Ust’-Palana (332).

Group VII

VII–2. Amguema, km 102, Site III (80).

Group K1

K1–6a. Ushki (surface); Domashnee Lake (7); Bukrich (18); Chikaevo (74); Ust’-Belaia (72);

Chini (110); Uelen (119).

KVII. Amguema (79, 81).

PII–3c. Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer IV.

PII–4c. Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer IV; Amguema (80).

Group T

TI–1c. Tytyl’ V (M. A. Kiriyak, 1977).

TII–4c. Velikaia river (surface, Sed’ko’s collections); Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer III.

Stemmed Arrow Points (Table 3)

Group VIII

VIII–2. Kirpichnaia (44).

VIII–3. Credniaia Bay (365).

VIII–4. Zav’ialova Island (381).

VIII–5. Chukchi Peninsula (after Rudenko).

VIII–9. Kirpichnaia (44); Staraia Sopka (15); Ust’-Belaia (72); Chini (110); Chegtun (126).

VIII–10. Lyvat (344); Kamenskoe (50), Semenov’s collections.

VIII–12. Doiarki (10); Staraia Sopka (15); Elizovo (42); Penzhina (49); Sopochnoe (319),

Kamchatka Museum, geologists’ collections; Ol’khovka (346); Penzhina Bay,

Semenov’s collections.

VIII–15. Chini (110); Yandogai (107); Uelen (119), collections of Arutiunov and Sergeev;

Vankarem III (150).
238 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

VIII–20. Chini (110).

VIII–21. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VII.

VIII–22. Doiarki (10); Kliuchi (13); Ust’-Belaia (72); Chini (110); Enmynytnyn (115); Uelen

(119), collections of Arutiunov and Sergeev.

VIII–24. Ust’-Belaia (72).

VIII–2M.Lopatka (T. M. Dikova).

Group X

X–1. Lopatka II (225), T. M. Dikova’s excavations.

X–2. Kamchatka Museum (surface); Omrynskii (73); Ust’-Belaia (72); Ushki (surface); Ushki

II (2), Cultural Layer II; Domashnee Lake (7); Staraia Sopka (15); Manily (49);

Kirpichnaia (44); Sopochnoe (319), Kamchatka Museum, geologists’ collections; Ust’-

Belaia (72).

X–3. Nedorazumeniia Island (387).

X–4. Lopatka IV (297), excavations of T. M. Dikova.

X–5. Kirpichnaia (44); Kuril’skoe Lake (303); Mishennaia Sopka (43), Orlova’s collections;

Sopochnoe (319), Kamchatka Museum, geologists’ collections; Chikaevo (74);

Amguema, Site III (80).

X–6. Lopatka IV (297), excavations of T. M. Dikova.

X–7. Domashnee Lake (7).

X–9. Lopatka II (295), excavations of T. M. Dikova.

X–10. Chukchi Peninsula (after S. I. Rudenko).

X–13. Ushki (surface); Kamchatka Museum (surface); Ust’-Belaia (72); Uelen (119); Yandogai

(107); Chini (110).

X–15. Sivuiskii (303), GIM; Chini (110); Enmynytnyn (115); Uelen (119); Ekiatap (95);

Dzhenretlen, Locus II (142); Cape Shmidta (159).

X–16. Kamchatka Museum (surface); Ust’-Belaia (72); Seshan (131); Ikolivrunveem (133);

Inchoun (120); Chini (110).

X–19. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VII.

X–20.

X–24. Ushki V (4), Cultural Layer VII.

X–4M. Lopatka II (295), excavations of T. M. Dikova.

X–5M. Aion (163).

X–6M. Lopatka IV (297), excavations of T. M. Dikova.

X–14M. Elizovo (42).

X–15M. Chikaevo (74); Chini (110); Uelen (119); Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VII.

X–21M. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VII.

Group XI

XI–6. Lopatka II (295), excavations of T. M. Dikova.

XI–10. Ust’-Belaia (72).

XI–11. Ekiatap (95); Chikaevo (74); Ust’-Belaia (72).

XI–15, 18.

Kliuchi (12), surface material in garden.

XI–22.

XI–23. Chini (110).
Nikolai N. Dikov 239

Group HX

HX–6. Yakitikiveem, collections of V. N. Smirnov.

HX–12. Domashnee Lake (7).

HX–15. Yakitikiveem, collections of V. N. Smirnov.

HX–16. Lopatka I (294), excavations of T. M. Dikova.

Group KX

KX–15. Aion (164).

Group PX

PX–1. Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer IV.

PX–13. Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer IV.

PXI–2. Ushki (surface); Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer IV; Amguema (80).

Group TX

TX–13. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer III; Ushki II (2), surface; Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer III;

Chirovoe (51).

TX–15. Kamchatka (W. I. Jochelson).

TX–16. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VII.

Group O

O–1. Ushki IV (3); Nikulka (16); Omryn (73); Chikaevo, Site II (74).

O–2. Lopatka II (295), excavations of T. M. Dikova.

O–3. Ushki (surface); Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer III; Kliuchi (13); Ust’-Belaia (surface); Ust’-

Belaia (72); Kurgan 18; Chikaevo (74); Chini (110).

O–4. Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer IV.

O–5. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VII; Kirpichnaia (44); Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer II; Ushki II

(2), Cultural Layer IV; Domashnee Lake (7); Kliuchi (13); Doiarki (10); Bukrich (18);

Ust’-Belaia (surface); Chini (110).

O–6. Lopatka IV (297), excavations of T. M. Dikova.

O–7. Lopatka IV (297), excavations of T. M. Dikova.

Group E

E–1. Ikolivrunveem (133–134).

E–2. Chini (110); Enmynytnyn (115–117); Nuniamo (109); Ilitlen (139); Inchoun (120);

Yandogai (107).

E–3. Chini (110); Vankarem (148–152, surface); Uelen (119); Ilitlen (139); Nuniamo (109).

E–4. Chini (110); Enmynytnyn (115–117); Nuniamo (109); Uelen (119).

E–5. Chini (110); Enmynytnyn (115–117); Nuniamo (109).

E–6. Koliuchin (146); Ikolivrunveem

(133–134); Uelen, collections of Arutiunov and Sergeev.

E–7. Uelen (collections of Arutiunov and Sergeev).

E–8. Nuniamo (109).
240 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Knives and Knife-Like Blades (Table 4)

This category of artifacts borders closely upon the preceding in formal regard, such that some

types of knives exhibit almost no difference in their external appearance from points of spears and

darts. We distinguish two basic kinds of knives within this category: (1) worked by percussion

flaking and retouch, and (2) ground. Five groups are assigned to the first kind, three to the second.

We will examine all these groups successively.

Group I consists of unretouched blades of irregular form (1) or more regular form (2),

microblades (3), microblades pointed on one end (4), microblades retouched on one end (5),

regular blades retouched along the edges (6), irregular blades retouched along the edges (7), and

various inset blades: retouched on opposite edges (8), completely retouched and rectangular (9)

and with rounded edges (10), segmented (11), subtriangular (12, 13), and leaf-shaped (14).

Group II consists of leaf-shaped bifacially worked symmetrical knives pointed or rounded on

both ends (1–5) and triangular or leaf-shaped with one truncated end (6–9).

Groups III consists of biface knives with a straight axis and more or less long stems (1–4) or with

lateral “ears” in the stemmed part (5–7).

Group IV consists of asymmetrical bifacially worked knives with more or less prominent butts,

with concave (1), straight (2, 3, 4, 6, 8), or convex (5, 7) working edges.

Group V consists of stemmed narrow-bladed (1–10, 14) and broad-bladed (11, 12, 15) knives

having straight (1, 4–6, 11, 13, 14, 16) or convex (7–10, 12) butts and a straight (1, 7, 8), convex (1–

6, 10–15), or concave (9) working edge. Among them, so-called “curved” knives (11, 12) and

“button” knives (14, 15) can especially be distinguished.

Group VI consists of stemless, segmented, bifacially worked knives with a broad straight butt

(1–5).

Group VII consists of knives on partially retouched blade flakes and on flakes of various chance

forms (1–12).

Group VIII consists of ground knives with one convex working edge and no stem (1–13), one

convex working edge with a retouched projecting stem (14–18), one straight working edge (20–24),

two working edges and stemless with a hole (24–40) and without a hole but with a stem (41–42),

and stemmed with one working edge and a straight butt (43–45).

Group 1

I–1. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer IV; Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI; Ushki II (2), Cultural

Layer IV; Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer V; Ushki (surface); Domashnee Lake (7);

Elizovo (42); Ust’-Belaia (72); Chikaevo (74); Krasnenskaia Spit II (69); Chini (103).

I–2. Ushki (surface); Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer IV; Ushki II

(2), Cultural Layer II; Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer III; Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer IV;

Ushki IV (3); Domashnee Lake (7); Kultuk (5); Elizovo (42); Doiarki (10); Nikolka

(16); Chirovoe (51); Chikaevo (74); Yakitiki (93); Amguema (78, 80, 81, 93);

Osinovskaia Spit (64); Uvesnovaniia (57); Ust’-Belaia (72); Ust’-Belaia (surface);

Anokatrary (62); Snezhnaia (55).
Nikolai N. Dikov 241

Table 4.
242 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

I–3. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer V; Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI; Ushki II (2), Cultural

Layer III; Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer V; Ushki IV (3), Cultural Layer V; El’gygytgyn

(188); Ust’-Belaia (72); Yakitiki (93); Chikaevo, Locus II (74).

I–4. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI; Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer

III; Kultuk (5); El’gygytgyn (188); Chikaevo (74); Amguema, km 102 (81).

I–5. El’gygytgyn (188); Yakitiki (93).

I–6. Ushki (surface); Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer II; Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer III; Ushki II

(2), Cultural Layer IV; Domashnee Lake (7); Staraia Sopka (15); Kliuchi (13); Nikolka

(16); Amguema, Site IV (81); Osinovskaia Spit (64); Chikaevo (74); Chirovoe (51);

Chini (110); Uelen (119).

I–7. Ushki (surface); Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer IV; Ushki II

(2), Cultural Layer V; Domashnee Lake (7); Doiarki (9); Kliuchi (13); Tar’ia (282–284)

(MAE); Mishennaia Sopka (Orlova’s collection) (43); Chirovoe (51); Yakitiki (93);

Chikaevo, Locus II (74); Ust’-Belaia (72); Ust’-Belaia (surface); Osinovskaia Spit (64);

Amguema (78, 93); Chini (110); Uelen (119).

I–8. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer V; Staraia Sopka (15); Bukrich (18); Chikaevo (74); Ust’-

Belaia (surface); Ust’-Belaia (72).

I–9. Kamchatka Museum (surface); Nikolka (16); Kliuchi (13); Ust’-Belaia (72);

Osinovskaia Spit (64); El’gygytgyn (188); Chini (110).

I–10. Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer III; Ust’-Belaia (72).

I–11. Domashnee Lake (7); Kirpichnaia (44); Yavino (306); Golygino (Bogdanovich’s

collection) (219); Ust’-Belaia (72); Uelen (119); Nalychevo (253–255) (GIM).

I–12. Ust’-Belaia (72); Chikaevo (74); Chini (110).

I–13. Kultuk (4); Chini (110); Uelen (119).

I–14. Ushki I (1); Yavino (306); Golygino (Bogdanovich’s collection) (308); Kultuk (5); Ust’-

Belaia (72), Kurgan 8.

Group II

II–1. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VII; Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer IV; Ushki IV (3), Cultural

Layer V; Kuril’skoe (303); Amguema (81); Chini (110); Uelen (collection of Arutiunov

and Sergeev).

II–2. Ushki II (2); Kamchatka Museum (surface); Sopochnoe (Kamchatka Museum, geologists’ collections) (227); Kuril’skoe (303); Chikaevo (74); Osinovskaia Spit (64);

Krasneno (67).

II–3. Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer III; Ushki IV (3), Cultural Layer V; Kulka (328); Sivuiskii

(GIM) (303); Sopochnoe (Kamchatka Museum, geologists’ collections) (319);

Osinovskaia Spit (64); Krasneno (67); Chegitun (126); Chini (110); Uelen (119).

II–4. Kirpichnaia (44); Mishennaia Sopka (Orlova’s collections) (43); Mikino (Penzhinskaia

Bay, Semenov’s collections) (347); Ust’-Belaia (72); Chirovoe (51); Chikaevo (74);

Amguema, km 102 (81); Krasneno (67); Chini (110); Uelen (119).

II–5. Chikaevo (74); El’gygytgyn (188).

II–6. Kirpichnaia (44); Kulka (328); Kozyrevsk (8); Manily (48); Pervorechensk (343);

Palana (Fel’dman’s collections) (333); Osinovskaia Spit (64); Amguema (80, 83, 85,

86, 89); Neshkan (140); Inchoun (120); Chegitun (126); El’gygytgyn (188); Koliuchin

(146); Dzhenretlen (142); Chini (110); Uelen (119).

II–7. Ust’-Belaia (surface); Amguema, km 102 (78–81); Chikaevo (74); Osinovskaia Spit

(63).
Nikolai N. Dikov 243

II–8. Kamchatka Museum (surface); Manily (49); Nikolka (16); Osinovskaia Spit (64); Chini

(110); Enmynytnyn (115–116); Uelen (collections of Arutiunov and Sergeev).

II–9. Doiarki (10); Kuril’skoe (303); Kavran (323).

Group III

III–1. Khairiuzovo (322); Kulka (328); Zav’ialova Island (381).

III–2. Chukchi Peninsula.

III–3. Sopochnoe (Kamchatka Museum, geologists’ collections) (319); Chukchi Peninsula.

III–4. Domashnee Lake (7).

III–5. Domashnee Lake (6); Kirpichnaia (44); Elizovo (42); Tar’ia (282–284); Ust’-Belaia

(72); Nedorazumeniia (387).

III–6. Domashnee Lake (7).

III–7. Vakarevo (53); Kulka (328).

Group IV

IV–1. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI; Doiarki (10); Bukrich (18);

Kozyrevsk (8); Elizovo (42); Kirpichnaia (44); Kliuchi (12–13); Staraia Sopka (15);

Staryi Ostrog (Elizovo, Gerts’s collections, MAE) (42); Ust’-Belaia (72); Chikaevo

(74); Vakarevo (53).

IV–2. Ushki (surface); Elizovo (42); Ust’-Belaia (72).

IV–3. Kuril’skoe (303); Tar’ia (282–284).

IV–4. Kliuchi (surface).

IV–5. Domashnee Lake (7); Kliuchi (12, 13); Tar’ia (210–213); Naukan (271).

IV–6. Kozyrevsk (8); Doiarki (10); Staraia Sopka (15); Domashnee Lake (7); Kultuk (5);

Kamchatka Museum (surface material); Ust’-Belaia (72); Enmynytnyn (115–117).

IV–7. Kliuchi (12, 13); Nalychevo (253–255).

IV–8. Kirpichnoe (44); Amguema, km 102 (78–81).

Group V

V–1. Ust’-Belaia (72); Chukchi Peninsula (after S. I. Rudenko).

V–2. Kavran (323); Nalychevo (253–255).

V–3. Nalychevo (GIM) (253–255); near Petropavlovsk-Kamchatski (Sokol’nikov’s

collections).

V–4. Palana (Fel’dman’s collections) (333); Sopochnoe (Kamchatka Museum, geologists’

collections) (319); Kirpichnaia (44).

V–5. Nedorazumeniia Island (387).

V–6. Sopochnoe (Kamchatka Museum, geologists’ collections) (227); Yavino (306);

Golygino (Bogdanovich’s collections) (308); Kuril’skoe (303); Mishennaia Sopka (43);

Kavran (323); Tar’ia (282–284); Nedorazumeniia Island (387).

V–7. Nedorazumeniia Island (387); Zastoichik (6); Kirpichnaia (44).

V–8. Zav’ialova Island (381); southern Kamchatka (after A. K. Ponomarenko); Tar’ia (282–

284); Ust’-Palana (332).

V–9. Ust’-Palana (332).

V–10. Tar’ia (282–284); Kamchatka Museum.

V–11. Yavino (306); Golygino (Bogdanovich’s collections) (308).

V–12. Ust’-Palana (332).

V–13. Kavran (323).
244 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

V–14. Savoiko (Elizovo—42); Uelen (collections of Arutiunov and Sergeev); Nalychevo

(GIM) (253–255).

V–15. Kuril’skoe (303); Pervorechensk (343).

V–16. Kulka (328).

V–17, 18.

Elizovo (42); Kirpichnaia (44); Tar’ia (282–284); Uelen (collections of Arutiunov and

Sergeev).

V–19. SouthKamchatka (Kamchatka Museum).

V–20. Kavran (323); Utkholok (Zmiev’s collections) (325); Cape Sivuiskii (Jochelson’s

collections. After S. I. Rudenko) (303); Kavran (323).

V–21. Aleutian Islands; Ushki V (4), Cultural Layer VII.

Group VI

VI–1. Ushki IV (3); Chikaevo (74).

VI–2. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer IV; Chirovoe (51); Osinovskaia Spit (64).

VI–3. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer V; Ust’-Belaia (72); Staraia Sopka (15); Amguema, km 102,

Sites 3 and 4 (80, 81).

VI–4. Chirovoe (51); Chini (110).

VI–5. Chirovoe (51); El’gygytgyn (188); Staryi Ostrog (Elizovo, Gerts’s collections) (42).

Group VII

VII–1. Chirovoe (51); Chikaevo (74); Ust’-Belaia (72).

VII–2. Ushki I (1); Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI; Domashnee Lake (7); Ust’-Belaia (72); Chini

(110); V-Palana (302).

VII–3. Ushki I (1); Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer V; Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer II; Ushki IV (3);

Domashnee Lake (7); Kozyrevsk (8); Doiarki (10); Kamaki (18); Kliuchi (12, 13);

Staraia Sopka (15); Mishennaia Sopka (43); Zastoichik (6); Kirpichnaia (44); Nikolka

(16); Chirovoe (51); Utesiki (61); Ust’-Belaia (72); Amguema, km 102 (78–81);

Chikaevo (74); Osinovskaia Sopka (66); Chini (110).

VII–4. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI; Domashnee Lake (7);

Staraia Sopka (15); Kliuchi (13); Nikolka (16); Mishennaia Sopka (43); Rakovaia (45);

Chirovoe (51); Chini (110); Vakarevo (53); Sireniki (106); Dzhenretlen (142).

VII–5. Ushki I (1); Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer V; Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI; Kultuk (5);

Domashnee Lake (7); Staraia Sopka (15); Doiarki (10); Kamaki (18); Chirovoe (51);

Ust’-Belaia (72); Chikaevo (74); Uelen (119).

VII–6. Ushki (surface); Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer V; Kultuk (5); Elizovo (42); Kamchatka

(surface); Nikolka (16).

VII–7. Doiarki (10); Chini (110).

VII–8. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer III; Ust’-Belaia (72); Chikaevo

(74).

VII–9. Ushki (surface); Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer II; Domashnee Lake (7); Rakovaia (45);

Bukrich (18); Nikolka (16).

VII–10. Mishennaia Sopka (43).

VII–11, 12.

Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer V; Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer

VI; Kliuchi (12, 13); Ust’-Belaia (surface); Amguema, km 102 (79); Ust’-Belaia (72).
Nikolai N. Dikov 245

Ground knives, Table 5

Group VIII

VIII–1. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer V; Nuniamo (109); Neshkan (140); Vankarem (surface);

Chettun (124); Chini (110); Uelen (collections of Arutiunov and Sergeev).

VIII–2. Chikaevo (74); Chini (110); Nuniamo (109).

VIII–3. Sed’moi Prichal (105); Chikaevo (74); Nuniamo (109); Uten (122); Vankarem (surface)

(148–152); Inchoun (120); Chegitun (126); Chini (110); Uelen (119).

VIII–4. Ushki (surface); Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI; Bukrich (18); Sed’moi Prichal (105);

Chikaevo (74); Chegitun (126); Chettun (124); Chini (110); Koliuchin (146–147); Cape

Shmidta (158); Uelen (119).

VIII–5. Ikolivrunveem (133–134); Sireniki (106); Chini (110); Uelen (collections of Arutiunov

and Sergeev).

VIII–6. Bukrich (18); Staryi Ostrog (Elizovo, Gerts’s collections) (42); Chini (103); Vankarem

(surface) (148–152).

VIII–7. Enmynytnyn (115–117).

VIII–8. Chini (110).

VIII–9. Chini (110); Uelen (119).

VIII–10. Chegitun (126); Uelen (119).

VIII–11. Cape Dezhneva (173).

VIII–12. Ust’-Belaia (72); Chettun (124); Vankarem (148–152); Chini (110); Uelen (119).

VIII–13. Chini (110).

VIII–14. Avacha (after S. I. Rudenko) (46).

VIII–15. Chini (110); Enmynytnyn (115–117); Uten (122); Uelen (collections of Arutiunov and

Sergeev) (119).

VIII–16. Chini (110); Nuniamo (109).

VIII–17. Chini (110).

VIII–18. Chini (110).

VIII–19. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Ushki I, Cultural Layer V; Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI;

Chettun (124).

VIII–20. Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer II; Chini (110); Inchoun (120); Yandogai (107);

Ikolivrunveem (133–134).

VIII–21. Pervorechensk (343); Chini (110); Sireniki (106); Enmynytnyn (115–117).

VIII–22. Uelen (119).

VIII–23. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI; Ushki IV (3), Cultural Layer V; Mishennaia Sopka (43);

Chini (110).

VIII–24. Chini (110).

VIII–25. Kamaki (Kramarenko’s collections) (18); Vakarevo (53); Uelen (collections of

Arutiunov and Sergeev) (119).

VIII–26. Kliuchi (12, 13); Kamaki (18); Kazach’e (20–37); Nuniamo (109); Chini (110).

VIII–27. Chini (110); Nuniamo (109); Uelen (collections of Arutiunov and Sergeev) (119).

VIII–28. Chini (110).

VIII–29. Chini (110).

VIII–30. Chini (110).

VIII–31. Chini (110).

VIII–32. Chini (110).
246 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Table 5.
Nikolai N. Dikov 247

VIII–33. Chini (103).

VIII–34. Enmynytnyn (115).

VIII–35. Uelen (119).

VIII–36. Chini (110); Enmynytnyn (115–117).

VIII–37. Uelen (119).

VIII–38. Kozyrevsk (8); Nuniamo (109); Chini (110); Sireniki (106); Ilitlen (139); Uelen (119).

VIII–39. Avacha (46); Nuniamo (109); Chini (110).

VIII–40. Chini (110).

VIII–41. Naukan (172); Vankarem (148–152); Uelen (collections of Arutiunov and Sergeev)

(119).

VIII–42. Nuniamo (109); Sireniki (106).

VIII–43. Amguema (81); Vankarem, Locus IV (151).

VIII–44. Nuniamo (109).

VIII–45. Chukchi Peninsula (after S. I. Rudenko).

VIII–46. Enmylen (183); Sireniki (106).

VIII–47. Chini (110).

VIII–48. Uelen (collections of Arutiunov and Sergeev) (119).

Scrapers and Skreblos (Tables 6 and 7)

All the scrapers and skreblos from the early cultures of Kamchatka and Chukotka are

distributed in 12 groups, which make up several of the following, more general groups: end

scrapers (Groups I, II, V, VI), combination tools made on end scrapers (Groups III, IV), the

remaining scrapers and skreblos on flakes (Groups VII, VIII, IX, X), spokeshaves (Group XI),

grooved scrapers (Group XII), skreblos or pressing instruments, and polishers. We will examine

them successively.

In Group I are more or less elongated end scrapers on knife-like blades (1, 2, 5, 6, 7), triangular

(8), pear-shaped (11), trapezoidal (12, 13), irregular and stretched (15–18), rounded and

triangular microscrapers (23, 24), button-stemmed (25), and simply stemmed scrapers. A

common feature of all scrapers of this group, besides their all being end scrapers, consists also

of their longitudinal profile being bent on the inner side, a consequence of their having been used

to work “toward oneself.”

Into Group II fall almost the same forms of end scrapers, but, in distinction from scrapers of

Group I, they all have a straight longitudinal profile, a result of their probably having been used

predominantly to work “away from oneself.” Here enter scrapers on blades (1–5), pear-shaped (9–

11), trapezoidal (12–14), oblong with an irregular outline (15–17), truncated oval (18), trapezoidal

with the working edge on the narrow side (19), sub-square (20, 21, 22), rounded and triangular

micro-scrapers (23, 24), and stemmed (26).

In Group III are all variations of combination tools made on end scrapers with a concave

longitudinal profile (favorable for working “toward oneself”). These are scrapers with a cutting

corner more or less projecting on one side of the scraper blade (1–6) or with a cutting corner on

opposite sides of the scraper blade (9–15), with a pointed cutting-scraping blade (16–23), and a

scraper-punch (27).
248 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Into Group IV enter the same combination tools, but only on end scrapers with a straight

longitudinal cross section (favorable for working “away from oneself”): with “ears” on the edges

of the blade (1–6), distinctive small tools of cutting-scraping assignment with one (7) and two (8)

transverse working edges, with a rear cutting projection (9), and with a pointed cutting-scraping

edge (19–23), very favorable for scraping out longitudinal grooves.

Groups V–VI scrapers and combination tools differ by having been bifacially worked and,

as a consequence of this, by having a bifacially convex longitudinal cross section (which is

Table 6.
Nikolai N. Dikov 249

evidently especially favorable for working “away from oneself”). To them belong pear-shaped

scrapers (V–1–3) with a lateral projecting cutting corner (V–4–5) and with a narrowing working

edge (V–6); sub-square (V–7), rounded (V–8) and triangular (V–9) micro-scrapers; microscrapers that are pear-shaped (V–10), oblong rectangular (V–11), oval (V–12), stemmed

symmetrical (V–13, 14) and asymmetrical (VI–1, 2), flat with a straight working edge (VI–3, 4),

and horseshoe-shaped (VI–5).

Group VII consists of a variety of scrapers on flakes (1–16).
250 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Into Group VIII enter scrapers on cobble spalls still preserving the cobble cortex (1–17, 22, 23).

Some scrapers were trimmed by retouch along the working edge (1, 3–8, 10, 11, 14–17), while on

others the working edge has no trimming at all (2, 9, 12). Into this group also enter skreblos made

from more massive cobble spalls with the remains of surface cortex (17–32). Some of them also

do not have any trimming along the working edge (27, 28). They all differ in form, position of the

working edge, and degree of preservation of cobble cortex.

Group IX also consists predominantly of skreblos (1–18). They were worked much more

carefully and do not preserve any remains of cobble cortex. A common feature of this group as well

Table 7.
Nikolai N. Dikov 251

is the unifacial working on the dorsal side of a massive flake, while the ventral side forms a slightly

concave (4, 8, 9, 16) or rectangular (all the rest) interior plane of the tool, favorable for working

either “toward oneself” or “away from oneself.”

In Group X skreblos and scrapers have bifacial working. They differ in size, form, and position

of the working edge (1–10).

To Group XI we tentatively assign skreblo-like tools of different kinds that could probably

serve as spokeshaves (1–8). A very distinctive form among them are the three-sided massive tools

with traces of cobble cortex on their ends (8).
252 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Group XII is represented by a different kind of grooved scrapers (1–9). Some of them are on

knife-like blades, others on slightly worked flakes (2–6, 8, 9), and a third type consists of irregular

stones that are carefully worked by bifacial pressure retouch (7).

In Group XIII we place instruments similar to polishers that are generally not yet well

understood and can only be tentatively assigned to skreblos (1–5). They were made predominantly

from massive oblong spalls and their working edges, often with evident polish, are rounded and

located on one of the narrow ends (2–4). A distinctive form of this group is a small polishing

instrument, which, in distinction from the remainder, was used probably seated in a handle (5).

Group I

I–1. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Domashnee Lake (6); Karaginskii (292); Kuril’skoe (303);

Ust’-Belaia (72); Yakitiki (93); Uvesnovaniia (57).

I–2. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer I.

I–5. Domashnee Lake (7); Staraia Sopka (15).

I–6. Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer II; Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer V; Sivuiskii (GIM) (303).

I–7. Elizovo (42); Chini (110).

I–8. Chini (110); Ust’-Belaia (72).

I–11. Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer II; Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer V; Elizovo (42); Staraia

Sopka (15); Kavran (323); Nikolka (16); Sivuiskii (GIM) (303); Nalychevo (GIM)

(253–255).

I–12. Mishennaia Sopka (Orlova’s collections) (43); Ust’-Belaia (72); Uelen (collections of

Arutiunov and Sergeev).

I–14. Uelen (collections of Arutiunov and Sergeev).

I–15. Ust’-Belaia (72), Kurgan 15.

I–16. Domashnee Lake (7); Kozyrevsk (8); Doiarki (10); Kirpichnaia (44); Kliuchi (13);

Kazach’e (20–37); Ust’-Belaia (72); Chini (110); Osinovskaia Spit (64); Sireniki (106).

I–17. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer IV; Elizovo (42); Chikaevo

(74); Kultuk (5); Osinovskaia Sopka (66); Ust’-Belaia (72).

I–18. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI; Nikolka (16).

I–24. Elizovo (42); Avacha Bay (after S. I. Rudenko); Kavran (323); Rakovaia (45);

Kuril’skoe (303); Ust’-Belaia (72); Aion (160–165).

I–25. Ust’-Belaia (72).

I–26. Avacha Bay (after S. I. Rudenko); Ust’-Belaia (72).

I–28. Chini (110).

Group II

II–1. Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer IV; Domashnee Lake (7); Ust’-Belaia (72).

II–3. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer V; Sivuiskii (GIM) (303).

II–4. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI; Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer

IV; Ushki IV (3), Cultural Layer V; Chini (110).

II–5. Staraia Sopka (15).

II–9. El’gygytgyn (188).

II–10. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer V; Kamaki (18).
Nikolai N. Dikov 253

II–11. Ushki (surface); Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer V; Kliuchi (12–13); Kamaki (18);

Kuril’skoe (303); Nalychevo (GIM) (253–255); Staryi Ostrog (Elizovo, Gerts’s collections) (42).

II–12. Kamaki (18); Ust’-Belaia (72); Chikaevo (74); Chini (110); Mishennaia Sopka (Orlova’s

collection) (43).

II–13. Ushki II (1) (surface); Staryi Ostrog (Elizovo, Gerts’s collections) (42); Enmynytnyn

(115–117); Penzhina (49); Uelen (collections of Arutiunov and Sergeev) (119).

II–15. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VII; Kliuchi, Locus 3 (13); Kameshki (58); Elizovo (42).

II–16. Kuril’skoe (303); Kavran (323); Sivuiskii (GIM) (303); Ust’-Belaia (72); Sireniki (106);

Chini (110).

II–17. Ust’-Belaia (72), Kurgan 8.

II–18. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer V; Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer

VI; Kamaki (18); Kliuchi (13); Domashnee Lake (7); Kirpichnaia (44); Ust’-Belaia (72);

Chikaevo (74); Chini (110).

II–19. Ushki IV (3), Cultural Layer V; Chirovoe (51); Chini (110); Penzhina (49).

II–20. Tar’ia (282–284); Elizovo (42); Chirovoe (51); Chini (110).

II–21. Sireniki (106); Chini (110).\

II–23. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer V; Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer

VI; Osinovskaia Spit (64).

II–24. Elizovo (42); Avacha Bay (after S. I. Rudenko); Kavran (323); Rakovaia (45);

Kuril’skoe (303); Ust’-Belaia (72); Aion (165).

II–25. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI; Ust’-Belaia (72).

II–27. Kirpichnaia (44); Kulka (328); Chini (110).

Group III

III–1. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Kirpichnaia (44); Chini (100).

III–2. Kozyrevsk (8).

III–4. Rakovaia (45).

III–5. Chini (110).

III–6. Ust’-Belaia (72), Kurgan 5.

III–9. Kamaki (18).

III–10. Ushki (surface); Chirovoe (51); Krasino (70), Spit 4.

III–11. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI.

III–12. Tar’ia (282–284); Ust’-Belaia (62); Chini (110).

III–13. Ust’-Belaia (72), Kurgan 8.

III–14. Kliuchi (13); Ust’-Belaia (72); Chini (110).

III–15. Kliuchi (13); Zastoichik (6); Domashnee Lake (7).

III–16. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Kamaki (18); Ust’-Belaia (72).

III–17. Kultuk (5); Domashnee Lake (7).

III–18. Zastoichik (6).

III–19. Kliuchi (13).

III–22. Kamaki (18); Ust’-Belaia (72); Chikaevo (74).

III–23. Kamaki (18).

III–27. Elizovo (42); Kamchatka Museum (surface).
254 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Group IV

IV–1. Chikaevo (74); Chirovoe (51); Chini (110).

IV–2. Kirpichnaia (44); Kurilskoe (303).

IV–3. Tar’ia (282–284).

IV–5. Ushki I (surface); Staraia Sopka (15); Chini (110).

IV–6. Nikolka (16); Mishennaia Sopka (43); Snezhnoe (55).

IV–7. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer V; Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer I; Domashnee Lake (7);

Kirpichnaia (44); Ust’-Belaia (72); Chini (110); Chikaevo (74).

IV–8. Kliuchi (13); Chini (110).

IV–9. Chirovoe (51).

IV–19. Kliuchi (13); Kamaki (18); Ust’-Belaia (72); Chikaevo (74); Chini (110).

IV–20. Kliuchi (13).

IV–21. Kliuchi (13); Doiarki (10); Ust’-Belaia (72).

IV–23. Staraia Sopka (15); Kultuk (5); Ust’-Belaia (72), Kurgan 8.

IV–24. Doiarki (10).

Group V

V–1. Domashnee Lake (7); Sivuiskii (303); Nalychevo (253–255) (GIM); Chini (110).

V–2. Penzhina (49); Nalychevo (253); Sivuiskii (303) (GIM).

V–3. Chikaevo (74); Ust’-Belaia (72).

V–4. Ushki IV (3), Cultural Layer V.

V–5. Kliuchi (13), Locus 3; Uelen (119).

V–6. Ushki IV (3), Cultural Layer V; Chikaevo (74).

V–7. Nikolka (16); Chirovoe (51).

V–8. Ust’-Belaia (72); Chini (110); Uelen (119).

V–9. Ust’-Belaia (72), Kurgan 15.

V–10. Avacha Bay (after S. I. Rudenko).

V–11. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I.

V–12. Kamaki (18); Ust’-Belaia (72).

V–13. Chini (110); El’gygytgyn (188).

V–14. Ust’-Belaia (72); Osinovskaia Spit (64); Chini (110); Ust’-Palana (302).

Group VI

VI–1. Osinovskaia Spit (64).

VI–2. Ust’-Belaia (72), Kurgan 8.

VI–3. Mishennaia Sopka (43); Ust’-Main (54); Chirovoe (51); Chikaevo (74).

VI–4. Kamchatka Museum (surface).

VI–5. Chikaevo (74).

Group VII

VII–1. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI; Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer V; Ust’-Belaia (72).

VII–2. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Nikolka (16); Chikaevo (74); Ust’-Belaia (72).

VII–3. Elizovo (42); Krasino (67); Ust’-Belaia (72); Osinovskaia Sopka (66); Osinovskaia Spit

(64).

VII–4. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI; Ust’-Belaia (72); Osinovskaia Spit (64); Chini (110).
Nikolai N. Dikov 255

VII–5. Ushki I (1) (surface); Staraia Sopka (15); Kliuchi (13); Kirpichnaia (44); Ust’-Belaia

(72); Aion (165); Krasnenskaia River (Gondatti’s collections).

VII–6. Manily (49); Ukinskaia Bay (220); Chikaevo (74); Chini (110).

VII–7. Elizovo (42); Domashnee Lake (7); Ust’-Belaia (72); Chikaevo (74).

VII–8. Ust’-Belaia (72); Chirovoe (51); Amguema, km 120 (83); Amguema, km 145 (88);

Osinovskaia Spit (64).

VII–9. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer V; Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI.

VII–10. Ushki (surface); Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer V;

Domashnee Lake (7); Zastoichik (6); Elizovo (42); Kirpichnaia (44); Ust’-Belaia (72);

Chirovoe (51); Chikaevo (74); Chini (110).

VII–11. Staraia Sopka (15); Kamaki (18); Ust’-Belaia (72); Chini (110).

VII–12. Ushki (surface); Domashnee Lake (7); Kliuchi (surface); Kirpichnaia (44) (surface);

Tar’ia (282–284); Ust’-Main (54); Chikaevo (74).

VII–13. Kamaki (18); Osinovskaia Spit (64); Chini (110).

VII–14. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Nikolka (16); Doiarki (10); Domashnee Lake (7).

VII–15. Domashnee Lake (7); Chikaevo (74); Krasneno (67); Osinovskaia Spit (64); Vilka II

(60).

VII–16. Vakarevo (53).

Group VIII

VIII–1. Chikaevo (74).

VIII–2. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI; Ust’-Belaia (72); Chikaevo (74); Osinovskaia Sopka

(66); Osinovskaia Spit (64).

VIII–3. Chikaevo (74); Ust’-Belaia (72); Osinovskaia Spit (64).

VIII–4. Chirovoe (51); Ust’-Belaia (72); Koliuchin (146–147); Osinovskaia Spit (64); Krasneno

(67); Sed’moi Prichal (98); Kanchalan (189); Karaga (216) (Gondatti’s collections).

VIII–5. Chikaevo (74); Osinovskaia Spit (64); Chirovoe (51).

VIII–6. Chikaevo (74); Osinovskaia Spit (64).

VIII–7. Chikaevo (74).

VIII–8. Vilka (59–60); Osinovskaia Spit (64).

VIII–9. Chikaevo (74); near Osinovskaia Spit (64).

VIII–10. Chirovoe (51).

VIII–11. Osinovskaia Spit (64).

VIII–12. Chikaevo (74); Ust’-Belaia (72); Osinovskaia Sopka (66); Snezhnoe (55); Anakatrary

(62); Osinovskaia Spit (64); Krasino, Spit 4 (67).

VIII–13. Chirovoe (51).

VIII–14. Ust’-Belaia (72); Vakarevo (53); Sed’moi Prichal (105).

VIII–15. Kanchalan (189).

VIII–16. Kanchalan (189).

VIII–17. Kanchalan (189).

VIII–18. Utesiki, lower part (61).

VIII–19. Chikaevo (74).

VIII–20. Chirovoe (51); Chikaevo (74); Ust’-Belaia (72).

VIII–21. Chikaevo (74).

VIII–22. Chikaevo (74); Chini (110).

VIII–23. Chikaevo (74); Krasneno (67); Osinovskaia Spit (64).
256 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

VIII–24. Sivuiskii (303) (GIM); Mishennaia Sopka (43) (Orlova’s collections).

VIII–25. Sivuiskii (303) (GIM); Krasino, Spit 4 (67).

VIII–26. Sed’moi Prichal (98); Chikaevo (74); Osinovskaia Spit (64); Ust’-Belaia (72);

Kanchalan (189).

VIII–27. Osinovskaia Spit (64).

VIII–28. Sed’moi Prichal (105); Chikaevo (74); Osinovskaia Spit (64).

VIII–29. Kuril’skoe Lake, Sivuiskii (303) (GIM); Kanchalan (189).

VIII–30. Doiarki (10); Chirovoe (51).

VIII–31. Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer III; Doiarki (10); Chikaevo (74).

VIII–32. Chikaevo (74).

Group IX

IX–1. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI; Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VII; Kultuk (5); Chirovoe

(51); Kanchalan (189); Yakitiki (93); Krasino, Spit 1 (68); Osinovskaia Spit (64); Aion

(163); Uelen (collections of Arutiunov and Sergeev).

IX–2. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI; Ushki I (surface); Cape

Zelenyi (47); Kanchalan (184); Uelen (119) (collections of Arutiunov and Sergeev).

IX–3. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Chikaevo (74); Krasneno (67) (Naryshkin’s collections);

Uelen (collections of Arutiunov and Sergeev).

IX–4. Kanchalan (189).

IX–5. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI.

IX–6. Ushki (surface); Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer I; Chikaevo

(74); Penzhina (49); Kanchalan (189).

IX–7. Penzhina, Manily (49); Krasnoe (67); Kanchalan (189); Chikaevo (74).

IX–8. Osinovskaia Spit (64); Krasnoe (67) (Naryshkin’s collections).

IX–9. Utesiki (61); Chikaevo (74); Anakotrary (62); Sed’moi Prichal (98); Amguema, km 153

(91); Amguema, km 160 (92).

IX–10. Sivuiskii (303) (GIM); Ust’-Belaia (64); Krasnoe (67) (Naryshkin’s collections);

Kanchalan (189); Osinovskaia Spit (64).

IX–11. Chikaevo (74).

IX–12. Penzhina (49); Utesiki (61); Krasnoe (64) (Naryshkin’s collections).

IX–13. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; upper reaches of Sopochnaia River (Orlova’s collections)

(319a); Ust’-Belaia (72); Uelen (119).

IX–14. Osinovskaia Spit (64);

IX–15. Chikaevo (74); Ust’-Belaia (72); Osinovskaia Spit (64).

IX–16. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VII; Osinovskaia Spit (64);

Krasneno (67); Chini (110); Uelen (119).

IX–17. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI; Osinovskaia Spit (64); Chirovoe (51); Chini (110).

IX–18. Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer V; Chini (110).

Group X

X–1. Sireniki (106).

X–2. Kanchalan (189); Uelen (119) (collections of Arutiunov and Sergeev).

X–3. Kanchalan (189).

X–4. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Krasneno (67); Kanchalan (189); Uelen (119) (collections

of Arutiunov and Sergeev).
Nikolai N. Dikov 257

X–5. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Zastoichik (6); Snezhnoe (55); Pervorechensk (343);

Osinovskaia Sopka (66).

X–6. Pervorechensk (343); Penzhina (49).

X–7. Kultuk (5); Ust’-Belaia (72); Osinovskaia Spit (64).

X–8. Amguema, km 102, Site 3 (80); Amguema, km 102, Site 2 (79); Uelen (119).

X–10. Ust’-Belaia (72); Chirovoe (51); Chikaevo (74); Osinovskaia Sopka (66); Osinovskaia

Spit (64); Krasino, Spit 4 (67); Chini (110); Uelen (119).

Group XI

XI–1. Cape Dezhneva (173).

XI–2. Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer V; Chini (110).

XI–3. Chukchi Peninsula (after S. I. Rudenko); Enmynytnyn (115–117); Chini (110).

XI–4. Chukchi Peninsula (after S. I. Rudenko).

XI–5. Chikaevo (74).

XI–6. Chikaevo (74).

XI–7. Amguema, km 102, Site 4 (81); Chikaevo (74).

Group XII

XII–1. Ushki (surface); Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Domashnee Lake (7); Ust’-Belaia (72);

Yakitiki (93); Chirovoe (51).

XII–2. Ust’-Belaia (72); Omryn (73); Krasnenskaia Spit 2 (69).

XII–3. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI; Elizovo (42); Chini (110); Sireniki (106).

XII–4. Domashnee Lake (7); Kliuchi (13); Nikolka (16); Kirpichnaia (44); Ust’-Belaia (72);

Sireniki (106); Chini (110).

XII–5. Chini (110).

XII–6. Staryi Ostrog (42) (Elizovo, Gerts’s collections); Osinovskaia Sopka (66); Vakarevo

(53).

XII–7. Osinovskaia Spit (64); Ust’-Belaia (72); Chikaevo (74); Krasnenskaia Spit 1 (68).

Group XIII

XIII–1. Ushki IV (3), Cultural Layer V; Uelen (119).

XIII–2. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer V; Chini (110); Uelen (119) (collections of Arutiunov and

Sergeev).

XIII–3. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer II; Ust’-Belaia (72).

XIII–4. Uelen (119).

XIII–5. Chini (110).
258 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Axes and Adzes (Table 8)

Group I of this category of tools is made up of axes, which are distinguished from adzes by the

symmetry of the chopping edge. Just as all other tools of this category they differ among themselves

by general planar form and form of cross section, as well as by the characteristics of manufacture.

They are oval, triangular, trapezoidal, or rectangular, and their cross section is lenticular (1–5),

more or less oval (6, 7), or subrectangular (8, 10–12). Some of them are wholly flaked (1, 2, 5), some

partially (3, 4, 12); the remainder are ground.

Table 8.
Nikolai N. Dikov 259

Adzes make up five of the tentative groups (II–VI).

In Group II, all the adzes have a rectangular cross section (1–14). The rectangular adzes (1, 2,

5–12) predominate among them, but there are trapezoidal (1, 4) and almost triangular (3) ones. The

rectangular, more or less massive adzes with a projection or groove on the rear part of the butt (5,

8, 13), as well as with convex lateral sides (13–14), are peculiar.

In Group III, adzes have a more or less subtriangular cross section (1–10). They are

predominantly of elongated form with a pointed butt. Some of them are not ground at all (1, 2, 4,
260 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

9, 10), others are partially ground (3, 6, 8), and only three varieties of them are ground on all surfaces

(5–7).

Group IV consists of adzes with a lenticular cross section. As a rule, only the blade is ground.

They are almost oval (1), trapezoidal (2–4, 7), rectangular (5, 6), or subtriangular (2, 3, 8–12).

Among the last are completely bifacially retouched adzes (8, 10, 11), and some of them (10, 12) are

assigned to unique forms with a grooved working edge.

Into Group V enter adzes with an irregularly oval or even an atypical cross section (1–12). Their

frontal outlines are also often deprived of geometric regularity. They are predominantly more or

less trapezoidal, though almost rectangular ones are also encountered among them (4, 5), as well

as adzes with concave sides (12).

Group VI consists of adzes of special assignment with a large angle of sharpening of the working

edge (1–3). They were intended for working hard material, for example, walrus tusk. They are short

and their butts narrow so that they are clearly intended for socketed handles. Their cross section is

rectangular (1), irregular (2), or lenticular (3). The last two forms are moreover completely or

almost completely retouched tools.

Into Group VII enter various chisel-like instruments (1–12), more or less oblong (1–7, 9) or

very short and tiny (8, 10–12). Two varieties of these artifacts are unique (11, 12), having a distinctive

miniature form and a carefully retouched, convex working edge.

Group I

I–1. Uelen (collections of Arutiunov and Sergeev).

I–2. Kamchatka Museum (surface material); Sed’moi Prichal (105); Ust’-Kamchatsk (227)

(Karre’s collections); Uelen (119) (collections of Arutiunov and Sergeev).

I–3. Chini (119); Chikaevo (74); Sed’moi Prichal (105).

I–4. Staraia Sopka (15); Doiarki (10); Penzhina (49).

I–5. Chikaevo (74); Nikolka (16); Kliuchi (13); Uelen (119); Chini (110); Vankarem, Locus

III (150); Koliuchin (146–147).

I–6. Kirpichnaia (44); Kamaki (18); Nikolka (16); Kamchatka Museum (surface material);

Chikaevo (74).

I–7. Kameshki (58); Kozyrevsk (8); Kamchatka Museum (surface material).

I–8. Ushki I (1); Kozyrevsk (8); Kamaki (18); Cape Shmidta (158).

I–9. SouthKamchatka (GIM) (from W. I. Jochelson’s excavations).

I–10. Kamchatka (Loginov’s collections).

I–11. Kamchatka.

I–12. Uelen (119) (collections of Arutiunov and Sergeev).

Group II

II–1. Kamchatka (Loginovskii’s collections).

II–2. Kamaki (18); Kamchatka, Palana (333) (Fel’dman’s collections).

II–3. Nikolka (16); Ust’-Belaia (72).

II–4. Ushki I (1); Kamchatka Museum (surface material); Nikolka (16); Doiarki (10); Staryi

Ostrog (42) (Elizovo, Gerts’s collections); Kameshki (Kramarenko’s collections);

Nalychevo (253–255) (GIM); Chini (110).
Nikolai N. Dikov 261

II–5. Ust’-Belaia (72).

II–6. Doiarki (10); Kliuchi (13); Ust’-Belaia (72), Kurgan 11.

II–7. Ust’-Belaia (72), Kurgan 9.

II–8. Kamaki (18); Ust’-Belaia (72).

II–9. Kamaki (18); Doiarki (10); Ust’-Belaia (72).

II–10. Ust’-Belaia (72).

II–11. Ust’-Belaia (72).

II–12. Kamaki (18).

II–13. Tar’ia? (282–284) (Vladivostok Museum).

II–14. Tar’ia? (282–284) (Vladivostok Museum).

Group III

III–1. Kliuchi (195) (vicinity of the village, Prof. Derzhavin’s collections, Vladivostok

Museum).

III–2. Kamchatka Museum (surface material); Dal’nee Lake.

III–3. Kirpichnaia (44); Kliuchi (13); Kamaki (18); Kamchatka Museum (surface material);

Mishennaia Sopka (43); Sivuiskii (303); Nalychevo (253–255) (GIM).

III–4. Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer V; Kamchatka Museum.

III–5. Ushki II (2); Sivuiskii (303) (GIM); Tar’ia (284) (Gur’ev’s collections); Rakovaia (45);

Staraia Sopka (15); Kozyrevsk (8); Kamchatka Museum (surface material); Kirpichnaia

(44); Mishennaia Sopka (43); Seroglazka (262) (GIM).

III–6. Ushki; Kozyrevsk (8); Domashnee Lake (7); Kirpichnaia (44); Sivuiskii (303) (GIM);

Kamaki (18) (Kramarenko’s collections); Utkholok (325) (Zmiev’s collections).

III–7. Ushki II (2); Zastoichik (6).

III–8. Ushki (surface material); Nalychevo (253–255) (GIM).

III–9. Ushki I (1).

III–10. Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer IV; Ust’-Belaia (72), Kurgan 10.

Group IV

IV–1. Sivuiskii (303) (GIM); Chikaevo (74); Uelen (119).

IV–2. Uelen (119) (collections of Arutiunov and Sergeev).

IV–3. Nikolka (16); Kamchatka Museum (surface material); Kirpichnaia (44); Staryi Ostrog

(42) (Elizovo, Gerts’s collections); Seroglazka (262) (Gondatti’s collections); Sivuiskii

(303) (GIM); Kozyrevsk (8); Kamaki (18); Uelen (119) (collections of Arutiunov and

Sergeev); Atargan (300).

IV–4. Doiarki (10); Kirpichnaia (44); Kamchatka Museum (surface material); Sivuiskii (303)

(GIM); Chikaevo (74).

IV–5. Kamaki (18).

IV–6. Ust’-Belaia (72).

IV–7. Kamaki (18); Ust’-Belaia (72).

IV–8. Mishennaia Sopka (43) (Orlova’s collections); Chirovoe (51); Ust’-Belaia (72), Kurgan

16.

IV–9. Chikaevo (74).

IV–10. Kulka (328); Kavran (323) (GIM); Sivuiskii (303).

IV–11. Sivuiskii (303) (GIM).

IV–12. SouthKamchatka (after A. K. Ponomarenko).
262 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

IV–13. Orochan (374).

IV–14. Orochan (374).

Group V

V–1. Orochan (374).

V–2. Nikolka (16); Kamaki (18); Staraia Sopka (15); Rakovaia (45); Kamchatka Museum

(surface); Staryi Ostrog (42) (Elizovo, Gerts’s collections); Penzhina (49); Sivuiskii

(215) (GIM); Enmynytnyn (115–117); Atargan (380).

V–3. Sivuiskii (303) (GIM); Chirovoe (51); Uelen (119); Chegitun (126).

V–4. Kozyrevsk (8); Kliuchi (12); Nalychevo (153–155) (GIM).

V–5. Kliuchi (12, 13); Kamaki (18); Petropavlovsk-Kamchatski (vicinity, Sokovnikov’s

collections).

V–6. Sivuiskii (215) (GIM).

V–7. Kamaki (18); Nikolka (16); Kozyrevskii Sovkhoz (9); Staryi Ostrog (42) (Elizovo,

Gerts’s collections); Sivuiskii (303) (GIM); Kamchatka (Loginovskii’s collections);

Chikaevo (74); Chini (110); Uelen (119) (collections of Arutiunov and Sergeev).

V–8. Staraia Sopka (15); Kamaki (18); Nikolka (16); Doiarki (10); Kozyrevsk (8); Sivuiskii

(303) (GIM); Chirovoe (51); Chini (110).

V–9. Staraia Sopka (15); Kamaki (18); Domashnee Lake (7); Doiarki (10); Kamchatka

Museum (surface); Sivuiskii (303) (GIM); Chikaevo (74); Chini (110); Nuniamo (109);

Ikolivrunveem (133-134); Uelen (119) (collections of Arutiunov and Sergeev).

V–10. Sivuiskii (303) (GIM).

V–11. Sivuiskii (303) (GIM); Uelen (119) (collections of Arutiunov and Sergeev).

V–12. Sivuiskii (303) (GIM); Uelen (119) (collections of Arutiunov and Sergeev).

Group VI

VI–1. Enmynytnyn (115-117); Uelen (119) (collections of Arutiunov and Sergeev).

VI–2. Chini (110); Uelen (119) (collections of Arutiunov and Sergeev).

VI–3. Chini (110).

Group VII

VII–1. Chini (110).

VII–2. Elizovo (42); Kirpichnaia (44); Tar’ia (282–284); Staraia Sopka (15).

VII–3. Chini (110); Uelen (119).

VII–4. Kamchatka Museum (surface material).

VII–5. Staraia Sopka (15); Chini (110); Seshan (131).

VII–6. Ust’-Belaia (72); Chini (110).

VII–7. Kamaki (18); Nikolka (16); Kliuchi (13) (surface material); Bol’sheretsk (310)

(Gondatti’s collections); Chini (110).

VII–8. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I.

VII–9. Ust’-Belaia (72).

VII–10. Kliuchi (13), Locus 3.

VII–11. Chirovoe (51).

VII–12. Chirovoe (51).
Nikolai N. Dikov 263

Burins (Table 9)

We placed burins in five groups.

Group I consists of burins on knife-like blades: lateral (1–3), dihedral (4, 5), beaked (6), angle

(7), and irregular burins (8, 9).

Into Group II enter multi-faceted burins with a large, often core-like or lightly retouched haft

(1–5).

In Group III are lateral and dihedral burins with flattening bifacial retouch on the haft (1–5).

Burins of Group IV are angle, lateral, and dihedral, and they are all on flakes (1–7).

Into Group V enter ground burins of hard nephritic stone. They are angle, lateral, or dihedral

burins (1–8), sometimes of quartz crystal (9).

Group I

I–1. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Domashnee Lake (6); El’gygytgyn (183).

I–2. Doiarki (9); Ust’-Belaia (72); Chikaevo (74); Amguema, km 145 (89).

I–3. Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer III; Kliuchi (13); Domashnee Lake (6); Ust’-Belaia (72).

I–4. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Chikaevo (74); Chini (103).

I–5. Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer IV; Ushki (surface); Zastoichik (5); Domashnee Lake (6);

Chikaevo (74); Amguema, km 102, Site IV (81); Kameshki (58).

I–6. Chirovoe (51).

I–7. Kultuk (4).

I–8. Yakitiki (93).

I–9. Ust’-Belaia (72), Kurgan 15.

Table 9.
264 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Group II

II–1. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer II; Ust’-Belaia (72); Uvesnovaniia (57); Chikaevo (74).

II–2. Chikaevo (74).

II–3. Chikaevo (74); Chirovoe (51); Ust’-Belaia (72); Uvesnovaniia (57); Chini (103).

II–4. Chikaevo (74); Aion (153).

II–5. Ust’-Belaia (72); Chirovoe (51); Chikaevo (74).

Group III

III–1. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Zastoichik (5); Chirovoe (51); Ust’-Belaia (72).

III–2. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer I; Chirovoe (51); Kameshki (58); Anakotrara (62).

III–3. Ust’-Belaia (72), Kurgan 9.

III–4. Chikaevo (74); Ust’-Belaia (72); Chirovoe (51).

III–5. Kamaki (18).

Group IV

IV–1. Ust’-Belaia (73).

IV–2. Chikaevo (74).

IV–3. Elizovo (42); Kliuchi (13), Locus 3; Zastoichik (5); Nikolka (16); Ust’-Belaia (72);

Chikaevo (51); Uvesnovaniia (57); Osinovaia Sopka (66); Yakitiki (93); Osinovaia Spit

(64).

IV–4. Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer V; Chikaevo (74); Yakitiki (93); Ust’-Belaia (72).

IV–5. Kliuchi, Locus 1 (11); Zastoichik (5); Ust’-Belaia (72); Chikaevo (74); Osinovskaia

Sopka (66); Yakitiki (93); Vilka II (60).

IV–6. Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer V; Kamaki (18); Ust’-Belaia (72); Chirovoe (51);

Amguema, km 129 (85); Aion (154); Uelen (112).

IV–7. Chikaevo (74); Ust’-Belaia (72).

Group V

V–1. Chini (103).

V–2. Chini (103).

V–3. Chini (103).

V–4. Chini (103); Enmynytnyn (108–110); Uelen (112).

V–5. Chini (103).

V–6. Chini (103).

V–7. Chini (103).

V–8. Chini (103).

V–9. Vankarem I (141); Chini (103); Uelen (112).
Nikolai N. Dikov 265

Punches (Table 10)

Punches are not separated into groups of special forms. Among their 15 varieties the following

stand out: punches with a retouched haft (4, 6, 11, 13) and T-shaped pins, probably labrets (15).

Group I

I–1. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI; Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer III.

I–2. Ushki II (2), Cultural Layer III; Kamaki (18); Doiarki (9); Chini (103).

I–3. Kliuchi (13) (surface); Chini (103).

I–4. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI; Zastoichik (5); Ust’-Belaia (72); Krasnoe (68–70);

Chikaevo (74).

I–5. Ushki I (1), Cultural Layer VI; Chikaevo (74); Ust’-Belaia (72); Osinovskaia Spit (64).

I–6. Ushki (surface); Domashnee Lake (6); Elizovo (42); Kamaki (18); Staraia Sopka (15);

Chirovoe (51); Chini (103).

I–7. Chikaevo (51).

I–8. Kliuchi (11–13) (surface); Osinovskaia Sopka (66); Chirovoe (51).

Group II

II–1. Chini (103).

II–2. Chini (103).

II–3. Doiarki (9); Chini (103); Uelen (112).

II–4. Uelen (112).

II–5. Chini (103).

II–6. Uelen (112).

II–7. Domashnee Lake (6); Zastoichik (5).

Table 10.
266 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia
References

(Abbreviations can be found at the end of this section.)

Abramova, Z. A.

1962a Krasnyi yar—novaia paleoliticheskaia stoianka na Angare [Krasnyi Yar—A New

Paleolithic Site on the Angara]. In SA 3.

1962b Raskopki paleoliticheskikh stoianok na rechke Tashtyk v 1960 g. [Excavations of a

Paleolithic Site on Tashtyk Creek in 1960]. In KSIA 92.

1962c Paleoliticheskoe iskusstvo na territorii SSSR [Paleolithic Art in the Territory of the USSR].

Moscow-Leningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR.

1966 Lokal’nye osobennosti paleoliticheskikh kul’tur Sibiri [The Indigenous Features of the

Paleolithic Cultures of Siberia]. In Doklady i soobshcheniia arkheologov SSSR [Lectures and

Reports of the Archaeologists of the USSR]. Moscow.

1972a Periodizatsiia paleoliticheskikh pamiatnikov Sibiri [The Periodization of Siberian

Paleolithic Sites]. In Problemy izucheniia chetvertichnogo perioda [Problems of the Study of the

Quaternary Period]. Moscow.

1972b K voprosu o kul’turnykh sviaziakh Azii i Ameriki v verkhnem paleolite [On the

Question of the Cultural Connections of Asia and America in the Upper Paleolithic]. In

Tezisy dokladov na sektsiiakh, posviashchennykh itogam polevykh issledovanii 1971 g. [Topics of

Reports at Workshops Dedicated to the Results of Field Investigations of 1971].

Moscow.

1973 K voprosu o kul’turnykh sviaziakh Azii i Ameriki v pozdnem paleolite [On the

Question of Cultural Connections of Asia and America during the Late Paleolithic]. In

IX MKAEN. Moscow.

1975a Arkheologicheskie kul’tury v verkhnem paleolite Severnoi Azii i yuzhnosibirskaia

kul’turnaia oblast’ [Archaeological Cultures in the Upper Paleolithic of Northern Asia

and the Southern Siberian Cultural Region]. In Sootnoshenie drevnikh kul’tur Sibiri s

kul’turami sopredel’nykh territorii [Correlation of Early Cultures of Siberia with the Cultures

of Adjoining Territories]. Novosibirsk.

1975b Concerning the Cultural Contacts Between Asia and America in the Late Paleolithic. In

IX ICAES. Chicago.

Abramova Z. A., and P. Graziosi

1976 Les courants stylistiques dans l’art mobilier en paléolithique supérieur [The Current

Styles in Mobile Art in the Upper Paleolithic]. In Union internationale des sciences

prehistoriques et protohistoriques [International Union of Prehistoric and Proto-Historic

Sciences]. Nice.
268 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Ackerman, R. E.

1964 Prehistory in the Kuskokwim-Bristol Bay Region, Southwestern Alaska. In Washington

State University, Laboratory of Anthropology Report of Investigations 26.

1968 The Archaeology of the Glacier Bay Region, Southeastern Alaska. In Washington State

University, Laboratory of Anthropology Report of Investigations 44.

1973 Microblades and Prehistory: Technological and Cultural Considerations for the North

Pacific Coast. Paper presented at the IX ICAES. September 1–8.

1984 Archaeology of the Asian Zone of Eskimo Occupation. In Handbook of North American

Indians (Arctic Volume). Washington.

Aigner, J. S.

1966 Bone Tools and Decorative Motifs from Chaluka, Umnak Island. In Arctic Anthropology

3(2):57–83.

1974 Studies in the Early Prehistory of Nikolski Bay: 1937–1971. In APUA 16(1):9–25.

Aigner, J. S., R. F. Black, and W. S. Laughlin

1971 Early Racial and Cultural Identifications in Southwestern Alaska. In Science

171(3966):87–88. January 8.

Aksenov, M. P.

1966a Stoianka Cheremushnik (k voprosu o meste badaiskoi kul’tury v kamennom veke

Pribaikal’ia) [The Cheremushnik Site (On the Question of the Place of the Badaiskaia

Culture in the Stone Age of Pribaikal’e)]. In Sibirskii arkheologicheskii sbornik [Siberian

Archaeological Symposium]. Novosibirsk.

1966b Arkheologicheskie issledovaniia na mnogosloinom pamiatnike Verkholenskaia gora v

1963–1965 gg. [Archaeological Investigations at the Multi-Component Site on

Verkholenskaia Hill in 1963–1965]. In Otchety arkheologicheskikh ekspeditsii za 1963–1965

gg. [Reports of the Archaeological Expeditions of 1963–1965]. Irkutsk.

1969 Makarovo II—mnogosloinyi pamiatnik na Verkhnei Lene [Makarovo II—A MultiComponent Site on the Upper Lena]. In AO 1968 g. Moscow.

1971 Kompleks arkheologicheskikh pamiatnikov v raione s. Makarovo na Verkhnei Lene [A

Complex of Archaeological Sites in the Region of Cape Makarovo on the Upper Lena].

In Izv. VSO Geograficheskogo obshchestva SSSR [Bulletin of the East Siberian Division of

the Geographic Society of the USSR]. Irkutsk.

Alekseenko, E. A.

1967 Kety. Istoriko-etnograficheskie ocherki [The Ket. Historical-Ethnographic Outlines].

Leningrad.
Nikolai N. Dikov 269

1977 Kul’ty ketov [Cultures of the Ket]. In Pamiatniki kul’tury narodov Sibiri i Severa [Sites of the

Culture of Peoples of Siberia and the North]. Leningrad.

Alekseev, A. N.

1971 Dzhikindinskoe pogrebenie (pamiatnik Bel’kachinskoi neoliticheskoi kul’tury na

Olëkme) [The Jikindinskoe Burial (A Site of the Bel’kachi Neolithic Culture on the

Olekma)]. In Yakutiia i ee sosedi v drevnosti [Yakutia and Its Neighbors in Antiquity].

Yakutsk.

Alekseev, M. N.

1975 Antropogen Vostochnoi Azii (stratigrafiia i korreliatsiia) [The Anthropogene of Eastern

Asia (Stratigraphy and Correlation)]. Avtoref. dokt. dis. [Abstract of doctoral

dissertation]. Moscow.

Alekseev, V. P.

1967a K kraniologii aziatskikh eskimosov [On the Craniology of Asiatic Eskimos]. In Zap.

ChKM IV. Magadan.

1967b Antropologicheskoe svoeobrazie korennogo naseleniia Aliaski i bipoliarnye rasy (o

sviazi antropologii s geografiei) [Anthropological Characteristics of the Native

Population of Alaska and Bipolar Races (On the Connections of Anthropology and

Geography)]. In Ot Aliaski do Ognennoi zemli [From Alaska to Tierra del Fuego].

Moscow.

1969 O pervonachal’noi differentsiatsii chelovechestva na rasy. Pervichnye ochagi

rasoobrazovaniia [On the Initial Differentiation of Humanity into Races. The First

Cradle of Race Formation]. In SE 1:6.

1972 V poiskakh predkov [In Search of the Ancestors]. Moscow.

1973 Biologicheskaia adaptatsiia chelovecheskikh populiatsii k prirodnym usloviiam paleolita

[Biological Adaptation of the Human Populations to Natural Conditions of the

Paleolithic]. In Pervobytnyi chelovek, ego material’naia kul’tura i prirodnaia sreda v pleistotsene

(paleolit i neolit). Tezisy dokladov [Primitive Man, His Material Culture and Natural

Environment in the Pleistocene (Paleolithic and Neolithic). The Topics of Reports].

Moscow.

1975 Antropologicheskii kommentarii k gipoteze tsirkumpoliarnoi kul’tury [Anthropological

Commentary on the Hypothesis of a Circum-Polar Culture]. In Etnogenez i etnicheskaia

istoriia narodov Severa [The Ethnogenesis and Ethnic History of Northern Peoples].

Moscow.

1977 Review of Problemy etnicheskoi istorii Beringomor’ia. Ekvenskii mogil’nik [Problems of the

Ethnic History of the Bering Sea. The Ekven Cemetery] by S. A. Arutiunov and D. A.

Sergeev (1975). In SE 2.
270 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Alekseev, V. P., and T. I. Alekseeva

1973 Istoricheskie aspekty antropologicheskoi dinamiki i differentsiatsii naseleniia

Beringomor’ia [The Historical Aspects of Anthropological Dynamics and

Differentiation of the Population of the Bering Sea]. In Istoriia, arkheologiia i etnografiia

narodov Dal’nego Vostoka [History, Archaeology, and Ethnography of the Peoples of the

Far East]. Vladivostok.

Alekseev, V. P., S. A. Arutiunov, and D. A. Sergeev

1972 Results of Historico-Ethnological and Anthropological Studies in the Eastern Chukchee

Area. In Inter-Nord 12.

1975 Differentsiatsiia territorial’nykh grupp eskimosov i otnositel’naia khronologiia ikh

kul’turnoi i antropologicheskoi divergentsii [The Differentiation of Territorial Groups

of Eskimos and the Relative Chronology of their Cultural and Anthropological

Divergence]. In Sootnoshenie drevnikh kul’tur Sibiri s kul’turami sopredel’nykh territorii

[Correlation of Early Cultures of Siberia with the Cultures of Adjoining Territories].

Novosibirsk.

Altin, C.

1945 Studien zu den bronzezeitlichen Felszeichnungen von Skane 2 [Studies on the Bronze Age Rock

Illustration of Skane 2]. Stockholm.

Anderson, D. D.

1970a Akmak: An Early Archaeological Assemblage from Onion Portage, Alaska. In Acta

Arctica 16.

1970b Microblade Traditions in Northwestern Alaska. In Arctic Anthropology 7(2):2–16.

Andreev, G. I.

1957 Poselenie Zaisanovka I v Primor’e [The Zaisanovka I Site in Primor’e]. In SA 2.

Andreeva, Zh. V.

1977 Primor’e v epokhu pervobytnoobshchinnogo stroia: Zheleznyi vek (I tys. do n. e.—8 v. n. e.)

[Primor’e During the Epoch of the Primitive Communal System: The Iron Age (First

Millennium B.C. to the Eighth Century A.D.)]. Moscow.

Antropova, V. V.

1949 K istorii arkheologicheskogo izucheniia Kamchatki [On the History of Archaeological

Research in Kamchatka]. In Sb. MAE XI. Leningrad.

1971 Kul’tura i byt koriakov [The Culture and Way of Life of the Koryak]. Leningrad: Nauka.

Arsen’ev, V. I.

1948 Lednikovyi period i pervobytnoe naselenie vostochnoi Sibiri [The Ice Age and the Early

Population of Eastern Siberia]. In Sochineniia [Works] 5. Vladivostok.
Nikolai N. Dikov 271

Arutiunov, S. A.

1970 The Ainu Problem Viewed by Russian and Soviet Science. In Proceedings of the VIII

ICAES 3. Tokyo.

1975a Rol’ sredy v formirovanii variatsii drevneeskimosskoi kul’tury [The Role of the

Environment in the Formation of Variation of Early Eskimo Culture]. In Karta, skhema i

chislo v etnicheskoi geografii [The Map, Diagram, and Number in Ethnic Geography].

Moscow.

1975b Stability and Adaptability in the Evolution of Hunting Tools in Ancient Eskimo

Culture. In IX ICAES. Chicago.

1976 Ot redaktora [From the Editor]. In Paleoindeiskie kul’tury Severnoi Ameriki [Paleo-Indian

Cultures in North America] by I. P. Laricheva. Novosibirsk.

Arutiunov, S. A., E. A. Glinskii, and D. A. Sergeev

1977 K probleme proniknoveniia zheleza v Arktiku k eskimosam [Toward the Problem of

the Penetration of Iron to the Eskimos in the Arctic]. In SE 1:101–106.

Arutiunov, S. A., M. G. Levin, and D. A. Sergeev

1963 Drevnie mogil’niki Chukotki [Early Burial Grounds of Chukotka]. In KSIE 38.

Arutiunov, S. A., and D. A. Sergeev

1969a Drevnie kul’tury aziatskikh eskimosov (Uelenskii mogil’niki) [Ancient Cultures of the Asiatic

Eskimos (The Uelen Cemetery)]. Moscow: Akademiia Nauka SSSR.

1969b Kul’turnye sviazi drevnikh narodov Tikhookeanskogo poberezh’ia SSSR [Cultural

Connections of the Early Peoples of the Pacific Coast of the USSR]. In Materialy

konferentsii “Etnogenez narodov Severnoi Azii” [Materials of the “Ethnogenesis of Peoples of

Northern Asia” Conference]. Novosibirsk.

1973 Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki Chukotki i obshchie zakonomernosti stabil’nosti i

izmenchivosti arkheologicheskikh kul’tur [Archaeological Sites in Chukotka and

Common Regularities of Stability and Change in Archaeological Cultures]. In Istoriia,

arkheologiia i etnografiia narodov Dal’nego Vostoka [History, Archaeology, and Ethnography

of the Peoples of the Far East]. Vladivostok.

1975 Problemy etnicheskoi istorii Beringomor’ia (Ekvenskii mogil’nik) [Problems of the Ethnic

History of the Bering Sea (The Ekven Cemetery)]. Moscow: Nauka.

Arutiunov, S. A., D. A. Sergeev, and Ch. M. Taksami

1972 Etnokul’turnye sviazi korennykh narodov pribrezhnoi Severo-Vostochnoi Azii [EthnoCultural Connections of the Native Peoples of Coastal Northeast Asia]. In Etnicheskaia

istoriia narodov Azii, pp. 83–99. Moscow.
272 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Astakhov, S. N.

1966 Pozdnepaleoliticheskaia stoianka Kokorevo IV [The Late Paleolithic Kokorevo IV

Site]. In SA 2.

1973 Paleolit Eniseia i problema proiskhozhdeniia tak nazyvaemogo epigravetta Severnoi

Ameriki [The Paleolithic of the Yenisei and the Problem of the Origin of the So-Called

Epi-Gravettian of North America]. In Beringiiskaia susha i ee znachenie dlia razvitiia

golarkticheskikh flor i faun v kainozoe [The Beringian Land Bridge and Its Significance for

the Development of Holarctic Flora and Fauna in the Cenozoic]. Khabarovsk.

Baba, O.

1939 Handbook of Anthropology and Prehistory 10(11). Tokyo.

Bader, O. N.

1966 Mezolit lesnogo Priural’ia i nekotorye obshchie voprosy izucheniia mezolita [The

Mesolithic of Woodland Priural’e and Some General Questions on the Study of the

Mesolithic]. In MIA 126.

1975 Paleoliticheskaia gravirovka iz Indigirskogo zapoliar’ia [Paleolithic Engraving from the

Indigirka Polar Region]. In Arkheologiia Severnoi i Tsentral’noi Azii [Archaeology of

Northern and Central Asia]. Novosibirsk.

Bandi, H.-G.

1969 Eskimo Prehistory. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

1976 Arkheologiia ostrova Sviatogo Lavrentiia (Aliaska) [The Archaeology of St. Lawrence

Island (Alaska)]. In Beringiia v kainozoe [Beringia in the Cenozoic]. Vladivostok.

Baranova, Yu. P., S. F. Biske, V. F. Goncharov, I. A. Kul’kova, and A. S. Titkov

1968 Kainozoi Severo-Vostoka SSSR [The Cenozoic of the Northeast USSR]. In Trudy

instituta geologii i geofiziki SO AN SSSR [Works of the Institute of Geology and

Geophysics of SO AN SSSR] 38. Moscow.

Befu, H. and C. Chard

1964 Prehistoric Maritime Culture of the Sea of Okhotsk. In American Antiquity 30(1).

Beliaeva, A. V.

1967 Drevnie pogrebeniia na Okhotskom poberezh’e [Early Burials on the Okhotsk Coast].

In Istoriia i kul’tura narodov Severa Dal’nego Vostoka [History and Culture of the Peoples of

the Northern Far East]. (Tr. SVKNII SO AN SSSR 17). Moscow.

Beliaeva, A. V., and G. A. Pytliakov

1958 Arkheologicheskie raboty na Okhotskom poberezh’e [Archaeological Works on the

Okhotsk Coast]. In Sbornik statei po istorii Dal’nego Vostoka. Moscow.
Nikolai N. Dikov 273

Beregovaia, N. A.

1950 O putiakh i sledakh zaseleniia chelovekom territorii Aliaski [On the Routes and Traces

of the Settlement by People of the Alaskan Territory]. In Uch. zap. LGU 115.

1954 Arkheologicheskie nakhodki na ostrove Chetyrekhstolbovom: (Medvezh’i ostrova k

severu ot ust’ia r. Kolymy) [Archaeological Finds on Chetyrekhstolbov Island

(Medvezh’i Island to the North of the Mouth of the Kolyma River)]. In SA 20:288–312.

Moscow-Leningrad.

1957 Nakhodki drevneeskimosskikh poselenii na Aliaske i v prilegaiushchikh oblastiakh, po

rabogam 1945–1954 gg.: (K voprosu o zaselenii Ameriki) [Finds of Pre-Eskimo Sites in

Alaska and in Adjacent Regions, Based on Works from 1945 to 1954 (On the Question

of the Settlement of America)]. In SE 2:15–39. Moscow.

1958 Nekotorye novye radiouglerodnye datirovki drevneishikh poselenii cheloveka v

severnoi Amerike [Some New Radiocarbon Dates on the Earliest Sites of Man in North

America]. In SA 2.

1959 Nakonechniki garpunov iz drevnikh poselenii Baranova mysa [Harpoon Heads from the

Early Site at Cape Baranov]. In MIA 39.

1960 Arkheologicheskie nakhodki na ostrove Shalaurova [Archaeological Finds on Shalaurov

Island]. In MIA 86.

1967 Drevneishie kul’turnye traditsii Amerikanskoi Arktiki i ikh sviaz’ s Severo-Vostokom

Sibiri [The Earliest Cultural Traditions of the American Arctic and Their Connections

with Northeast Siberia]. In Trudy SVKNII SO AN SSSR 17. Moscow.

Bird, J. B.

1965 The Concept of a “Pre-Projectile Point” Cultural State in Chile and Peru. In American

Anthropologist 1.

Birket-Smith, K.

1929 The Caribou Eskimos. In Report of the 5th Thule Expedition 1921–1924. Vol. 5(1–2).

Copenhagen.

Bocstoce, J. A.

1973 A Prehistoric Population Change in the Bering Strait Region. In Polar Record

16(105):793–803.

Bogoliubskii, S. N.

1959 Proiskhozhdenie i preobrazovanie domashnikh zhivotnykh [The Origin and Transformation of

Domestic Animals]. Moscow.

Bogoras, W. G.

1934 Chukchi. Chast’ I. Obshchestvennyi [The Chukchi. Part I. Society]. Leningrad.
274 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

1936 Sotsial’nyi stroi amerikanskikh eskimosov [The Social Structure of the American

Eskimos]. Trudy Instituta antropologii, arkheologii i etnografii, t. IV. Moscow; Leningrad.

1939 Chukchi. Chast’ II. Religiia [The Chukchi. Part II. Religion]. Leningrad.

Borden, C. E.

1962 West Coast Crossties with Alaska. In Arctic Institute of North America, Technical Paper 11.

1970 New Evidence of Early Cultural Relations Between Eurasia and Western North

America. In Proceedings of the VIII ICAES 3. Tokyo.

1973 Novye dannye otnositel’no peredvizhenii populiatsii v pozdnem pleistotsene i rannem

golotsene [New Data on Movements of Populations in the Late Pleistocene and Early

Holocene]. In Beringiiskaia susha i ee znachenie dlia razvitiia golarkticheskikh flor i faun v

kainozoe [The Beringian Land Bridge and Its Significance for the Development of

Holarctic Flora and Fauna in the Cenozoic]. Khabarovsk.

Bordes, F.

1950 Principes d’une méthode d’étude des techniques et de la typologie du paléolithique

ancien et moyen [Principles of a Method of Studying Techniques and Typology of the

Early and Middle Paleolithic]. In Anthropologie 59(1–2).

1961 Typologie du paléolithique ancien et moyen [The Typology of the Early and Middle

Paleolithic]. In Mémoire 1. Bordeaux.

Boriskovskii, P. I.

1935 O perezhitkakh rodovykh otnoshenii na Severo-Vostoke Azii: (yukagiry i koriaki) [On

Surviving Clan Relations in Northeast Asia (the Yukagir and Koryak)]. In SE 4–5:85–

108.

1956 Paleoliticheskie zhilishcha na territorii SSSR i etnograficheskie paralleli k nim

[Paleolithic Dwellings in the Territory of the USSR and Ethnographic Parallels to

Them]. In Doklady sovetskoi delegatsii na V MKAEN [Reports of the Soviet Delegation to

the 5th MKAEN]. Moscow.

1964 Voprosy periodizatsii paleolita [Questions of Paleolithic Periodization]. In SA 21.

1969 Sovetskaia shkola izucheniia paleolita [The Soviet School of Paleolithic Study]. In

Teoreticheskie osnovy sovetskoi arkheologii [Theoretical Bases of Soviet Archaeology].

Leningrad.

1971 Drevnii kamennyi vek Yuzhnoi i Yugo-Vostochnoi Azii [The Early Stone Age of Southern and

Southeastern Asia]. Leningrad.

1973 Nekotorye problemy paleolita Yuzhnoi i Yugo-Vostochnoi Azii [Some Problems of the

Paleolithic of Southern and Southeastern Asia]. In IX MKAEN. Moscow.

1977 Vozniknovenie chelovecheskogo obshchestva [The Origin of Human Society]. In

Vozniknovenie chelovecheskogo Obshchestva. Paleolit Afriki [The Origin of Human Society.

The Paleolithic of Africa]. Leningrad.
Nikolai N. Dikov 275

Boriskovskii, P. I., and N. N. Gurina

1973 Izuchenie kamennogo veka, nekotorye itogi i problemy [Study of the Stone Age: Some

Results and Problems]. In KSIA 137.

Borisov, P. M.

1970 Opyt rekonstruktsii ledianogo pokrova Poliarnogo basseina v pozdne- i

poslelednikovoe vremia [Experiment of the Reconstruction of Ice Cover of the Polar

Basin in Late and Post-Glacial Times]. In Severnyi Ledovityi okean i ego poberzh’e v kainozoe

[The Arctic Ocean and Its Coast in the Cenozoic]. Leningrad.

Bosch-Gimpera, P.

1968 Nuevos aspectos del paleolitico eurasiatico en relation con el origin de cazadores

Americanos [New Aspects of the Eurasian Paleolithic in Relation to the Origin of

American Hunters]. In Sobretiro de “Anales de Antropologia” 5. Mexico.

Bromlei, Yu. V.

1973 Etnos i etnografiia [Ethnos and Ethnography]. Moscow.

Bryan, A. L.

1969 Early Man in America and the Late Pleistocene Chronology of Western Canada and

Alaska. In Current Anthropology 10(4):339–367.

1973 Paleoenvironments and Cultural Diversity in Late Pleistocene South America. In

Quaternary Research 3.

1975 Letter to the Editor. Paleoenvironments and Cultural Diversity in Late Pleistocene

South America: A Rejoinder to Vance Haynes and a Reply to Thomas Lynch. In

Quaternary Research 5(1):151–159.

Butler, R. B.

1961 The Old Cordilleran Culture in the Pacific Northwest. In Occasional Papers of the Idaho

State Museum 5. Pocatello.

Campbell, J. M.

1962 Cultural Succession at Anaktuvuk Pass,. In Arctic Institute of North America, Technical Paper

11:39–54.

1963 Ancient Alaska and Paleolithic Europe. In Early Man in the Western Arctic. A symposium.

APUA 10(2):29–50.

Chan Su Bu

1977 Pozdnii Dzemon Khokkaido [The Late Jomon of Hokkaido]. Kand. dis. [Dissertation

for candidacy]. Novosibirsk.
276 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Chard, C.

1955 An Early Pottery Site in the Chukchi Peninsula. In American Antiquity 20(3).

1958 An Outline of the Prehistory of Siberia: Part I. The Premetal Periods. In Southwestern

Journal of Anthropology 14(1).

1959 New World Origins: A Reappraisal. In Antiquity 33(129):44–48.

1960a Routes to Bering Strait. In American Antiquity 26(2):283–285.

1960b Recent Archaeological Work in the Chukchi Peninsula. In APUA 8(2).

1960c The Neolithic in Northern Asia: A Culture Area Approach. In Anthropologica 2(2).

1961 A Time Depth and Culture Process in Maritime Northeast Asia. In Asian Perspectives

5(2).

1962 Proiskhozhdenie khoziaistva morskikh okhotnikov severnoi chasti Tikhogo okeana [The

Origin of the Economy of Sea Hunting in the Northern Part of the Pacific Ocean]. In

SE 5.

1963 The Old World Roots Review and Speculations. In APUA 10(2):115–122.

1964 Early Radiocarbon Dates for Pottery in Japan and Their Implications. In VII International

Congress of Anthropological Sciences. Moscow.

1967 Reconstructing Human Ecology and Population History in Prehistoric Northeast Asia. University

of Wisconsin.

1969 Man in Prehistory. New York.

1970 A New Look at the Ainu Problem. In Proceedings of the VIII ICAES. Ethnology and

Archaeology 3. Tokyo.

Chard, C., and R. E. Morlan

1969 Absoliutnaia khronologiia kamennogo veka Yaponii [Absolute Chronology of the Stone

Age of Japan]. In Sibir’ i ee sosedi v drevnosti [Siberia and Its Neighbors in Antiquity].

Novosibirsk.

Chernetsov, V. N.

1964 K. voprosu ob etnicheskom substrate v tsirkumpoliarnoi kul’ture [On the Question of

the Ethnic Substrate in Circumpolar Culture]. In VII MKAEN. Moscow.

1973 Etnokul’turnye arealy v lesnoi i subarkticheskoi zonakh Evrazii v epokhu neolita

[Ethnocultural Areas in the Woodland and Subarctic Zones of Eurasia During the

Neolithic Period]. In Problemy arkheologii Urala i Sibiri [Problems of Ural and Siberian

Archaeology]. Moscow.
Nikolai N. Dikov 277

Chernysh, A. P.

1967 O nomenklature pozdnepaleoliticheskikh orudii [On the Nomenclature of Late

Paleolithic Tools]. In KSIA 3.

Chesnov, Ya. V.

1970 O sotsial’no-ekonomicheskikh i prirodnykh usloviiakh vozniknoveniia kul’turnokhoziaistvennykh tipov (v sviazi s rabotami M. G. Levina) [On Socioeconomic and

Natural Conditions of the Origin of Economic-Cultural Types (In Connection with the

Works of M. G. Levin)]. In SE 6.

Childe, V. G.

1952 U istokov evropeiskoi tsivilizatsii [The Dawn Of European Civilization]. Moscow.

Chizhov, O. P.

1970 Ob izmeneniiakh sostoianiia arkticheskogo basseina so bremeni maksimuma

poslednego oledeneniia [On Changes of the Condition of the Arctic Basin from the

Time of the Maximum of the Last Glaciation]. In Severnyi Ledovityi okean i ego poberezh’e v

kainozoe [The Arctic Ocean and Its Coast in the Cenozoic]. Leningrad.

Chlenova, N. L.

1969 Sootnoshenie kul’tur karasukskogo tipa i ketskikh toponimov na territorii Sibiri [The

Correlation of Cultures of the Karasukskii Type and Ket Toponyms in the Territory of

Siberia]. In Proiskhozhdenie aborigenov Sibiri [The Origin of Siberian Natives]. Tomsk.

Chubarova, R. V. (Kozyreva, R. V.)

1960a Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki na Severe Sakhalina (po materialam razvedok 1957 g.)

[Archaeological Sites in Northern Sakhalin (Based on Materials from Surveys of 1957)].

In MIA 86.

1960b Neoliticheskie stoianki na ostrove Iturupe [Neolithic Sites on Iturup Island]. In SA 2.

Collins, H. B.

1937 Archaeology of St. Lawrence Island. In Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 96(1):1–431.

1954 Archaeological Research in the North American Arctic. In Arctic 7(3–4):296–306.

1962 Eskimo Cultures. In Encyclopedia of World Art 5(1).

1970 Prehistoric Cultural Relations Between Japan and the American Arctic: Eskimo and PreEskimo. In Proceedings of the VIII ICAES (Ethnology and Archaeology) 3. Tokyo.

Daniel, G.

1968 The First Civilizations. London.
278 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Daniel, N.

1971 Éléments de préhistoire et d’archéologie Nord-Sibériennes [Elements of North Siberian

Prehistory and Archaeology]. In Contributions du Centre d’Études Arctiques et FinnoScandinaves 9. Paris.

1972 Pour une Paléoanthropologie des espèces froids [On a Paleo-Anthropology of Cold

Species]. In Inter-Nord 12. Paris.

Davis, E. M.

1940 The archaeology of northeastern Asia. Papers of the Excavators’ Club 1(1). Cambridge, MA.

Debets, G. F.

1951a Antropologicheskie issledovaniia v Kamchatskoi oblasti [Anthropological

Investigations in the Kamchatka District]. In TIE, new series, 17.

1951b Proiskhozhdenie korennogo naseleniia Ameriki [The Origin of the Native Population of

America]. In TIE, new series, 16.

1960a Antropologiia Sibiri i problema zaseleniia Ameriki [The Anthropology of Siberia and

the Problem of the Settlement of America]. In Nauchnaia konferentsiia po istorii Sibiri i

Dal’nego Vostoka (tezisy dokladov i soobshchenii) [Science Conference on the History of

Siberia and the Far East (Topics of Reports and Lectures)]. Irkutsk.

1960b Problemy fizicheskoi antropologii v arkticheskikh raionakh [Problems of Physical

Anthropology in Arctic Regions]. In Acta Arctica 12.

De Laguna, F.

1932 A Comparison of Eskimo and Paleolithic Art. In American Journal of Archaeology

36(4):477–551.

1934 The Archaeology of Cook Inlet, Alaska. Philadelphia.

De Laguna, F., F. Riddle, D. F. McGeein, K. S. Lane, and J. A. Freed

1964 Archaeology of the Yakutat Bay Area, Alaska. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 192.

Denniston, G. B.

1966 Cultural Change at Chaluka, Umnak Island: Stone Artifacts and Features. Arctic

Anthropology 3(2):84–124.

Derevianko, A. P.

1970 Novopetrovskaia kul’tura srednego Amura [The Novopetrovskaia Culture of the Middle

Amur]. Novosibirsk.

1971 Priamur’e v drevnosti (do nachala nashei ery) [Priamur’e in Antiquity (Before the

Beginning of Our Era)]. Avtoref. dokt. dis. [Abstract of doctoral dissertation].

Novosibirsk.
Nikolai N. Dikov 279

1973 Paleolit Dal’nego Vostoka (khronologiia, stratigrafiia, mesto sredi paleoliticheskikh

kompleksov Vostochnoi, Tsentral’noi i Severnoi Azii [The Paleolithic of the Far East

(Chronology, Stratigraphy, and the Place among the Paleolithic Complexes of Eastern,

Central, and Northern Asia)]. In Istoriia, arkheologiia i etnografiia Dal’nego Vostoka [History,

Archaeology, and Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East]. Vladivostok.

Devlet, M. A.

1975 Drevnie antropomorfnye izobrazheniia iz Saianskogo kan’ona Eniseia [Early

Anthropomorphic Images of the Saianskii Canon of the Yenisei]. In Sootnoshenie drevnikh

kul’tur Sibiri s kul’turami sopredel’nykh territorii [Correlation of Early Cultures of Siberia

with the Cultures of Adjoining Territories]. Novosibirsk.

1976a Petroglify Ulug-Khema [Petroglyphs of Ulug Khem]. Moscow: Nauka.

1976b Pliashushchie chelovechki [Dancing Little People]. In Priroda 9.

Devlet, M. A., I. F. Popova, and N. I. Titova

1976 Raboty v Saianskom kan’one [Works in the Saianskii Canon]. In AO 1975 g. Moscow.

Dewdney, S., and K. E. Kidd

1962 Indian Rock Paintings of the Great Lakes. Toronto.

Dikov, N. N.

1958a Predvaritel’nyi otchet o rabote arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii Chukotskogo

kraevedcheskogo muzeia v 1956 godu [Preliminary Report on the Work of the

Archaeological Expedition of the Chukotka Regional Museum in 1956]. In Zap.

ChOKM 1.

1958b Drevneishee proshloe Chukotki i zadachi ego izucheniia [The Most Ancient Past of

Chukotka and the Problem of Its Investigation]. In Zap. ChOKM 1.

1958c Predvaritel’nyi otchet o polevykh issledovaniiakh Chukotskogo kraevedcheskogo

muzeia v 1957 godu [Preliminary Report on the Field Work of the Chukotka Regional

Museum in 1956]. In Zap. ChOKM 1.

1960a Po sledam drevnikh kostrov [On the Track of Ancient Hearths]. In Arkheologi idut po

Chukotke. Magadan.

1960b Predvaritel’nye dannye o rabote arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii Chukotskogo

kraevedcheskogo muzeia v 1958 godu [Preliminary Data on the Archaeological

Expedition of the Chukotka Regional Museum in 1958]. In Zap. ChOKM 2.

1961a Pervaia arkheologicheskaia kollektsiia iz vnutrikontinental’noi Chukotki [The First

Archaeological Collection from the Interior of Chukotka]. In Zap. ChOKM 2.

1961b Pervye arkheologicheskie issledovaniia na ostrove Aion [The First Archaeological

Investigations on Aion Island]. In Zap. ChOKM 2.
280 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

1961c Predvaritel’nye dannye ob arkheologicheskikh rabotakh na Chukotke v 1959 g.

[Preliminary Data on Archaeological Work in Chukotka, 1959]. In Zap. ChOKM 2.

1961d O raskopkakh Ust’-Bel’skogo mogil’nika po dannym 1958 g. [On the Excavations of the

Ust’-Bel’skaia Burial Ground According to the 1958 Data]. In Zap. ChOKM 2.

1963 Archaeological Materials from the Chukchi Peninsula. In American Antiquity 4.

1964a Novye dannye po arkheologii Severo-Vostoka Sibiri [New Data on the Archaeology of

Northeastern Siberia]. In VII MKAEN. Moscow.

1964b Kamennyi vek Kamchatki i Chukotki v svete noveishikh arkheologicheskikh dannykh

[The Stone Age of Kamchatka and Chukotka in Light of Most Recent Archaeological

Data]. In Tr. SVKNII SO AN SSSR 8. Magadan.

1965a Po morskomu poberezh’iu Chukotki—k predkam eskimosov [Along the Sea Coasts of

Chukotka—Toward the Ancestors of the Eskimos]. In Kraevedcheskie zapiski 5.

1965b The Stone Age of Kamchatka and the Chukchi Peninsula in the Light of New

Archaeological Data. In Arctic Anthropology 3(1):10–25.

1966 Drevnosti Seshana [The Antiquities of Seshana]. In Kraevedcheskie zapiski 5.

1967a Uelenskii mogil’nik po dannym raskopok v 1956, 1958 i 1963 godakh [The Uelen

Cemetery Based to Data from Excavations of 1956, 1958, and 1963]. In Istoriia i kul’tura

narodov severa Dal’nego Vostoka [History and Culture of the Peoples of the Northern Far

East]. Tr. SVKNII SO AN SSSR 17. Moskva.

1967b Novye drevneeskimosskie kladbishcha na Chukotke [New Old Eskimo Cemeteries in

Chukotka]. In Zap. ChOKM 4.

1967c Chegitunskie drevneeskimosskie mogil’niki [The Chegitun Old Eskimo Cemeteries]. In

ChOKM 6. Magadan.

1967d Otkrytie paleolita na Kamchatke i problema pervonachal’nogo zaseleniia Ameriki [The

Discovery of the Paleolithic in Kamchatka and the Problem of Initial Settlement of

America]. In Istoriia i kul’tura narodov severa Dal’nego Vostoka [History and Culture of the

Peoples of the Northern Far East]. Tr. SVKNII SO AN SSSR 17. Moscow.

1968a Vankaremskie drevnosti [The Antiquities of Vankarem]. In Zap. ChOKM 5. Magadan.

1968b Ob okhrane pamiatnikov drevnei kul’tury na territorii Magadanskoi oblasti [On the

Protection of Early Cultural Sites in the Magadan District]. In Kraevedcheskie zapiski 7.

Magadan.

1968c The Discovery of the Paleolithic in Kamchatka and the Problem of Initial Occupation

of America. In Arctic Anthropology 5(1):191–203.

1969a Drevnie kostry Kamchatki i Chukotki. 15 tysiach let istorii [Early Hearths of Kamchatka and

Chukotka. Fifteen Thousand Years of History]. Magadan.
Nikolai N. Dikov 281

1969b Verkhnii paleolit Kamchatki [The Upper Paleolithic of Kamchatka]. In SA 3.

1969c New Data on Pleistocene and Holocene Archaeology of Kamchatka. In VIII INQUA

(Resumes of communications). Paris.

1969d Puentes desde Asia a la America Precolombina [Bridges from Asia to Pre-Columbian

America]. In Enfoque Santiago 30. Chile.

1970a Paleoliticheskoe zhilishche na kamchatskoi stoianke Ushki IV [A Paleolithic Dwelling at

the Kamchatka Site of Ushki IV]. In Sibir’ i ee sosedi v drevnosti [Yakutia and Its Neighbors

in Antiquity]. Novosibirsk.

1970b Paleolithic Culture of Kamchatka. In Proceedings of the VIII International Congress of

Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, 1968, Tokyo and Kyoto, vol. VIII (Ethnology and

Archaeology). Tokyo.

1971a Drevnie kul’tury Kamchatki i Chukotki [Ancient Cultures of Kamchatka and Chukotka].

Avtoref. dis. . . . dok. ist. nauk [Abstract of doctoral dissertation]. Novosibirsk.

1971b Drevnie kul’tury Kamchatki i Chukotki [Ancient Cultures of Kamchatka and Chukotka].

Rukopis’ dokt. dis. [Manuscript of doctoral dissertation] (Deposited at the Institute of

History, Philology, and Philosophy SO AN SSSR). Novosibirsk.

1971c Naskal’nye zagadki drevnei Chukotki. Petroglify Pegtymelia [Mysteries in the Rocks of Ancient

Chukotka. The Petroglyphs of Pegtymel]. Moscow. [English translation: Mysteries in the

Rocks of Ancient Chukotka (Petroglyphs of Pegtymel’). Published through a grant from the

Beringian Heritage Program, National Park Service, Anchorage, Alaska, 1999.]

1971d Prehistoric Rock Figures in Chukotka. In Anthropologie. Brno.

1972a Novye dannye k istorii eskimosskoi kul’tury [New Data on the History of Eskimo

Culture]. In Kraevedcheskie zapiski 9. Magadan.

1972b Les pétroglyphes de Pegtymel et leur apportenance ethnique [The Pegtymel Petroglyphs

and Their Ethnic Bearing]. In Inter-Nord, no. 12. Paris.

1973a Drevneishee istoricheskoe proshloe Kamchatki [The Earliest Historical Past of

Kamchatka]. In Kraevedcheskie zapiski 6.

1973b Osnovnye kontury etnicheskoi istorii Severo-Vostoka Sibiri v svete arkheologicheskikh

dannykh [The Basic Contours of the Ethnic History of Northeastern Siberia in Light of

the Archaeological Data]. In Problemy etnogeneza narodov Sibiri i Dal’nego Vostoka (tezisy

dokladov Vsesoiuznoi konferentsii) [Problems of the Ethnogenesis of the Peoples of Siberia

and the Far East (Topics of Reports from the All-Union Conference)]. Novosibirsk.

1973c Paleolit na Krainem Severo-Vostoke Azii [The Paleolithic in Extreme Northeast Asia].

In Istoriia, arkheologiia i etnografiia narodov Dal’nego Vostoka [History, Archaeology, and

Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East]. Vladivostok.
282 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

1974a Chiniiskii mogil’nik (k istorii morskikh zveroboev Beringova proliva) [The Chini Cemetery

(Toward a History of Sea Mammal Hunting in Bering Strait)]. Novosibirsk: Nauka.

[English translation: The Chini Cemetery (A History of Sea Mammal Hunters in Bering Strait).

Published in 2002 through a grant from the Beringian Shared Heritage Program,

National Park Service, Anchorage AK 99503.]

1974b Drevniaia etnicheskaia istoriia Kamchatki i prilegaiushchikh oblastei severa Dal’nego

Vostoka po arkheologicheskim dannym [The Early Ethnic History of Kamchatka and

Adjoining Regions of the Northern Far East Based on the Archaeological Data]. In

Kraevedcheskie zapiski 5. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskii.

1974c Ocherki istorii Chukotki s drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei [An Outline of the History of

Chukotka from Earliest Times up to the Present Day]. Novosibirsk.

1975a Osnovnye problemy arkheologicheskogo izucheniia Severo-Vostoka SSSR

[Fundamental Problems of Archaeological Study of the Northeastern USSR]. In VI 10.

1975b Ancestors of Paleo-Indians and Proto-Eskimo-Aleuts in Kamchatka’s Paleolithic. In

Topics of Reports at the 12th Pacific Congress. Vancouver.

1975c Sledy verkhnego paleolita na ruch’e Shilo v basseine Kolymy [Traces of the Upper

Paleolithic on Shilo Creek in the Kolyma Basin]. In Arkheologiia Sibirskogo Dal’nego

Vostoka [Archaeology of the Siberian Far East]. Tokyo. (In Japanese)

1975d Verkhnii paleolit Kamchatki [The Upper Paleolithic of Kamchatka]. In Arkheologiia

Sibirskogo Dal’nego Vostoka [Archaeology of the Siberian Far East]. Tokyo. (In Japanese)

1975e Otkrytie petroglifov na Chukotke [The Discovery of Petroglyphs in Chukotka]. In

Arkheologiia Sibirskogo Dal’nego Vostoka [Archaeology of the Siberian Far East]. Tokyo.

(In Japanese)

1976a Noveishie issledovaniia paleolita na Kolyme i Kamchatke i problema pervonachal’nogo

zaseleniia Amerikanskogo kontinenta [The Most Recent Investigations of the Paleolithic

on the Kolyma and in Kamchatka and the Problem of Initial Settlement of the American

Continent]. In Ekonomicheskie i istoricheskie issledovaniia na Severo-Vostoke SSSR. Tr.

SVKNII DVNTs AN SSSR 67. Magadan.

1976b O nekotorykh obshikh printsipakh arkheologicheskoi periodizatsii [On Some General

Principles of Archaeological Periodization]. In Ekonomicheskie i istoricheskie issledovaniia na

Severo-Vostoke SSSR. Magadan.

1976c Otkrytie drevneishei aziatskoi kul’tury morskikh zveroboev na o-ve Vrangelia

[Discovery of the Earliest Asiatic Culture of Maritime Hunters on Wrangel Island]. In

AO 1975 g. Moscow.

1977a Otkrytie paleoeskimosskoi kul’tury na ostrove Vrangelia [Discovery of a Paleo-Eskimo

Culture on Wrangel Island]. In Kraevedcheskie zapiski 11.

1977b Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki Kamchatki, Chukotki i Verkhnei Kolymy: (Aziia na styke s

Amerikoi v drevnosti) [Archaeological Sites of Kamchatka, Chukotka, and Upper Kolyma

(Asia at the Crossroads with America in Antiquity)]. Moscow: Nauka.
Nikolai N. Dikov 283

1977c K probleme mezolita na Kamchatke [Toward the Problem of the Mesolithic in

Kamchatka]. In KSIA 149. Moscow.

1977d Novye arkheologicheskie dannye k etnicheskoi istorii Severo-Vostochnoi Sibiri [New

Archaeological Data on the Ethnic History of Northeastern Siberia]. In Problemy

arkheologii Evrazii i Severnoi Ameriki [Problems of Archaeology of Eurasia and North

America]. Moscow: Nauka.

1978a Issledovaniia na Chukotke i Kamchatke [Investigations in Chukotka and Kamchatka]. In

AO 1977 g. Moscow.

1978b Origine della cultura paleoeschimese [Origin of the Paleo-Eskimo Culture]. In

Bolletttino del Centro Camuno di studi preistorici [Bulletin of the Camuno Center of

Prehistoric Study] 17.

1978c Ancestors of Paleo-Indians and Proto-Eskimo-Aleuts in the Paleolithic of Kamchatka.

In Early Man in America from a Circum-Pacific Perspective. A. L. Bryan, ed. Edmonton.

Dikov, N. N., and T. M. Dikova

1972 Issledovaniia na Kolyme i Kamchatke [Investigations in the Kolyma and Kamchatka]. In

AO 1977 g. Moscow.

Dikov, N. N., and V. I. Gerasimchuk

1970 Sledy verkhnego paleolita u ruch’ia Shilo v Basseine Kolymy [Traces of the Upper

Paleolithic at Shilo Creek in the Kolyma Basin]. In AO otkrytiia 1970 g. Moscow.

Dikov, N. N., and A. E. Katenin

1979 Pervye stoianki kamennogo veka vo vnutrennei chasti Chukotskogo p-va vostochnee

zaliva Kresta vblizi oz. Ioni [The First Stone Age Sites in the Interior of the Chukchi

Peninsula East of Kresta Bay near Lake Ioni]. In Noveishie dannye po arkheologii Severa

Dal’nego Vostoka (materialy Severo-Vostochno-Aziatskoi arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii) [The Most

Recent Data on the Archaeology of the Northern Far East (Materials of the Northeast

Asian Archaeological Expedition)]. Magadan.

Dikov, N. N., and Yu. A. Koliasnikov

1979 Pervye vnutrikontinental’nye stoianki na yuge Chukotki [The First Intra-Continental

Sites in the South of Chukotka]. In Novye arkheologicheskie pamiatniki Severa Dal’nego

Vostoka. [New Archaeological Sites of the Northern Far East]. Magadan.

Dikov, N. N., and V. N. Smirnov

1977 Novaia ranneneoliticheskaia stoianka v basseine reki Amguzmy [A New Early Neolithic

Site in the Amguema River Basin]. In Kraevedcheskie zapiski 11.

Dikov, N. N., and E. E. Titov

1976 Novaia mnogosloinaia paleoliticheskaia stoianka Ushki-V na Kamchatke [The New

Multi-Component Paleolithic Site of Ushki V in Kamchatka]. In Noveishie
284 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

arkheologicheskie issledovaniia na Dal’nem Vostoke SSSR [The Most Recent Archaeological

Investigations of the USSR Far East]. Vladivostok.

Dikov, N. N., E. E. Titov, T. D. Davidovich, and A. V. Lozhkin

1977 Kompleksnoe issledovanie mnogosloinoi paleoliticheskoi stoianki Ushki V na

Kamchatke [Interdisciplinary Study of the Multi-Component Paleolithic Ushki V Site in

Kamchatka]. In Prirodnye resursy Severo-Vostocka SSSR. (Trudy Magadanskogo otdeleniia

Geograficheskogo obshchestva). Vladivostok.

Dikova, T. M.

1964 Novye dannye k kharakteristike Kanchalanskoi stoianki [New Data on the

Characteristics of the Kanchalansk Site]. In Istoriia i kul’tura narodov Severo-Vostoka SSSR.

Tr. SVKNII SO AN SSSR 8. Magadan.

1974a Raboty Yuzhno-Kamchatskogo otriada [Work of the South Kamchatka Detachment].

In AO 1973 g. Moscow.

1974b Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki Magadanskoi oblasti [Archaeological Sites of the Magadan

District]. Magadan.

1974c K voprosu o prebyvanii ainov na myse Lopatka [On the Question of the Occupation of

Cape Lopatka by the Ainu]. In Kraevedcheskie zapiski [Regional Notes] 5. PetropavlovskKamchatski.

1976a Predvaritel’nye rezul’taty arkheologicheskikh issledovanii na Yuzhnoi Kamchatke

[Preliminary Results of Archaeological Investigations in Southern Kamchatka]. In

Ekonomicheskie i istoricheskie issledovaniia na Severo-Vostoke SSSR. Tr. SVKNII DVNTs

AN SSSR 67. Magadan.

1976b Issledovaniia na yuge Kamchatki [Investigations in Southern Kamchatka]. In AO 1975 g.

Moscow.

1976c Arkheologicheskaia izuchennost’ yuzhnoi Kamchatki v sviazi s problemoi obitaniia

ainov [Archaeological Study of Southern Kamchatka in Connection with the Problem of

Ainu Occupation]. In Istoriia i kul’tura narodov Severo-Vostoka SSSR [History and Culture

of the Peoples of the USSR Northeast]. Vladivostok.

1978 Avacha—novaia stoianka Tar’inskoi kul’tury na yuge Kamchatki [Avacha—A New Site

of the Tar’in Culture in Southern Kamchatka]. In Sever Dal’nego Vostoka v drevnosti

(Materialy i issledovaniia Severo-Vostochno-Aziatskoi arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii) [The

Northern Far East in Antiquity (Materials and Investigations of the Northeast Asian

Archaeological Expedition)]. Magadan.

Ditmar, K.

1901 Poezdka i prebyvanie v Kamchatke v 1851–1858 gg. [Traveling and Staying in Kamchatka

from 1851 to 1858], part 1. St. Petersburg.
Nikolai N. Dikov 285

Dixon, J. E.

1976 Stoianka Gallakher Flint—arkheologicheskii pamiatnik na severnom sklone khrebta

Bruksa (Arkticheskaia Aliaska) i ee otnoshenie k Beringiiskoi sushe [The Gallager Flint

Site—An Archaeological Site on the North Slope of the Brooks Range (Arctic Alaska)

and Its Relationship to Beringia]. In Beringiia v kainozoe [Beringia in the Cenozoic].

Vladivostok.

Dolgikh, B. O.

1951 Obriadovye sooruzheniia nganasanov i entsev [Ceremonial Structures of the Nganasan

and Entsy]. In KSIE 13.

1960 Rodovoi i plemennoi sostav narodov Sibiri v XVII v. [Clan and Tribal Composition of

Peoples of Siberia in the Seventeenth Century]. TIE, new series, 55.

1964 Problemy etnografii i antropologii Arktiki [Problems of Ethnography and

Anthropology in the Arctic]. SE 4.

Dul’zon, A. P.

1969a O drevnikh sviaziakh eniseiskikh narodov s chukotkso-kamchatskimi po dannym yazyka

[On Early Connections of the Yenisei Peoples with Those of Chukotka-Kamchatka

Based on Language]. In Materialy konferentsii “Etnogenez narodov Severnoi Azii” [Materials of

the “Ethnogenesis of Peoples of Northern Asia” Conference]. Novosibirsk.

1969b Gipoteza ob otdalennom rodstve uralo-altaiskikh yazykov s indoevropeiskimi [An

Hypothesis of the Distant Relationship of Ural-Altaic Languages with Indo-European].

In Proiskhozhdenie aborigenov Sibiri [The Origin of Siberian Natives]. Tomsk.

Dumond, D. E.

1963 Two Early Phases from the Naknek Drainage. In Arctic Anthropology 1(2):93–104.

1969a Prehistoric Cultural Contacts in Southwestern Alaska. In Science 166:1108–1115.

1969b Implements from Takli Island, Southwestern Alaska. In an unpublished manuscript.

1971 [Rejoinder to] Early Racial and Cultural Identifications in Southwestern Alaska by J. S.

Aigner, W. S. Laughlin, and R. F. Black. In Science 171(3966):88–90.

1975 Coastal Adaptation and Cultural Change in Alaskan Eskimo Prehistory. In IX ICAES.

Chicago.

Dzeniskevich, G. I.

1976 Zhirovye lampy sibirskikh eskimosov [The Oil Lamps of the Siberian Eskimos]. In

Material’naia kul’tura narodov Sibiri i Severa [Material Culture of the Peoples of Siberia and

the North]. Leningrad.
286 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Elizarenkova, T. Ya., and V. N. Toporov

1970 Mifologicheskie predstavleniia o gribakh v sviazi s gipotezoi o pervonachal’nom

kharaktere Somy [Mythological Ideas About Mushrooms in Connections with the

Hypothesis of the Original Character of Soma]. In Tezisy dokladov IV-letnei shkoly po

vtorichnym modeliruiushchim sistemam [Topics of Reports for the Four-Year School on

Secondary Modeling Systems] (17–24 August 1970). Tartu.

Etnograficheskie materialy . . .

1978 Etnograficheskie materialy Severo-Vostochnoi geograficheskoi ekspeditsii 1785–1795 gg.

[Ethnographic Materials of the Northeastern Geographic Expedition of 1785–1795].

Magadan.

Fainberg, L. A.

1964 Obshchestvennyi stroi eskimosov i aleutov (ot materinskogo roda k sosedskoi obshchine) [The Social

Structure of the Eskimos and Aleuts (From Maternal Clan to Neighborhood

Community)]. Moscow.

1971 Ocherki etnicheskoi istorii Zarubezhnogo severa (Aliaska, Kanadskaia Arktika, Labrador,

Grenlandiia) [An Outline of the Ethnic History of the Non-Russian North (Alaska, the

Canadian Arctic, Labrador, Greenland)]. Moscow: Nauka.

Fedoseeva, S. A.

1968 Drevnie kul’tury Verkhnego Viliuia [Early Cultures of the Upper Viliui]. Moscow.

1969 Pervyi Ymyiakhtakhskii pozdneneoliticheskii mogil’nik [The First Ymyiakhtakh Late

Neolithic Cemetery]. In AO 1968 g. Moscow.

1970 Novye dannye o bronzovom veke Yakutii [New Data on the Bronze Age of Yakutia]. In

Po sledam drevnikh kul’tur Yakutii [On the Track of the Early Cultures of Yakutia].

Yakutsk.

1975 Stoianka Konzaboi—pamiatnik Ymyiakhtakhskoi pozdneneoliticheskoi kul’tury na

Kolyme [The Konzaboi Site—An Ymyiakhtakh Site of the Late Neolithic Culture on

the Kolyma]. In Yakutiia i ee sosedi v drevnosti [Yakutia and Its Neighbors in Antiquity].

Yakutsk.

Flint, R.

1963 Ledniki i paleogeografiia pleistotsena [Glaciers and Paleogeography of the Pleistocene].

Moscow.

Ford, J. A.

1959 Eskimo Prehistory in the Vicinity of Point Barrow, Alaska. In Anthropological Papers of the

AMNH 47(1).
Nikolai N. Dikov 287

Formozov, A. A.

1959a Mikroliticheskie pamiatniki v aziatskoi chasti SSSR [Microlithic Sites in the Asiatic Part

of the USSR]. In SA 2.

1959b Etnokul’turnye oblasti na territorii Evropeiskoi chasti SSSR v kamennom veke [Ethnocultural

Regions in the European Part of the USSR During the Stone Age]. Moscow.

1966 Pamiatniki pervobytnogo iskusstva na territorii SSSR [Sites of Primitive Art in the Territory of

the USSR]. Moscow.

1973 Novye knigi o naskal’nykh izobrazheniiakh v SSSR (obzor publikatsii 1968–1972 gg.)

[New Books on Rock Art in the USSR (A Survey of Publications from 1968 to 1972)].

In SA 3.

1976 K kharakteristike paleoliticheskogo poseleniia Mal’ta [On the Characteristics of the

Paleolithic Mal’ta Site]. In SA 2.

Frolov, B. A.

1973 Petroglify Zapoliar’ia [Petroglyphs of the Polar Region]. In Nauka i chelovechestvo.

Mezhdunarodnyi ezhegodnik [Science and Humanity. International Year-Book]. Moscow.

Fryxell, R., T. Bielicki, and R. D. Daugherty

1968 Human Skeletal Material and Artifacts from Sediments of Pinedale (Wisconsin) Glacial

Age in Southeastern Washington, United States. In Proceedings of the VIII ICAES

(Ethnology and Archaeology) 3. Tokyo.

Fujimori

1965 Chubu chine hokubune sendoki jidai [Pre-Pottery Period of the Northern Part of the

Chubu (Japan?) Region]. In Sendoki jidai [Pre-Ceramic Age or Pre-Ceramic Period].

Gasanov, Sh. Sh.

1970 Paleogeograficheskie usloviia na vostochnoi Chukotke vo vremia boreal’noi transgressii

[Paleo-Geographic Conditions in Eastern Chukotka during the Boreal Transgression].

In Severnyi Ledovityi okean i ego poberezh’e v kainozoe [The Arctic Ocean and Its Coast in the

Cenozoic]. Leningrad.

Gatri, R. D.

1976 Vliianie okruzhaiushchei sredy na razmery tela, “sotsial’nye” organy, parametry

populiatsii i vymiranie mlekopitaiushchikh Beringii [The Influence of the Surrounding

Environment on Body Size, “Social” Organs, Parameters of Population, and Extinction

of Mammals of Beringia]. In Beringiia v kainozoe [Beringia in the Cenozoic]. Vladivostok.

Geptner, A. P., E. G. Lupikina, and L. A. Skiba

1966 Ranneantropogennye otlozheniia zapadnoi Kamchatki [Early Anthropogenic Deposits

of Western Kamchatka]. In BKIChP 31.
288 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Gerasimov, M. M.

1958 Paleoliticheskaia stoianka Mal’ta (raskopki 1956–1957 gg.) [The Paleolithic Mal’ta Site

(Excavations of 1956–1957)]. In SE 3.

Gidding, J. L., Jr.

1951 The Denbigh Flint Complex. In American Antiquity 16(3):193–203.

1956 A Flint Site in Northernmost Manitoba. In American Antiquity 21(3):255–268.

1961 Cultural Continuities of Eskimos. In American Antiquity 27(2):155–173.

1964 The Archaeology of Cape Denbigh. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.

1967 Ancient Men of the Arctic. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Giterman, R. E., and L. V. Golubeva

1965 Istoriia razvitiia rastitel’nosti Vostochnoi Sibiri v antropogene [History of the

Development of Vegetation of Eastern Siberia During the Anthropogene]. In Osnovnye

problemy izucheniia chetvertichnogo perioda [Fundamental Problems of the Study of the

Quaternary Period]. Moscow.

Gjessing, G.

1944 Circumpolar Stone Age. In Acta Arctica 2. Copenhagen.

Gladkikh, M. I.

1974 Malye zhilishcha v pozdnem paleolite Vostochnoi Evropy [Small Dwellings in the Late

Paleolithic of Eastern Europe]. In Rekonstruktsiia obshchestvennykh otnoshenii po

arkheologicheskim materialam zhilishch i poselenii [Reconstruction of Social Relations by the

Archaeological Materials of Dwellings and Settlements]. Leningrad.

Glushinskii, P. I., and L. P. Khlobystin

1966 Buolkalaakh–novaia stoianka drevnego cheloveka na Krainem Severe Sibiri

[Buolkalaakh–A New Site of Early Man in the Extreme North of Siberia]. In Sibirskii

arkheologicheskii sbornik 2.

Gokhman, I. I.

1961 Drevnii cherep s Chukotki [An Ancient Skull from Chukotka]. In Zap. ChOKM 2.

Magadan.

Golubev, V. A.

1970 Drevnie kul’tury Kuril’skikh ostrovov [Early Cultures of the Kurile Islands]. In Sibir’ i ee

sosedi v drevnosti [Siberia and Its Neighbors in Antiquity]. Novosibirsk.

1973 Osnovnye etapy razvitiia drevnikh kul’tur Kuril’skikh ostrovov [The Primary Stages of

Development of the Early Cultures of the Kurile Islands]. In Istoriia i kul’tura Dal’nego

Vostoka [History and Culture of the Far East]. Vladivostok.
Nikolai N. Dikov 289

1975 K voprosu o genezise okhotskoi kul’tury na Kuril’skikh ostrovakh [On the Question of

the Genesis of the Okhotsk Culture in the Kurile Islands]. In Sootnoshenie drevnikh kul’tur

Sibiri s kul’turami sopredel’nikh territorii [Correlation of Early Cultures of Siberia with the

Cultures of Adjoining Territories]. Novosibirsk.

1976 Ainskaia kul’tura neidzi na Kuril’skikh ostrovakh [The Neidzi Ainu Culture in the Kurile

Islands]. In Ekonomicheskie i istoricheskie issledovaniia na Severo-Vostoke SSSR. Tr. SVKNII

DVNTs AN SSSR 67.

Griaznov, M. P.

1969 Klassifikatsiia, tip, kul’tura [Classification, Type, Culture]. In Teoreticheskie osnovy sovetskoi

arkheologii [Theoretical Bases of Soviet Archaeology]. Leningrad.

Gribanovskii, N. N.

1946 Svedeniia o pisanitsakh Yakutii [Information on the Pictographs of Yakutia]. In SA 8.

Griffin, J. B.

1970 Northeast Asian and Northwestern American Ceramics. In Proceedings of the VIII ICAES

(Ethnology and Archaeology) 3. Tokyo.

Grigor’ev, G. P.

1968 Nachalo verkhnego paleolita i proiskhozhdenie Homo sapiens [The Beginning of the Upper

Paleolithic and the Origin of Homo sapiens]. Leningrad.

1972a Vosstanovlenie obshchestvennogo stroia paleoliticheskikh okhotnikov i sobiratelei

[Reconstruction of Social Structure of Paleolithic Hunters and Gatherers]. In Okhotniki,

sobirateli, rybolovy [Hunters, Gatherers, Fishermen]. Moscow.

1972b Kul’tura i tip v arkheologii: kategoriia analiza ili real’nost’? [Culture and Type in

Archaeology: Category of Analysis or Reality?]. In Tezisy dokladov na sektsiiakh,

posviashchennykh itogam polevykh issledovanii 1971 g. [Topics of Reports at Workshops

Dedicated to the Results of Field Investigations of 1971]. Moscow.

1973 Po povodu nekotorykh gipotez proiskhozhdeniia amerikanskogo paleolita s

nakonechnikami [Concerning Some Hypotheses on the Origin of the American

Paleolithc with Points]. In Beringiiskaia susha i ee znacheniie dlia razvitiia golarkticheskikh flor i

faun v kainozoe [The Beringian Land Bridge and Its Significance for the Development of

Holarctic Flora and Fauna in the Cenozoic]. Khabarovsk.

Grishin, Yu. S.

1977 O beskeramicheskikh neoliticheskikh stoiankakh v Zabaikal’e [On Non-Ceramic

Neolithic Sites in Zabaikal’e]. In SA 4.

Gromov, L. V.

1957 Sledy starinnogo zaseleniia na ostrove Vrangelia [Traces of an Ancient Settlement on

Wrangel Island]. In Letopis’ Severa [Chronicle of the North] 2. Moscow.
290 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

1961 Ostrov Vrangelia [Wrangel Island]. Moscow.

Gromov, V. I. (ed.)

1969 Chetvertichnyi period v SShA [The Quaternary Period in the USA]. (A translation from the

English).

Gurina, N. N.

1957 Nekotorye novye dannye o zaselenii severa Evropeiskoi chasti SSSR [Some New Data

on the Settlement of the North European Part of the USSR]. In SA 2.

1961 Drevniaia istoriia severo-zapada Evropeiskoi chasti SSSR [The Early History of the

Northwest of the European Part of the USSR]. In MIA 87.

Gurvich, I. S.

1966 Etnicheskaia istoriia Severo-Vostoka Sibiri [The Ethnic History of Northeastern

Siberia]. In TIE, new series, 89.

1975a Izuchenie etnogeneza narodov Severa v sovetskii period (sostoianie problemy, zadachi i

perspektivy) [The Study of the Ethnogenesis of Northern Peoples During the Soviet

Period (The State of the Problem, the Task, and the Perspective)]. In Etnogenez i

etnicheskaia istoriia narodov Severa [Ethnogenesis and Ethnic History of Peoples of the

North]. Moscow.

1975b Review of Ocherki istorii Chukotki s drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei [Outline of the

History of Chukotka from Earliest Times up to Our Day]. Novosibirsk (1974). In SE 6.

1977 Chukotskie risunki na yarange (k voprosu o semantike naskal’nykh izobrazhenii)

[Chukchi Illustrations in the Yaranga (On the Question of Semantics in the Rock

Images)]. In Izv. SO AN SSSR, ser. obshch. nauk, 1(1).

Hall, E. S., Jr.

1975 An Archaeological Survey of Interior Northwest Alaska. In APUA 17(2):13–30.

Harington, C. R., R. Bonnichsen, and R. E. Morlan

1975 Bones Say Man Lived in the Yukon 27,000 Years Ago. In Canadian Geographical Journal

91(1).

Harp, E.

1963 Evidence of Boreal Archaic Culture in Southern Labrador and Canada. In Bulletin of the

National Museum of Canada 193.

1964 The Cultural Affinities of the Newfoundland Dorset Eskimo. In Bulletin of the National

Museum of Canada 200:1–183.

Hayashi, K.

1968 The Fukui Microblade Technology and Its Relationships in Northeast Asia and North

America. In Arctic Anthropology 5(1):128–190.
Nikolai N. Dikov 291

Haynes, V.

1969 The Earliest Americans. In Science 166(3906).

1971 Time, Environment and Early Man. In Arctic Anthropology 8(2).

1976 Okhotniki na mamontov v SShA i SSSR [Mammoth Hunters in the USA and the USSR].

In Beringiia v kainozoe [Beringia in the Cenozoic]. Vladivostok.

Holtved, E.

1944 Archaeological Investigations in the Thule District. In Meddelser om Grønland 141.

Copenhagen.

Hopkins, D. M.

1959 Cenozoic History of the Bering Sea Land Bridge. In Science 129(3362).

1967 The Cenozoic History of Beringia. A Synthesis. In The Bering Land Bridge. D. M. Hopkins

(ed.). Stanford University Press.

1972 The Paleogeography and Climatic History of Beringia During Late Cenozoic Time. In

Inter-Nord 12.

1976 Istoriia urovnia moria v Beringii za poslednie 250 000 let [The History of Sea Level in

Beringia over the Last 250,000 Years]. In Beringiia v kainozoe [Beringia in the Cenozoic].

Vladivostok. Pp. 9–27.

Hrdlicka, A.

1945 The Aleutian and Commander Islands and Their Inhabitants. The Wistar Institute of Anatomy

and Biology. Philadelphia.

Ikawa, F.

1964 The Continuity of Non-Ceramic to Ceramic Cultures in Japan. In Arctic Anthropology 2(2).

1970 The Japanese Paleolithic in the Context of Prehistoric Cultural Relations Between

Northern Eurasia and the New World. In Proceedings of the VIII ICAES (Ethnology and

Archaeology) 3. Tokyo.

Ikawa-Smith, F.

1973 History of Early Palaeolithic Research in Japan. In The Early Palaeolithic of East Asia

(paper presented at the conference on the early Paleolithic of East Asia). Montreal,

August 28–31.

Irving, W. N.

1962 A Provisional Comparison of Some Alaska and Asian Stone Industries. In Prehistoric

Culture Relations Between the Arctic and Temperate Zones of North America. In Arctic Institute of

North America, Technical Paper 11.
292 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

1970 The Arctic Small Tool Tradition. In Proceedings of the VIII ICAES (Ethnology and

Archaeology) 3. Tokyo.

1971 Recent Early Man Research in the North. In Arctic Anthropology 8(2):68–82.

Irving, W. N., and C. R. Harington

1973 Upper Pleistocene Radiocarbon Dated Artefacts from the Northern Yukon. In Science

179(4071):335–340.

Irwin, H. T.

1971 Developments in Early Man Studies in Western North America. In Arctic Anthropology

8(2).

Istoriia Sibiri. . . .

1968 Istoriia Sibiri, t. I. Drevniaia Sibir’ [The History of Siberia, vol. 1. Ancient Siberia].

Leningrad.

Ivanov, O. N.

1967 Novye nakhodki pamiatnikov drevneeskimosskoi kul’tury na poberezh’e Beringova

proliva [New Finds of Sites of Early Eskimo Culture on the Coast of Bering Strait]. In

Tr. SV KNII SO AN SSSR17.

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 Nineteenth–Beginning of the

Twentieth Century]. In Trudy Instituta etnografii AN SSSR, new series, 22.

1963 Ornament narodov Sibiri kak istoricheskii istochnik [Decoration of the Peoples of Siberia as a

Historical Source]. Moscow-Leningrad.

Ivanov, V. V.

1973 Problema drevneishikh etnicheskikh sviazei ketov i amerikanskikh indeitsev v svete

dannykh sravnitel’noi mifologii [The Problem of the Earliest Ethnic Connections of the

Ket and American Indians in Light of the Data of Comparative Mythology]. In Problemy

etnogeneza narodov Sibiri i Dal’nego Vostoka [Problems of Ethnogenesis of Peoples of

Siberia and the Far East]. Novosibirsk.

Ivanova, I. K.

1965 Geologicheskii vozrast iskopaemogo cheloveka [The Geological Age of Fossil Man]. Moscow.

1969 Geologicheskie usloviia nakhozhdeniia paleolita na territorii SSSR [Geological

Conditions of the Occurrence of the Paleolithic in the Territory of the USSR]. In

Biulleten’ Moskovskogo obshchestva ispytatelei prirody, otdel geologii [Bulletin of the Moscow

Society of Experimental Nature, Geology Department] 19(3).
Nikolai N. Dikov 293

Izumi, S.

1967 Onkoromanai. Tokyo.

Jamanouchi, S., and T. Sato

1962 The Age of Jomon Pottery. Kagaku Yomiuri dai 14 maki dai 12 go keisai, Shyowa 37

nen II datsu 10 ka hakko.

Jelnek, A. I.

1971 Early Man in the New World: A Technological Perspective. In Arctic Anthropology 8(2).

Jiddi, S. and S. Sugihara (eds.)

1965 Nippon no Kokogaku, I. Tokyo, Kawade Shobo.

Jochelson, W. I.

1897 K voprosu ob ischeznuvshikh narodnostiakh Kolymskogo okruga [On the Question of

the Disappearance of the Peoples of the Kolyma District]. In Izv. VSO RGO 28(2).

1908a Drevnie i sovremennye polupodzemnye zhilishcha plemen Severo-Vostochnoi Azii i Severo-Zapadnoi

Ameriki [Ancient and Present-Day Semisubterranean Dwellings of Tribes of Northeast

Asia and Northwestern America]. In Ezhegodnik RAO 2. St. Petersburg.

1908b The Koryak. In Publications of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition. Memoirs of the AMNH 6(2).

New York.

1925 Archaeological Investigations in the Aleutian Islands. In Carnegie Institution of Washington

Publication 367. Washington.

1926a The Yukaghir and the Yukaghirized Tungus. In The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. New

York.

1926b The Ethnological Problems of the Bering Sea. In The Journal of the AMNH 26. New

York.

1928 Archaeological Investigations in Kamchatka. In Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication

388. Washington.

1930 Arkheologicheskie issledovaniia na Kamchatke [Archaeological Investigations in

Kamchatka]. In Izv. VSO RGO 62(3 & 4).

Kabo, V. P.

1972 Istoriia pervobytnogo obshchestva i etnografii [A History of Primitive Society and

Ethnography]. In Okhotniki, sobirateli, rybolovy [Hunters, Gatherers, Fishermen].

Leningrad.

1975 Sever Tikhogo okeana: etnogeneticheskie problemy [The North Pacific Ocean:

Ethnogenetic Problems]. In Sootnoshenie drevnikh kul’tur Sibiri s kul’turami sopredel’nykh

territorii [Correlation of Early Cultures of Siberia with the Cultures of Adjoining

Territories]. Novosibirsk.
294 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Kalinin, A. A.

1961 Chaun-Chukotka zhdet arkheologov [The Chaun-Chukotka Awaits Archaeologists]. In

Zap. ChOKM 2.

Kamenetskii, I. S.

1970 Arkheologicheskaia kul’tura—ee opredelenie i interpretatsiia [Archaeological Culture—

Its Definition and Interpretation]. In SA 2.

Kashin, V. A.

1970 Kul’turnye kompleksy kamennogo veka na stoianke Sumnagin II [Cultural Complexes of

the Stone Age at the Sumnagin II Site]. In Po sledam drevnikh kul’tur Yakutii [On the Track

of the Early Cultures of Yakutia]. Yakutsk.

Kato, S.

Buss hitsu bunka 11 batsuin 1968 nen 4 darsu.

Khlobystin, L. P.

1969 Raskopki na Taimyre [Excavations in Taimyr]. In AO 1968 g. Moscow.

1972 Problemy sotsiologii neolita Severnoi Evrazii [Sociological Problems of the Neolithic

of Northern Eurasia]. In Okhotniki, sobirateli, rybolovy: Problemy sotsial’no-ekonomicheskikh

otnoshenii v dozemledel’cheskom obshchestve [Hunters, Gatherers, Fishermen: Problems of

Socioeconomic Relations in Pre-Agricultural Society]. Leningrad.

Khlobystin, L. P., and G. N. Gracheva

1972 Raboty zapoliarnogo otriada na Taimyre [The Work of the Polar Division in Taimyr].

In AO 1971 g. Moscow.

Khlobystin, L. P., and G. M. Levkovskaia

1973 Osnovnye etapy razvitiia prirody i kul’tury drevnikh obshchestv v sibirskoi Arktike [The

Primary Stages of Development of the Nature and Culture of Early Societies in the

Siberian Arctic]. In Pervobytnyi chelovek, ego material’naia kul’tura i prirodnaia sreda v

pleistotsene (paleolit i neolit). Tezisy dokladov [Primitive Man, His Material Culture, and the

Natural Environment in the Pleistocene (Paleolithic and Neolithic). Topics of Reports].

Moscow.

Klein, L. S.

1970 Problema opredeleniia arkheologicheskoi kul’tury [The Problem of Determination of

an Archaeological Culture]. In SA 2.

Klein, R. G.

1971 Pleistocene Prehistory of Siberia. In Quaternary Research 1. Seattle.
Nikolai N. Dikov 295

Knuth, E.

1962 A Report on the First Perry Land Expedition, 1947–50. In Polar Record 6(44).

Korobkova, G. F.

1965 K voprosu o tekhnike rasshchepleniia i izgotovleniia orudii (po materialam Ust’-

Naryma) [On the Question of the Technique of Flaking and Preparation of Tools

(Based on the Materials from Ust’-Narym)]. In MIA 131.

Kozyreva, R. V.

1960 Drevneishee proshloe Sakhalina [The Most Ancient Past of Sakhalin]. Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk.

1965 K istorii kul’tury rakovinnykh kuch na Sakhaline [On the History of the Culture of Shell

Middens on Sakhalin]. In MIA 131

1967 Drevnii Sakhalin [Ancient Sakhalin]. Leningrad.

Krainov, D. A., and A. Ya. Briusov

1961 Problema severnogo mezolita [The Problem of the Northern Mesolithic]. In Materialy

Vsesoiuznogo soveshchaniia po izucheniiu chetvertichnogo perioda [Materials of the All-Union

Conference on the Study of the Quaternary Period] 1.

Kraskov, V., and T. M. Dikova

1966 Novyi pamiatnik primorskoi kul’tury na severe Chukotki (poluostrov Aachim) [A New

Site of Coastal Culture in Northern Chukotka (The Aachim Peninsula)]. In Kraevedcheskie

zapiski [Regional Notes] 4. Magadan.

Krasheninnikov, S. P.

1949 Opisanie zemli Kamchatki [A Description of the Land of Kamchatka]. MoscowLeningrad: Izd-vo Glavsevmorputi.

Kreinovich, E. A.

1958 Yukagirskii yazyk [The Yukagir Language]. Moscow-Leningrad.

Krieger, A. D.

1964 Early Man in the New World. In Prehistoric Man in the New World. J. D. Jennings and E.

Norbeck (eds.). Chicago.

Krupnik, Igor I.

1975 Prirodnaia sreda i evoliutsiia tundrovskogo olenevodstva [Natural Environment and the

Evolution of Tundra Deer Herding]. In Karta, skhema i chislo v etnicheskoi geografii [The

Map, Diagram, and Number in Ethnic Geography]. Moscow.
296 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Kuprina, N. P.

1966 Stratigrafiia chetvertichnykh otlozhenii tsentral’noi kamchatskoi depressii i nekotorye

voprosy paleogeografii antropogena Kamchatki [The Stratigraphy of Quaternary

Deposits of the Central Kamchatka Depression and Some Questions of

Paleogeography of the Anthropogene of Kamchatka]. In Izv. AN SSSR, ser. geolog, 1.

Kyzlasov, L. R.

1973 Rol’ arkheologicheskikh istochnikov dlia izucheniia istorii malykh narodov Sibiri [The

Role of Archaeological Sources for the Study of the History of Ethnic Groups of

Siberia]. In Problemy etnogeneza narodov Sibiri i Dal’nego Vostoka (Tezisy dokladov Vsesoiuznoi

konferentsii) [Problems of the Ethnogenesis of the Peoples of Siberia and the Far East

(Topics of Reports from the All-Union Conference)]. Novosibirsk.

Larichev, V. E.

1960 Neoliticheskie pamiatniki basseina verkhnego Amura (Anantsi, Dunbei) [Neolithic Sites

of the Upper Amur Basin (Anantsi and Dunbei)]. In MIA 86.

1970 Paleolit i mezolit Yaponii [The Paleolithic and Mesolithic of Japan]. In Sibir’ i ee sosedi v

drevnosti [Siberia and Its Neighbors in Antiquity]. Novosibirsk.

Larichev, V. E., and I. P. Laricheva

1976 Paleoindeiskaia graviura mamonta na plastine iz Delavera (Sev. Amerika) [Paleo-Indian

Engraving of a Mammoth on a plate from Delaware (North America)]. In Izv. SO AN

SSSR, ser. obshch. nauk 2(6).

Larichev, V. E., and M. I. Rizhskii

1966 Ozernyi neolit i ranniaia bronza vostochnogo Zabaikal’ia (stoianki v raione ozer Irgen’ i

Kenon) [The Ozernyi Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of Eastern Zabaikal’e (Sites in the

Region of Lakes Irgen’ and Kenon)]. In Sibirskii arkheologicheskii sbornik [Siberian

Archaeological Symposium]. Novosibirsk.

Laricheva, I. P.

1966 Paleolit Severnoi Ameriki i problema ego sviazi s kamennym vekom Sibiri [The

Paleolithic of North America and the Problem of Its Connection with the Stone Age in

Siberia]. In Izv. SO AN SSSR, ser. obshch. nauk 2(5).

1970 Plastiny i reztsovaia tekhnika kul’tury Klovis (novye cherty kamennoi industrii

verkhnego paleolita severnoi Ameriki) [Plates and the Cutting Technique of the Clovis

Culture (New Features of the Stone Industry of the North American Upper

Paleolithic)]. In Sibir’ i ee sosedi v drevnosti [Siberia and Its Neighbors in Antiquity].

Novosibirsk.
Nikolai N. Dikov 297

1973 Beringiiskaia susha i problema proniknoveniia paleoliticheskogo cheloveka v Ameriku

[The Bering Land Bridge and the Problem of the Penetration of Paleolithic Man into

America]. In Beringiiskaia susha i ee znachenie dlia razvitiia golarkticheskikh flor i faun v

kainozoe [The Beringian Land Bridge and Its Significance for the Development of

Holarctic Flora and Fauna in the Cenozoic]. Khabarovsk.

1975 Kul’tura British-Mauntin—drevneishii etap kamennogo veka Arkticheskikh raionov

Severnoi Ameriki [The British Mountain Culture—The Earliest Stage of the Stone Age

in the Arctic Region of North America]. In Arkheologiia severnoi i tsentral’noi Azii

[Archaeology of Northern and Central Asia]. Novosibirsk.

1976a Paleoindeiskie kul’tury Severnoi Ameriki [Paleoindian Cultures of North America].

Novosibirsk.

1976b Novye dannye po paleolitu Severo-Zapada SShA i Kanady (obzor issledovanii 60-kh

godov) [New Data on the Paleolithic of the Northwestern USA and Canada (Review of

Investigations of the 1960s)]. In Izv. SO AN SSSR, ser. obshch. nauk 3(11).

Larsen, H.

1934 Dodenandsbugten, An Eskimo Settlement on Clavering Island. In Medellser om Grønland

102. Copenhagen.

1968 Trail Creek. In Actica arctica 15:7–79. Copenhagen.

1970 The Eskimo Culture and Its Relationship to Northern Eurasia. Proceedings of the VIII

ICAES (Ethnology and Archaeology) 3. Tokyo.

Larsen, H., and J. Meldgaard

1958 Paleo-Eskimo Cultures in Disco Bugt, West Greenland. Kbh. Rotzel.

Larsen, H., and F. Rainey

1948 Ipiutak and the Arctic Whale Hunting Culture. In Anthropological Papers of the AMNH 42.

New York.

Laughlin, S. B., W. S. Laughlin, and M. E. McDowell

1975 Anangula Blade Site Excavations 1972 and 1973. In APUA 17(2):39–48. Fairbanks.

Laughlin, W. S.

1951a Notes on the Core and Blade Industry. In American Antiquity 17(1):52–55.

1951b The Alaska Gateway Viewed from the Aleutian Islands. In Papers on the Physical

Anthropology of the American Indian. New York: Wenner-Gren Foundation for

Anthropological Research.

1963 Eskimos and Aleuts. Their Origins and Evolution. In Science 142(3523):633–645.

1975 Aleuts: Ecosystem, Holocene History, and Siberian Origin. In Science

189(4202):507–515.
298 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

1976a Golotsenovaia istoriia Nikol’skogo zaliva Aliaski i evoliutsiia aleutov [Holocene

History of Nikolski Bay, Alaska, and Aleut Evolution]. In Beringiia v kainozoe [Beringia in

the Cenozoic]. Vladivostok.

1976b Iz Sibiri v Ameriku [From Siberia to America]. In Amerika 235, May.

Laughlin, W. S., and J. S. Aigner

1966 Preliminary Analysis of the Anangula Unifacial Core and Blade Industry. In Arctic

Anthropology 3(2):41–56

1972 Aleut Occupation and Sea Level Changes, Nikolski Bay, Alaska. In For Climatic and

Cultural Change in the North American Arctic and Adjacent Regions. A. A. Dekin (ed.). Arctic

Institute of North America, Technical Paper 11.

1975 Aleut Adaptation and Evolution. In IX ICAES. Chicago.

Laughlin, W. S., and G. H. Marsh

1954 The Lamellar Flake Manufacturing Site on Anangula Island in the Aleutians. In American

Antiquity 20(1):27–39.

Laughlin, W. S., and A. P. Okladnikov

1975 Sovmestnye issledovaniia amerikanskikh i sovetskikh arkheologov na Anangule

(Aleutskie ostrova, Aliaska) [The Joint Investigations of American and Soviet

Archaeologist at Anangula (Aleutian Islands, Alaska)]. In Sootnoshenie drevnikh kul’tur

Sibiri s kul’turami sopredel’nykh territorii [Correlation of Early Cultures of Siberia with

Cultures of Adjoining Territories]. Novosibirsk.

Laushkin, K. D.

1959 Onezhskoe sviatilishche, ch. I (Novaia rasshifrovka nekotorykh petroglifov Karelii) [The

Onezhskii Sanctuary, pt. I (New Decipherment of Some Petroglyphs at Karelia)]. In

Skandinavskii sbornik 4. Tallin.

Lavrov, I. P.

1958 K voprosu o zagadochnom krylatom predmete [On the Question of the Enigmatic

Winged Object]. In Zap. ChOKM 1.

Lebedinskaia, G. V.

1961 Protsess vosstanovleniia golovy po cherepu iz Ust’-Bel’skogo mogil’nika [The Process

of Reconstruction of the Head from the Skull from the Ust’-Bel’skaia Burial Ground]. In

Zap. ChOKM 2.

Leont’ev, V. V.

1976a Poseleniia i zhilishcha kerekov [Sites and Dwellings of the Kerek]. In Tr. SVKNII

DVNTs AN SSSR 67. Magadan.

1976b Po zemle drevnikh kerekov [In the Land of the Early Kerek]. Moscow.
Nikolai N. Dikov 299

Leroi-Gourhan, A.

1946 Archéologie du Pacifique-nord [Archaeology of the North Pacific]. Paris : Institut

d’ethnologie.

Lev, D. N.

1935 Novye arkheologicheskie pamiatniki Kamchatki [New Archaeological Sites of

Kamchatka]. In SE 4–5.

Levin, M. G.

1947 K antropologii eskimosov [On the Anthropology of the Eskimos]. In SE 6–7.

1949a Review of Drevniaia kul’tura Beringova moria i eskimoskaia problema [Early Culture of the

Bering Sea and the Eskimo Problem] by S. I. Rudenko (Moscow-Leningrad, 1947). In

SE 2.

1949b Kraniologicheskie tipy chukchei i eskimosov [Craniological Typesof the Chukchi and

Eskimos]. In Sb. MAE 20. Leningrad.

1950 Antropologicheskie tipy Sibiri i Dal’nego Vostoka [Anthropological Types of Siberia

and the Far East]. In SE 2.

1958a Raboty na Chukotke v 1957 godu [Work in Chukotka in 1957]. In SE 1.

1958b K probleme proiskhozhdeniia severo-vostochnykh paleoaziatov [On the Problem of

the Origin of the Northeastern Paleo-Asiatics]. In Sb. statei po istorii Dal’nego Vostoka

[Collection of Articles on the History of the Far East]. Moscow.

1958c Etnicheskaia antropologiia i problemy etnogeneza narodov Dal’nego Vostoka [Ethnic

Anthropology and the Problems of the Ethnogenesis of the Peoples of the Far East].

Moscow.

1960 Drevneberingomorskii mogil’nik v Uelene (predvaritel’noe soobshchenie o raskopkakh

1958 goda [An Early Eskimo Burial Ground at Uelen (Preliminary Report on the

Excavations of 1958)]. In SE 1.

1962 Ob antropologicheskikh materialakh iz drevneeskimosskikh mogil’nikov [On

Anthropological Materials from Early Eskimo Cemeteries]. In Zap. ChOKM 3.

1964 Ob antropologicheskom tipe drevnikh eskimosov [On the Anthropological Type of the

Early Eskimos]. In Trudy Moskovskogo obshchestva ispytatelei prirody [Works of the Moscow

Society of Experimental Nature] 14.

Levin, M. G., and D. A. Sergeev

1960 K voprosu o vremeni proniknoveniia zheleza v Arktiku [On the Question of the Time

of Penetration of Iron into the Arctic]. In SE 3.

1964 Drevnie mogil’niki Chukotki i nekotorye aspekty eskimosskoi problemy [Early Burial

Grounds of Chukotka and Some Aspects of the Eskimo Problem]. In Doklady na VII

MKAEN. Moscow.
300 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Levoshin, N. N.

1950 Drevniaia stoianka v verkhov’iakh reki Yakitikiveem [An Early Site on the Upper

Reaches of the Yakitikiveem River]. In KSIIMK 31.

Liapunova, R. G.

1975 Ocherki po etnografii aleutov [An Outline of the Ethnography of the Aleuts]. Leningrad.

Lindberg, G. U.

1965 Krupnye planetarnye kolebaniia urovnia okeana i paleogeografiia chetvertichnogo

perioda [Large Planetary Fluctuations of Sea Level and the Paleogeography of the

Quaternary Period]. In Osnovnye problemy izucheniia chetvertichnogo perioda [Fundamental

Problems of the Study of the Quaternary Period]. Moscow.

Liubin, V. P.

1965 K voprosu o metodike izucheniia nizhnepaleoliticheskikh orudii [On the Question of

Methodology in the Study of Lower Paleolithic Tools]. In MIA 131.

Lothrop, S. K.

1961 Early Migrations to Central and South America: An Anthropological Problem in Light

of Other Sciences. In The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and

Ireland 91(1).

Lozhkin, A. V.

1976 Rastitel’nost’ Zapadnoi Beringii v pozdnem pleistotsene i golotsene [The Vegetation of

Western Beringia During the Late Pleistocene and Holocene]. In Beringiia v kainozoe

[Beringia in the Cenozoic]. Vladivostok.

Machinskii, A. V.

1941 Drevniaia eskimosskaia kul’tura na Chukotskom poluostrove [Early Eskimo Culture on

the Chukchi Peninsula]. In KSIIMK 9.

MacNeish, R. S.

1952 The Archaeology of the Northeastern United States. In Archaeology of the Eastern United

States. Chicago.

1953 Reconnaissance of the Mackenzie River Drainage. In ARNMC, 1951–1952, Bulletin

128. Ottawa.

1959 Men Out of Asia as Seen from the Northwest Yukon. In APUA 7(2).

1963 The Early Peopling of the New World. In APUA 10(2):93–106.

1964 Investigations in the Southwest Yukon. In Papers of the Robert S. Peabody Foundation for

Archaeology 6(2). Phillips Academy. Andover, Massachusetts.

1971 Early Man in the Andes. In Scientific American 224(4).
Nikolai N. Dikov 301

Malaurie, J.

1970 Pour une préhistoire des cultures maritimes, préesquimaudes du Pacifique Nord et des

mers arctiques adjacentes [On the Prehistory of Maritime Cultures, the Pre-Eskimos of

the North Pacific and Adjacent Arctic Seas]. In Études d’Histoire Maritime [Studies in

Maritime History]. Presented at the Thirteenth International Congress of Historical

Sciences. Moscow.

1972 Pour une préhistoire des sociétés maritimes et de la navigation pré-Esquimaudes dans

les zones cotieres du Pacifique Nord, des mers de Tchoutchi et de Beaufort [On the

Prehistory of Maritime Societies and Pre-Eskimo Navigation in Coastal Zones of the

North Pacific and Chuckchi and Beaufort Seas]. In Inter-Nord 12. Paris.

1973 Louis Giddings “10 000 ans d’histoire arctique” [Louis Giddings “10,000 Years of Arctic

History”]. Fayard.

Maringer, J.

1963 Mongolia Before the Mongols. In Arctic Anthropology 1(2).

Markov, S. N.

1949 Nakhodka drevnikh monet na Kamchatke [Finds of Early Coins in Kamchatka]. In

Letopis’ Severa [Chronicle of the North] 1.

Masson, V. M.

1958 Dokeramicheskii neolit Ierikhona [The Pre-Ceramic Neolithic at Jericho]. In SA 3.

1964 Sredniaia Aziia i Drevnii Vostok [Central Asia and the Early East]. Moscow-Leningrad:

Nauka.

1974 Kamennyi vek Srednei Azii i poniatie arkheologicheskoi kul’tury [The Stone Age of

Central Asia and the Idea of an Archaeological Culture]. In Istoriia material’noi kul’tury

Uzbekistana [The History of the Material Culture of Uzbekistan] 2. Tashkent.

1976 Ekonomika i sotsial’nyi stroi drevnikh obshchestv [Economics and Social Structure of Early

Societies]. Leningrad.

Materialy dlia. . .

1861 Materialy dlia istorii russkikh zaselenii po beregam Vostochnogo okeana [Materials for

the History of Russian Settlement Along the Pacific Coast]. Preface to Morskoi sbornik

2(2).

Mathiassen T. H.

1930 Archaeological Collections from the Western Eskimos. In Report of the Fifth Thule

Expedition 1921–1924 10(1):1–100. Copenhagen.

1934 Contributions to the Archaeology of Disco Bay. In Meddelser om Grønland 94(2).
302 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Matiushin, G. N.

1976a Rannii paleolit Urala i problemy zaseleniia Severa Azii [The Early Paleolithic of the

Urals and Problems of Settlement of Northern Asia]. In Beringiia v kainozoe [Beringia in

the Cenozoic]. Vladivostok.

1976b Mezolit yuzhnogo Urala [The Mesolithic of the Southern Urals]. Moscow.

Mazin, A. I.

1975 Drevnee olenevodstvo i problema etnicheskoi prinadlezhnosti petroglifov taezhnoi

zony Verkhnego Priamur’ia [Early Reindeer Herding and the Problem of Ethnic

Association of the Petroglyphs of the Taiga Zone of the Upper Priamur’ia]. In

Arkheologiia Severnoi i Tsentral’noi Azii [Archaeology of Northern and Central Asia].

Novosibirsk.

McCartney, A. P.

1971 A Proposed Western Aleutian Phase in the Near Islands, Alaska. In Arctic Anthropology

8(2):92–142.

1974a 1972 Archaeological Site Survey in the Aleutian Islands, Alaska. In International Conference

on the Prehistory and Paleoecology of the Western North American Arctic and Subarctic. University

of Calgary Archaeological Association.

1974b Maritime Adaptations on the North Pacific Rim. In Arctic Anthropology 11(Suppl.):153–

162.

1974c Prehistoric Cultural Integration Along the Alaska Peninsula. In APUA 16(1):59–84.

Fairbanks.

1975 Maritime Adaptation in Cold Archipelagos: An Analysis of Environment and Culture in

the Aleutian Islands and Other Island Chains. In IX ICAES. Chicago.

McCartney, A. P., and D. I. Mack

1973 Iron Utilization by Thule Eskimos of Central Canada. In American Antiquity 38(3).

McDonald, G. R.

1966 The Technology and Settlement Patterns of a Paleo-Indian Site at Debert, Nova Scotia.

In Quaternaria 8. Rome.

McKennan, R. A., and J. P. Cook

1970 Prehistory of Healy Lake, Alaska. In Proceedings of the VIII ICAES (Ethnology and

Archaeology) 3. Tokyo.

Medvedev, G. I.

1966a Novye dannye o nizhnikh sloiakh Ust’-Beloi [New Data on the Lower Layers at Ust’-

Belaia]. In Sibirskii arkheologicheskii sbornik [Siberian Archaeological Symposium].

Novosibirsk.
Nikolai N. Dikov 303

1966b Arkheologicheskie issledovaniia mnogosloinoi paleoliticheskoi stoianki Krasnyi Yar na

Angare v 1964–1965 gg. [Archaeological Investigations of the Multi-Component

Paleolithic Krasnyi Yar Site on the Angara in 1964–1965]. In Otchety arkheologicheskikh

ekspeditsii za 1963–1965 gg. [Accounts of the Archaeological Expeditions of 1963–1965].

Irkutsk.

1968 Mezolit verkhnego Priangar’ia [The Mesolithic of Upper Priangar’e]. Avtoref. kand. dis.

[Abstract of doctoral dissertation for candidacy]. Moscow.

1971 Mezolit verkhnego Priangar’ia [The Mesolithic of Upper Priangar’e]. Moscow.

Meldgaard, J. A.

1952 Paleo-Eskimo Culture in West Greenland. In American Antiquity 17(3).

Melekestsov, I. V., T. S. Kraevaia, and O. A. Braitseva

1970 Rel’ef i otlozheniia molodykh vulkanicheskikh raionov Kamchatki [Relief and Deposits of

Young Volcanic Regions in Kamchatka]. Moscow.

Menovshchikov, G. A.

1959a Eskimosy [The Eskimos]. Magadan.

1959b Eskimossko-aleutskie yazyki [Eskimo-Aleut Languages]. In Mladopis’mennye yazyki

narodov SSSR [Young Written Languages of the Peoples of the USSR]. MoscowLeningrad.

1960 Eskimossko-aleutskie paralleli [Eskimo-Aleut Parallels]. In Uchenye zapiski LGPI 167.

1963 Paleoeskimosskie toponimy Severo-Vostochnoi Sibiri [Paleo-Eskimo Toponymy of

Northeastern Siberia]. In Voprosy yazykoznaniia [Questions of Linguistics] 6.

1964 Yazyk sirenikskikh eskimosov. Fonetika, ocherk morfologii, teksty i slovar’ [The Language of the

Sireniki Eskimos. Phonetics, Outline of Morphology, Texts, and Dictionary]. Moscow;

Leningrad.

1968 Eskimossko-aleutskaia gruppa yazykov [The Eskimo-Aleut Group of Languages]. In

Yazyki narodov SSSR [Languages of the Peoples of the USSR] 5. Leningrad.

1969 Eskimosskie skazki i legendy [Eskimo Tales and Legends]. Magadan.

Minato, M.

1955 Zu den Mammontensfaunen Hoccaido [On the Mammoth Fauna of Hokkaido]. In

Japanese Journal of Geology and Geography 26(1–2).

Mishimura, A.

1964 Origin of the Japan Sea as Viewed from the Evolution and Distribution of Marine Fauna. Pt. II.

Tukja Kagaky 75.
304 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Mochanov, Yu. A.

1966a Drevneishie kul’tury Ameriki [The Earliest Cultures of America]. In SE 4.

1966b Paleolit Aldana [Paleolithic of the Aldan]. In Sbornik nauchnykh statei [Collection of

Scientific Articles] 4. Yakutsk.

1969a Drevneishie etapy zaseleniia severo-vostochnoi Azii i Aliaski [The Earliest stages of

Settlement of Northeast Asia and Alaska]. In SE 1.

1969b Mnogosloinaia stoianka Bel’kachi I i periodizatsiia kamennogo beka Yakutii [The MultiComponent Bel’kachi I Site and Periodization of the Stone Age in Yakutia]. Moscow.

1969c Diuktaiskaia verkhnepaleoliticheskaia kul’tura i nekotorye aspekty ee genezisa [The

Diuktai Upper Paleolithic Culture and Some Aspects of Its Genesis]. In SA 4.

1972 Novye dannye o beringomorskom puti zaseleniia Ameriki [New Data on the Bering Sea

Route of Settlement of America]. In SE 2.

1975 Early Migration to America in Light of a Study of the Dyuktai Paleolithic Culture in

Northeast Asia. In IX ICAES. Chicago.

1976 Paleolit Sibiri [The Paleolithic of Siberia]. In Beringiia v kainozoe [Beringia in the

Cenozoic]. Vladivostok.

1977 Drevneishie etapy zaseleniia chelovekom Severo-Vostochnoi Azii [The Earliest Stages of

Settlement by Man of Northeast Asia]. Novosibirsk.

Mochanov, Yu. A., and S. A. Fedoseeva

1970 Stoianka Enn’ë (pamiatnik bel’kachinskoi neoliticheskoi kul’tury na Aldane) [The Enn’ë

Site (A Site of the Bel’kachi Neolithic Culture on the Aldan)]. In Po sledam drevnikh kul’tur

Yakutii [On the Track of the Early Cultures of Yakutia]. Yakutsk.

1973 Arkheologiia Arktiki i beringomorskie etnokul’turnye sviazi Starogo i Novogo Sveta v

golotsene [Archaeology of the Arctic and the Bering Sea Ethno-Cultural Connections of

the Old and New Worlds in the Holocene]. In Beringiiskaia susha i ee znachenie dlia razvitiia

golarkticheskikh flor i faun v kainozoe [The Beringian Land Bridge and Its Significance for

the Development of Holarctic Flora and Fauna in the Cenozoic]. Khabarovsk.

1975a Periodizatsiia i absoliutnaia khronologiia arkheologicheskikh pamiatnikov Yakutii

[Periodization and Absolute Chronology of the Archaeological Sites of Yakutia]. In

Sootnoshenie drevnikh kul’tur Sibiri s kul’turami sopredel’nykh territorii [Correlation of Early

Cultures of Siberia with the Cultures of Adjoining Territories]. Novosibirsk.

1975b Absoliutnaia khronologiia golotsenovykh kul’tur Severo-Vostochnoi Azii [Absolute

Chronology of the Holocene Cultures of Northeast Asia]. In Yakutiia i ee sosedi v drevnosti

[Yakutia and Its Neighbors in Antiquity]. Yakutsk.
Nikolai N. Dikov 305

Mochanov, Yu. A., S. A. Fedoseeva, E. N. Romanova, and A. A. Sementsov

1970 Mnogosloinaia stoianka Bel’kachi I i ee znachenie dlia postroeniia absoliutnoi

khronologii drevnikh kul’tur Severo-Vostochnoi Azii [The Multi-Component Bel’kachi I

Site and Its Significance for Constructing an Absolute Chronology of the Early Cultures

of Northeast Asia]. In Po sledam drevnikh kul’tur Yakutii [On the Track of the Early

Cultures of Yakutia]. Yakutsk.

1976 Osnovnye etapy drevnei istorii Severo-Vostochnoi Azii [The Primary Stages of the

Early History of Northeast Asia]. In Berinigiia v kainozoe. Vladivostok.

Morlan, R. E.

1965 Hokkaidono sendoki Jidai [Hokkaido Pre-Ceramic Period]. In Sendoki Jidai [The PreCeramic Period]. S. Sugihara (ed.).

1967 The Pre-Ceramic Period of Hokkaido: An Outline. In Arctic Anthropology 4(1):164–220.

1968 Technological Characteristic of Some Wedge-Shaped Cores in Northwestern North

America and Northeast Asia. Paper given at the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Society for

American Archaeology. Santa Fe.

Morlan, V. I.

1971 The Preceramic Period of Japan: Honshu, Shikoku, and Kyushu. In Arctic Anthropology

8(1).

Movesian, A. A.

1975 Anatomicheskie osobennosti stroeniia cherepa i ikh primenenie v genetikoantropologicheskom analize sovremennykh i drevnikh populiatsii Sibiri [The

Anatomical Features of the Structure of the Skull and Their Application in GeneticAnthropological Analysis of the Modern and Early Populations of Siberia]. Avtoref.

dokt. diss. [Abstract of doctoral dissertation]. Moscow.

Müller-Beck, H. G.

1966 Paleohunters in America: Origins and Diffusion. In Science 152(3726):1191–1210.

1967 On Migrations of Hunters Across the Bering Land Bridge in the Upper Pleistocene. In

The Bering Land Bridge. D. M. Hopkins (ed.). Stanford University Press.

Murayama, S.

1970a Ainu in Kamchatka. In Proceedings of the VIII ICAES (Ethnology and Archaeology) 3. Tokyo.

1970b Ainu and the Arctic Region. In Proceedings of the VIII ICAES (Ethnology and Archaeology) 3.

Tokyo.

Murdoch, G.

1892 Ethnological Results of the Point Barrow Expedition. Ninth Annual Report of the Bureau of

American Ethnology. Washington.
306 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Nakamura

1965 Chubu chihi hokubuno sendoki jidai. In Sendoki jidai [The Pre-Ceramic Period].

Nakayama, E.

1933 Excavation of the Old Dwelling Sites at Ust-Kamchatsk on the Eastern Coast of the

Kamchatka Peninsula. In Journal of the Anthropological Society of Tokyo 48(2) (544).

1934 Neolithic Remains from the Eastern Coast of the Kamchatka Peninsula. In Journal of the

Anthropological Society of Tokyo 49(10) (564).

Nalivkin, D. V.

1960 Yarkaia stranitsa v geologicheskoi istorii Azii [A Bright Page in the Geological History

of Asia]. In Priroda 8.

Narody Sibiri.

1956 Narody Sibiri [Peoples of Siberia]. Edited by M. G. Levin and L. P. Potapov. MoscowLeningrad.

Nelson, E. W.

1899 The Eskimo About Bering Strait. Washington: Bureau of American Ethnology, Part 1.

Nelson, N. C.

1937 Notes on Cultural Relations Between Asia and America. In American Antiquity

2(4):267–272.

Nikolaev, R. V.

1959 Karasukskaia kul’tura na Severe Krasnoiarskogo kraia [The Karasukskaia Culture in the

Northern Krasnoyarsk Region]. In Nekotorye voprosy drevnei istorii zapadnoi Sibiri [Some

Questions of Early History of Western Siberia]. Tomsk.

1960 Nekotorye voprosy etnogeneza narodov Krasnoiarskogo Severa [Some Questions of

the Ethnogenesis of the Peoples of the Krasnoyarsk North]. In KSIE 34.

1962 Nekotorye voprosy ketskogo etnogeneza i dinlinskaia problema [Some Questions of

Ket Ethnogenesis and the Dinlin Problem]. In Izv. Krasnoiarskogo otdela VGO [Bulletin of

the Krasnoyarsk Department of the VGO] 30(2).

1973 Nekotorye voprosy etnogeneza ketov v svete dannykh fol’klora [Some Questions on the

Ethnogenesis of the Ket in Light of Folklore Data]. In Problemy etnogeneza narodov Sibiri i

Dal’nego Vostoka [Problems of Ethnogenesis of Peoples of Siberia and the Far East].

Novosibirsk.

Nordenskjold, A. E.

1936 Plavanie na “Vege” [Voyage on the Vega], pt. 2. Leningrad.
Nikolai N. Dikov 307

O doklade . . .

1940 O doklade amerikanskogo antropologa doktora A. Grdlichki v Institute etnografii AN

SSSR [On the Report of the American Anthropologist Doctor A. Hrdli ka to the

Institute of Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences, USSR]. In SE 3.

Oda, S., and Matsusita

1965 Hokkaidono sendoki jidai [Hokkaido Pre-Ceramic Period]. In Sendoki Jidai [The PreCeramic Period]. Sosuke Sugihara (ed.). (Nippon no Kokogaku, 17). Tokyo.

Oda, S., and C. T. Keally

1975 Japanese Preceramic Cultural Chronology. In Archaeological Research Center, International

Christian University. Occasional Papers 2. Mitakashi, Tokyo.

Ogorodnikov, V. I.

1922 Iz istorii pokoreniia Sibiri: Pokorenie yukagirskoi zemli [From the History of the Conquest of

Siberia: The Subjugation of the Land of the Yukagir] 1. Chita.

Ogryzko, I. I.

1961 Rasselenie i chislennost’ itel’menov i kamchatskikh koriakov v kontse XVII v. [The

Settlement and Number of Itel’men and Kamchatka Koryak at the End of the

Seventeenth Century]. In Uchenye zapiski LGPI 222.

Okada, H.

1967 Onokoromanai. Tokyo.

Okladnikov, A. P.

1945 K arkheologicheskomu izucheniiu Sovetskoi Arktiki (itogi i perspektivy) [Toward

Archaeological Study of the Soviet Arctic (Results and Prospects)]. In Problemy Arktiki

[Problems of the Arctic] 2. Moscow-Leningrad.

1946 Lenskie drevnosti [Lena Antiquity] 2. Yakutsk.

1947a Drevnie kul’tury Severo-Vostoka Azii po dannym arkheologicheskikh issledovanii 1946

g. v Kolymskom krae [Early Cultures of Northeast Asia According to the Data of

Archaeological Investigations of 1946 in the Kolyma District]. In VDI 1(9).

1947b Drevnie poseleniia v doline r. Khatangi [Early Settlements in the Khatanga River

Valley]. In KSIIMK 18.

1950a Lenskie drevnosti [Lena Antiquity] 3. Moscow-Leningrad.

1950b Vklad sovetskoi arkheologii v izuchenie proshlogo severnykh narodov [The

Contribution of Soviet Archaeology in the Study of Past of Northern Peoples]. In

Uchen. zap. LGU 115.

1950c Neolit i bronzovyi vek Pribaikal’ia [The Neolithic and Bronze Ages of Pribaikal’e]. In

MIA 18).
308 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

1950d Pervyi neoliticheskii pamiatnik Chukotskogo poluostrova [The First Neolithic Site on

the Chukchi Peninsula]. In KSIIMK 31.

1953a O pervonachal’nom zaselenii chelovekom vnutrennei chasti Chukotskogo poluostrova

[On the Initial Settlement of the Interior of the Chukchi Peninsula]. In Izv. VGO 4.

1953b Narody Severo-Vostoka Sibiri [People of Northeastern Siberia]. In Ocherki istorii SSSR,

period feodalizma, IX-XV vv. [Notes on the History of the USSR, Period of Feudalism,

Nineth to Fifteenth Centuries]. Moscow.

1955a Yakutiia do prisoedineniia k Russkomu gosudarstvu [Yakutia Before Annexation to the

Russian State]. In Istoriia Yakutskoi ASSR [The History of the Yakut Autonomous Soviet

Socialist Republic] 1. Moscow-Leningrad.

1955b Zaselenie Ameriki i Avstralii chelovekom [Man’s Settlement of America and Australia].

In Vsemirnaia istoriia [Global History] 1. Moscow.

1958- Archaeology of the Soviet Arctic. In Acta Arctica 12. Copenhagen.

1960 Shilkinskaia peshchera—pamiatnik drevnei kul’tury verkhov’ev Amura [Shilkinskaia

Cave—A Site of an Early Culture on the Upper Reaches of the Amur]. In MIA 86.

1961a The Paleolithic of Trans-Baikal. In American Antiquity 26(4).

1961b Paleolithic Sites in Trans-Baikal. In Asian Perspectives 4(1–2).

1963 Drevnee poselenie na poluostrove Peschanom u Vladivostoka [An Early Site on the Peschan

Peninsula at Vladivostok]. In MIA 112.

1964 Paleolithic Remains in the Lena River Basin. In The Archaeology and Geomorphology of

Northern Asia. Arctic Institute of North America. Toronto.

1966a Arkheologiia doliny r. Zei i srednego Amura [Archaeology of the Zeia River Valley and

the Middle Amur]. In SA 1.

1966b K voprosu o mezolite i epipaleolite v aziatskoi chasti SSSR (Sibir’ i Sredniaia Aziia) [On

the Question of the Mesolithic and Epi-Paleolithic in the Asiatic Part of the USSR

(Siberia and Central Asia)]. In MIA 126.

1966c Drevnee poselenie na r. Tadushi u der. Ustinovki i problema dal’nevostochnogo

mezolita (v sviazi s raskopkami 1964 g.) [An Early Settlement on the Tadushi River at

Ustinovka Village and Problems of the Far Eastern Mesolithic (in Connection with

Excavations of 1964)]. In Chetvertichnyi period Sibiri [The Quaternary Period in Siberia].

Moscow.

1969 Petroglify Sibibri i Dal’nego Vostoka kak istochnik po etnicheskoi istorii Severnoi Azii

(metodologiia i nekotorye obshchie vyvody) [Petroglyphs of Siberia and the Far East as

a Source in the Ethnic History of Northern Asia (Methodology and Some General

Conclusions)]. In Materialy konferentsii “Etnogenez narodov Severnoi Azii” [Materials of the

“Ethnogenesis of Peoples of Northern Asia” Conference]. Novosibirsk.
Nikolai N. Dikov 309

1970 Neolit Sibiri i Dal’nego Vostoka [The Neolithic of Siberia and the Far East]. In

Kamennyi vek na territorii SSSR. Moscow.

1973 Tsentral’naia Aziia i problema zaseleniia amerikanskogo kontinenta chelovekom

[Central Asia and the Problem of Man’s Settlement of the American Continent]. In

Beringiiskaia susha i ee znachenie dlia rasvitiia golarkticheskikh flor i faun v kainozoe [The

Beringian Land Bridge and Its Significance for the Development of Holarctic Flora and

Fauna in the Cenozoic]. Khabarovsk.

1974 Der Mensch kam aus Siberien [People Came Out of Siberia]. Munich.

1977 Mezolit Dal’nego Vostoka [The Mesolithic of the Far East]. In KSIA 149. Moscow.

Okladnikov, A. P., and Z. A. Abramova

1974 Pervonachal’noe osvoenie paleoliticheskim chelovekom Sibiri i Dal’nego Vostoka

[Paleolithic Man’s Initial Opening Up of Siberia and the Far East]. In Pervobytnyi chelovek i

prirodnaia sreda [Primitive Man and the Natural Environment]. Moscow.

Okladnikov, A. P., and N. A. Beregovaia

1971 Drevnie poseleniia Baranova Mysa [Early Sites of Cape Baranov]. Novosibirsk: Nauka.

Okladnikov, A. P., and A. P. Derevianko

1973a Dalekoe proshloe Primor’ia i Priamur’ia [The Distant Past of Primor’e and Priamur’e].

Khabarovsk.

1973b Paleolit Amura [Paleolithic of the Amur]. In Voprosy istorii Sibiri dosovetskogo perioda

[Questions of Siberian History in the Pre-Soviet Period]. Novosibirsk.

Okladnikov, A. P., and A. I. Mazin

1976 Pisanitsy reki Olekmy i Verkhnego Priamur’ia [Inscriptions of the Olekma River and Upper

Amur Region]. Novosibirsk: Nauka.

Okladnikov, A. P., and V. V. Naryshkin

1955 Novye dannye o drevnikh kul’turakh na Chukotskom poluostrove (drevnee poselenie na

r. Kanchalan) [New Data on Old Cultures of the Chukchi Peninsula (An Early Site on

the Kanchalan River)]. In SE 1.

Okladnikov, A. P., and I. A. Nekrasov

1957 Novye sledy kontinental’noi neoliticheskoi kul’tury na Chukotke (nakhodki u ozera

El’gygytgyn) [New Traces of a Continental Neolithic Culture in Chukotka (Finds on

Lake El’gygytgyn)]. In SA 2.

1960 Drevnie poseleniia v doline r. Maina (po rabotam 1957 goda) [Early Sites in the Valley

of the Main River (Based on Work in 1957)]. In MIA 86. Moscow-Leningrad.
310 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Okladnikov, A. P., and S. L. Troitskii

1967 K izucheniiu chetvertichnykh otlozhenii i paleolita Mongolii [On the Study of

Quaternary Deposits and the Paleolithic of Mongolia]. In Biulleten’ Komissii po izucheniiu

chetvertichnogo perioda [Bulletin of the Commission for the Study of the Quaternary

Period] 33.

Okladnikov, A. P., and R. S. Vasil’evskii

1976 Po Aliaske i Aleutskim ostrovam [Through Alaska and the Aleutian Islands]. Novosibirsk.

Okladnikova, E. A.

1972 Petroglify Amura i Kanady: svidetel’stvo drevnikh kontaktov Azii s Amerikoi

[Petroglyphs of the Amur and Canada: Evidence of Early Contacts Between Asia and

America]. In Ocherki sotsial’no-ekonomicheskoi i kul’turnoi zhizni Sibiri [Outlines of

Socioeconomic and Cultural Life in Siberia]. Novosbirsk.

1976a O sviazi naskal’nykh risunkov Dal’nego Vostoka i Ameriki [On the Connection of Cliff

Drawings of the Far East and America]. In Izv. SO AN SSSR.

1976b Iskusstvo paleolita Evrazii i problema proiskhozhdeniia amerikanskogo cheloveka (o

rabote P. Bosh-Gimpery “Proiskhozhdenie okhotnikov Ameriki v svete novykh

aspektov paleolita Evrazii”) [Art of Paleolithic Eurasia and the Problem of the Origin

of American Man (On the Work of P. Bosch-Gimpera “The Origin of the Hunters of

America in Light of new Aspects of Paleolithic Eurasia”)]. In Izv. SO AN SSSR, ser.

obshch. nauk 2(6). Novosibirsk.

On Migrations. . .

1967 On Migrations of Hunters Across the Bering Land Bridge in the Upper Pleistocene. In

The Bering Land Bridge. D. M. Hopkins (ed.). Stanford University Press.

Orekhov, A. A.

1976 Raboty v severo-zapadnom Beringomor’e [Work in the Northwestern Bering Sea]. In

AO 1975 g.

1977 Predvaritel’naia tipologiia kostianykh nakonechnikov Severo-Zapadnogo Beringomor’ia

[A Preliminary Typology of Bone Points from Northwestern Bering Sea]. In

Kraevedicheskie zapiski 11. Magadan.

Orlova, E. P.

1947 Arkheologicheskie nakhodki na Kamchatke [Archaeological Finds in Kamchatka]. In

KSIIMK 21.

Ossa, P., and M. E. Moseley

1971 La Cumbre: A Preliminary Report on Research into the Early Lithic Occupation of the

Moche Valley. In Nawpa Pacha 9. Peru.
Nikolai N. Dikov 311

Oswalt, W. H.

1953 Northeast Asian and Alaskan Pottery Relationships. In Southwestern Journal of Anthropology

9(4):394–407.

Panichkina, M. Z.

1959 Paleoliticheskie nukleusy [Paleolithic Cores]. In Arkheologicheskii sbornik Gos. Ermitazha

[Archaeological Bulletin of the State: Hermitage]. Leningrad.

Pendergast, D.

1971 Evidence of Early Teotihuacan-Lowland Maya Contact at Altunha. In American Antiquity

36(4).

Pericot, L. G.

n.d. La cueva del Parpallo (Gandia) [The Cave of Parpallo (Gandia)]. Madrid.

Péwé, T. L., D. M. Hopkins, and J. L. Giddings

1965 The Quaternary of the United States. Princeton, N.J.

1968 Chetvertichnaia geologiia i arkheologiia Aliaski [The Quaternary Geology and

Archaeology of Alaska]. In Chetvertichnyi period v SshA [The Quaternary Period in the

USA] 1. Moscow.

Piip, B. I.

1948 Novoe eruptivnoe sostoianie vulkana Shiveluch s kontsa 1944 po mai 1945 g. i

nekotorye zamechaniia o geologicheskoi strukture etogo vulkana i ego proshlykh

izverzheniiakh [New Eruptive Condition of the Shiveluch Volcano from the End of

1944 to May 1945 and Some of the Observations on Geological Structure of this

Volcano and Its Past Eruptions]. In Biulleten’ vulkanologicheskoi stantsii na Kamchatke

[Bulletin of Volcanic Station in Kamchatka] 14. Moscow-Leningrad.

Podol’skii, I. L.

1972 Ob otsenke klassifikatsionnoi znachimosti priznakov [On the Appraisal of Classified

Significance of Features]. In Tezisy dokladov na sektsiiakh posviashchennykh itogam polevykh

issledovanii 1971 goda [Topics of Reports at Workshops Dedicated to the Results of Field

Investigations of 1971]. Moscow.

Ponomarenko, A. K.

1976 Novye stoianki neolita Kamchatki [New Neolithic Sites of Kamchatka]. In Tr. SVKNII

DVNTs AN SSSR 67. Magadan.

Popov, A. A.

1948 Nganasany [The Nganasany]. Moscow-Leningrad.
312 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Popov, N. I.

1878 Ob orudiiakh kamennogo veka na severe i vostoke Sibiri [About the Stone Age Tools in

the North and East of Siberia]. In Izv. VSO RGO [Bulletin of the East Siberian Branch

of the Russian Geographic Society] 9(1–2). Irkutsk.

Portenko, L. A.

1970 Beringiiskie sviazi mezhdu Evraziei i severnoi Amerikoi v predstavlenii zoogeografov

[Beringian Connections Between Eurasia and North America in the Notions of

Zoogeographers]. In Severnyi Ledovityi okean i ego poberezh’e v kainozoe [The Arctic Ocean

and Its Coast in the Cenozoic]. Leningrad.

Powers, W. R.

1973 Paleolithic Man in North Asia. In Arctic Anthropology 10(2).

Pozdneev, D.

1908 Yapono-russkii ieroglificheskii slovar’ (po kliuchevoi sisteme) [Japanese-Russian Hieroglyphic

Dictionary (Based on the Key System)]. Tokyo.

Praslov, N. D.

1965 Rannii paleolit Severo-Vostochnogo Priazov’ia i Nizhnego Dona [The Early Paleolithic

of Northeastern Priazov’e and the Lower Don]. Avtoref. kand. diss. [Abstract of

dissertation for candidacy]. Leningrad.

Problemy. . .

1973 Problemy etnogeneza narodov Sibiri [Problems of the Ethnogenesis of the Peoples of

Siberia]. In Tezisy dokladov Vsesoiuznoi konferentsii [Topics of Reports from the All-Union

Conference]. Novosibirsk.

Pytliakov, G. A., and A. V. Beliavea

1957 Arkheologicheskie raboty na Okhotskom poberezh’e [Archaeological Work on the

Okhotsk Coast]. In Kraevedcheskie zapiski 1. Magadan.

Quimby, G.

1947 The Prehistory of Kamchatka. In American Antiquity 3.

Rainey, F. G.

1939 Archaeology in Central Alaska. In Anthropological Papers of the AMNH 4(5):351–405. New

York.

1941 Eskimo Prehistory: The Okvik Site on the Punuk Islands. In Anthropological Papers of the

AMNH 37(4):453–569. New York.

1953 The Significance of Recent Archaeological Discoveries in Island Alaska. In Asia and

North American Trans-Pacific Contacts. M. W. Smith (ed.). Memoirs of the SAA 9:43–46. Salt

Lake City.
Nikolai N. Dikov 313

1958 Arkheologiia amerikanskoi Arktiki [Archaeology of the American Arctic]. In SE 2.

Rainey, F. G., and E. I. Ralph

1959 Radiocarbon Dating in the Arctic. In American Antiquity 24(4):365–374.

Ranov, V. A.

1965 Kamennyi vek Tadzhikistana [The Stone Age of Tadzhikistan]. Dushanbe.

Rekonstruktsiia. . . .

1974 Rekonstruktsiia drevnikh obshchestvennykh otnoshenii po arkheologicheskim

materialam zhilishch i poselenii [Reconstruction of Early Social Relations Using the

Archaeological Materials of Dwellings and Settlements]. In Kratkie tezisy dokladov na

ob‘edinennom simpoziume metodologicheskogo seminara i sektora Srednei Azii i Kavkasa LO IA

AN SSSR [Short Topics of Reports at the Combined Symposium of the

Methodological Seminar and the Sector of Central Asia and the Caucasus LO IA AN

SSSR]. Leningrad.

Reshetov, Yu. G.

1966 Priroda zemli i proiskhozhdenie cheloveka [The Nature of the Land and the Origin of Man].

Moscow.

Rogachev, A. N.

1966 Nekotorye voprosy izucheniia epipaleolita vostochnoi Evropy [Some Questions on the

Study of the Epi-Paleolithic of Eastern Europe]. In MIA 126.

1970 Paleoliticheskie zhilishcha i poseleniia [Paleolithic Dwellings and Settlements]. In

Kamennyi vek na territorii SSSR [The Stone Age in the Territory of theUSSR]. Moscow.

Roginskii, Ya. Ya.

1969 Problemy antropogeneza [Problems of Anthropogenesis]. Moscow.

Ruban, V. I.

1976 Issledovaniia na zapadnom poberezh’e Kamchatki [Investigations on the West Coast Of

Kamchatka]. In AO 1976 g. Moscow.

1979 Predvaritel’nye rezul’taty arkheologicheskoi razvedki na zapadnom poberezh’e

Kamchatki [Preliminary Results of Archaeological Survey on the Western Shore of

Kamchatka]. In Novye arkheologicheskie pamiatniki severa Dal’nego Vostoka (po dannym SeveroVostochno-Aziatskoi arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii) [New Archaeological Sites of the

Northern Far East (Based on Data of the Northeast Asian Archaeological Expedition)].

Magadan.

Rubtsova, E. S.

1954 Materialy po yazyku i fol’kloru eskimosov (chaplinskii dialekt) [Materials on the Language and

Folklore of the Eskimos (Chaplino Dialect)]. Moscow-Leningrad.
314 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Rudenko, S. I.

1947 Drevnyaya kul’tura Beringova morya i eskimosskaya problema [The Ancient Culture of the

Bering Sea and the Eskimo Problem]. Moscow-Leningrad. [English translation: The

Ancient Culture of the Bering Sea and the Eskimo Problem. Toronto: University of Toronto

Press. 1972].

1948 Kul’tura doistoricheskogo naseleniia Kamchatki [The Culture of the Prehistoric

Population of Kamchatka]. In SE 1.

1960 Ust’-Kanskaia peshchernaia paleoliticheskaia stoianka [The Paleolithic Ust’-Kanskaia

Cave Site]. In MIA 79.

Russkie arkticheskie . . .

1964 Russkie arkticheskie ekspeditsii XVII–XX vv. [Russian Arctic Expeditions, Seventeenth to

Eighteenth Centuries]. Leningrad.

Russkie morekhody . . .

1952 Russkie morekhody v Ledovitom i Tikhom okeanakh [Russian Sailors in the Arctic and Pacific

Oceans]. In Sb. dokumentov. Moscow-Leningrad.

Rybakov, B. A

1976 Istorizm arkheologii [The Historical Method of Archaeology]. In Konferentsiia. Istorizm

arkheologii: metodologicheskie problemy. Tezisy dokladov [Conference. The Historical Method

of Archaeology: Methodological Problems. Topics of Reports]. Moscow.

Rychkov, Yu. G., and V. A. Sheremet’eva

1976 Genetiko-antropologicheskie aspekty problemy “Chelovek i sreda” v oblasti Beringii

[The Genetic-Anthropological Aspect of the Problem of “Man and Environment” in

the Beringian Region]. In Beringiia v kainozoe [Beringia in the Cenozoic]. Vladivostok.

Saiapin, A. K., and N. N. Dikov

1958 Drevnie sledy kamennogo veka na Chukotke (nakhodki na beregu ozera El’gygytgyn)

[Early Traces of the Stone Age in Chukotka (Finds on the Shore of Lake El’gygytgyn)].

In Zap. ChOKM 1. Magadan.

Salova, O. A.

1976 K voprosu o paleolite Kuril’skikh ostrovov [On the Question of the Paleolithic in the

Kurile Islands]. In Sibir’, Tsentral’naia i Vostochnaia Aziia v drevnosti [Siberia and Central

and Eastern Asia in Antiquity]. Novosibirsk.

Sander, D.

1966 Excavations in the Lochnore-Nesiker Creek Locality, British Columbia: Interim Report.

In Anthropological Papers of the National Museum of Canada 12. Ottawa.
Nikolai N. Dikov 315

Sarychev, G. A.

1802 Puteshestvie flota kapitana Sarycheva po severo-vostochnoi chasti Sibiri [The Voyage of Fleet

Captain Sarychev Through the Northeast Part of Siberia] 2. St. Petersburg. Second

edition, Moscow, 1952.

Sato, T.

1960 Microlithic Industry in Hulum-Buir. In Kokogaku Zasshi 46(3). Tokyo.

Schlesier, K.-H.

1967 Senda Creek: Report on Archaeological Survey on the Arctic Slope of the Brooks

Range. In American Antiquity 32(2):210–222.

Schnell, I.

1932 Prehistoric Finds from the Island World of the Far East, Now Preserved in the Museum

of Far Eastern Antiquities, Stockholm. In Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquites 4.

Stockholm.

Schuster, C.

1970 The Ainu Jnao: Some Comparative Considerations. In Proceedings of the VIII ICAES

(Ethnology and Archaeology) 3. Tokyo.

Semenov, A. V.

1964 O drevnei kul’ture Koriakskogo okruga [On the Early Culture of the Koryak District].

In Tr. SVKNII SO AN SSSR 8. Magadan.

Semenov, S. A.

1957 Pervobytnaia tekhnika [Primitive Technology]. In MIA 54.

1968 Razvitie tekhniki v kamennom veke [The Development of Technology in the Stone Age].

Leningrad.

1976 Fundamental’nye problemy istoricheskikh nauk [Fundamental Problems of Historical

Sciences]. In Konferentsiia. Istorizm arkheologii: metodologicheskie problemy. Tezisy dokladov

[Conference. The Historical Method of Archaeology: Methodological Problems. Topics

of Reports]. Moscow.

Semenov, Yu. I.

1973 O materinskom rode i osedlosti v pozdnem paleolite [On the Maternal Clan and

Sedentism in the Late Paleolithic]. In SE 4.

Serizawa, S.

1967 The Chronology of Paleolithic Industries and Carbon 14 Dates in Japan. In Reports of the

Research Institute for Japanese Culture (Sendai) 3.

1968 The Hoshino Site. Tokyo.
316 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

1970 The Chronological Sequence of the Paleolithic Cultures of Japan and the Relationship

with Mainland Asia. In Proceedings of the VIII ICAES (Ethnology and Archaeology) 3. Tokyo.

Serizawa, S. and F. Ikawa

1960 The Oldest Archaeological Materials from Japan. In Asian Perspectives 2(2).

Shargorodskii, S.

1895 Ob yukagirskikh pis’menakh [On Yukagir Writings]. In Zemlevedenie 2 & 3. Moscow.

Sharevskaia, B.

1947 Polevye arkheologicheskie issledovaniia v Amerike (za poslednie gody) [Field

Archaeological Investigations in America (In Recent Years)]. In SE 2.

Sher, A. V.

1969 Znachenie ostatkov mlekopitaiushchikh dlia stratigrafii i korreliatsii pleistotsenovykh

otlozhenii Krainego Severo-Vostoka SSSR i Severnoi Ameriki [The Significance of

Mammal Remains for Stratigraphy and Correlation of Pleistocene Deposits of the

Extreme Northeast of the USSR and North America]. Avtoref. kand. dis. [Abstract of

dissertation for candidacy]. Moscow.

1970 Pleistotsenovaia fauna mlekopitaiushchikh ravninnykh poberezhii VostochnoSibirskogo moria i problema Beringiiskoi sushi [Pleistocene Mammal Fauna of the

Lowland Coasts of the East Siberian Sea and the Problem of the Bering Land Bridge].

In Severnyi Ledovityi okean i ego poberezh’e v kainozoe [The Arctic Ocean and Its Coast in the

Cenozoic]. Gidrometeoizdat, Leningrad.

1971 Mlekopitaiushchie i stratigrafiia pleistotsena Severo-Vostoka SSSR i Severnoi Ameriki [Mammals

and Stratigraphy of the Pleistocene of the Northeastern USSR and North America].

Moscow.

1976 Rol’ Beringiiskoi sushi v formirovanii fauny mlekopitaiushchikh Golarktiki v pozdnem

kainozoe [The Role of the Bering Land Bridge in the Forming a Holarctic Mammal

Fauna During the Late Cenozoic]. In Beringiia v kainozoe [Beringia in the Cenozoic].

Vladivostok.

Shilo, N. A.

1978 Nakhodka mamonta na ruch’e Kirgiliakh v Magadanskoi oblasti [The Find of a

Mammoth on Kirgiliakh Creek in the Magadan District]. In Priroda 1.

Shilo, N. A., V. V. Boichuk, and S. V. Tomirdiaro

1969 Formirovanie i rasprostranenie tsirkumpoliarnykh nazemnykh oledenenii v severnom

polusharii [The Formation and Development of Circum-Polar Land Ice in the Northern

Hemisphere]. In Paleogeograficheskie aspekty izmeneniia prirodnykh uslovii Sibiri i Dal’nego

Vostoka [Paleogeographic Aspects of Change of Natural Conditions in Siberia and the

Far East]. Novosibirsk.
Nikolai N. Dikov 317

Shilo, N. A., N. N. Dikov, and A. V. Lozhkin

1967 Pervye dannye po stratigrafii paleolita Kamchatki [The First Data on Paleolithic

Stratigraphy of Kamchatka]. In Tr. SV KNII SO AN SSSR 17.

1976 Radiouglerodnye datirovki drevnikh kul’tur v verkhnechetvertichnykh otlozheniiakh

Severo-Vostoka SSSR [Radiocarbon Dates of the Early Cultures of the Upper

Quaternary Deposits of the Northeastern USSR]. In Doklady Akademii nauk SSSR

[Presentations of the USSR Academy of Sciences] 231(5). Moscow.

Shilo, N. A., N. N. Dikov, and A. V. Lozhkin

1967 The First Data According to the Stratigraphy of the Paleolithic in Kamchatka. In Works

of the SVKNII SO AN SSSR 17.

Shilo, N. A., N. N. Dikov, A. V. Lozhkin, A. V. Starikov

1979 Novye radiouglerodnye datirovki arkheologicheskikh pamiatnikov iz

verkhnechetvertichnykh otlozhenii Severa Dal’nego Vostoka [New Radiocarbon Dates

of Archaeological Sites from Upper Quaternary Deposits of the Northern Far East]. In

Doklady Akademii nauk SSSR 237(3). Moscow.

Shnirel’man, V. A.

1977 Rol’ domashnikh zhivotnykh v periferiinykh obshchestvakh (na primere traditsionnykh

obshchestv Sibiri i Ameriki) [The Role of Domestic Animals in Outlying Societies (On

the Example of Traditional Societies of Siberia and America)]. In SE 2.

Shovkoplias, I. G.

1973 Paleoliticheskie zhilishcha v SSSR [Paleolithic Dwellings in the USSR]. In Pozdnii

pleistotsen i golotsen Severo-Vostoka Aziatskoi chasti SSSR i khronologiia osnovnykh sobytii. Tesisy

[The Late Pleistocene and Holocene of the Northeast Asian Part of the USSR and the

Chronology of the Primary Events. Topics]. Moscow.

Shternberg, L. Ya.

1929 Ainskaia problema [The Ainu Problem]. In Sb. MAE 8. Leningrad.

1933 Sem’ia i rod u narodov Severo-Vostochnoi Azii [The Family and the Kin Group Among

Peoples of Northeast Asia]. Leningrad.

Shvartsbakh, M

1955 Klimaty proshlogo [Climates of the Past]. Moscow.

Sidorov, A. A.

1973 K voprosu o funktsiiakh skrebkov [On the Question of the Functions of Scrapers]. In

SA 3.
318 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Simchenko, Yu. B.

1976 Kul’tura okhotnikov na olenei Severnoi Evrazii [The Culture of Hunters of Reindeer of

Northern Eurasia]. Moscow.

Skiba, L. A., and I. M. Khoreva

1966 O verkhnepleistotsenovykh i golotsenovykh otlozheniiakh ostrova Karaginskogo [On

the Upper Pleistocene and Holocene Deposits of Karaginskii Island]. In BKIChP 32.

Sliunin, N. V.

1900 Okhotsko-Kamchatskii krai [The Okhotsk-Kamchatka District] 1. St. Petersburg.

Smirnov, A. P.

1964 K voprosu ob arkheologicheskoi kul’ture [On the Question of Archaeological Culture].

In SA 4.

Solecki, R. S.

1951 Archaeology and Ecology of the Arctic Slope of Alaska. In Annual Report of the

Smithsonian Institution for the Year 1950. Washington.

Starkova, N. K.

1976 Itel’meny. Material’naia kul’tura (XVIII v.–60-e gody XX v.) [The Itel’men. Material Culture

(Eighteenth Century to the 1960s). Moscow.

Stepanov, N. N.

1937 Osvoboditel’naia bor’ba narodov Severo-Vostoka v XVII v. [The Emancipatory

Struggle of the Peoples of the Northeast in the Seventeenth Century]. In Pamiati V. G.

Bogoraza [In Memory of W. G. Bogoras]. Moscow-Leningrad.

Stepanov, V. P.

1976 Prirodnaia sreda i nekotorye aspekty istorii chelovechestva v kompleksnom

rassmotrenii [The Natural Environment and Some Aspects of the History of Humanity

in Interdisciplinary Examination]. In SA 3.

Stoliar, A. D.

1972 K voprosu o sotsial’no-istoricheskoi deshifrovke zhenskikh znakov verkhnego paleolita

[On the Question of Socio-Historic Deciphering of Female Symbols of the Upper

Paleolithic]. In Paleolit i neolit SSSR [Paleolithic and Neolithic of the USSR] 7 (MIA 185).

Leningrad.

1977 Opyt analiza kompozitsionnykh struktur petroglifov Belomor’ia (Kareliia) [An Attempt

at Analysis of Compositional Structure of the Petroglyphs of Belomor’e (Karelia)]. In

SA 3.
Nikolai N. Dikov 319

Sugihara, S.

1968 The Archaeological Museum of Neiji University. Tokyo.

1970 Similarity and Differences Between the Prehistoric Cultures of Japan and Alaska. In

Proceedings of the VIII ICAES (Ethnology and Archaeology) 3. Tokyo.

Sugihara, S., and M. Tozawa

1960 Preceramic Age in Japan. In Acta asiatica. Tokyo.

Svedeniia o . . .

1852 Svedeniia o Chukchakh kapitana Shishmareva [Information of Captain Shishmarev on

the Chukchi]. Zapiski gidrograficheskogo departamenta Morskogo ministerstvab [Notes of the

Hydrographic Department of the Naval Ministry] 10. St. Petersburg.

Sverdrup, G. U.

1930 Plavanie na sudne “Mod” v vodakh morei Laptevykh i Vostochno-Sibirskogo [The

Voyage of the Ship Maud in the Waters of the Laptev and East Siberian Seas]. In

Materialy komissii po izucheniiu Yakutskoi ASSR [Materials of the Committee on the Study

of the Yakut Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic] 30. Leningrad.

Svitoch, A. A.

1976 Stroenie i vozrast morskikh terras Nizhne-Anadyrskoi nizmennosti [The Structure and

Age of the Sea Terraces of the Lower Anadyr’ Lowlands]. In Beringiia v kainozoe

[Beringia in the Cenozoic]. Vladivostok.

Swadesh, M.

1952 Lexico-Statistic Dating of Prehistoric Ethnic Contacts. In Proceedings of the American

Philosophical Society 96(4):452–463.

1962 Linguistic Relations Across Bering Strait. In American Anthropologist 64(6):1262–1289.

Taksami, Ch. M.

1975a Obshchie elementy v traditsionnoi kul’ture narodov Tikhookeanskogo poberezh’ia

SSSR [Common Elements in the Traditional Culture of the Peoples of the Pacific Coast

of the USSR]. In Sootnoshenie drevnikh kul’tur Sibiri s kul’turami sopredel’nykh territorii

[Correlation of Early Cultures of Siberia with the Cultures of Adjoining Territories].

Novosibirsk.

1975b Osnovnye problemy etnografii i istroii nivkhov [The Primary Problems of the Ethnography and

History of the Nivkhi]. Leningrad: Nauka.

1977 Nivkhi. Problemy khoziaistva, obshchestvennogo stroia i etnicheskoi istorii (seredina

XIX–nachalo XX vekov) [The Nivkhi. Problems of Economy, Social Structure, and

Ethnic History (Middle of the Nineteenth to Beginning of the Twentieth Centuries)].

Avtoref. dokt. dis. [Abstract of doctoral dissertation]. Moscow.
320 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Tein, T. S.

1977 Issledovaniia v Chertovom ovrage na o. Vrangelia [Investigations in Devil’s Gorge on

Wrangel Island]. In AO 1976 g. Moscow.

1979 Issledovanie pervogo paleoeskimosskogo pamiatnika na o. Vrangelia [Investigation of

the First Paleo-Eskimo Site on Wrangel Island]. In Novye arkheologicheskie pamiatniki severa

Dal’nego Vostoka (po dannym SVAKAE) [New Archaeological Sites of the Northern Far

East (Based on the Data of the SVAKAE)]. Magadan.

Titov, V. S.

1962 Pervoe obshchestvennoe razdelenie truda. Drevneishie zemledel’cheskie i

skotovodcheskie plemena [The First Social Division of Work. The Earliest Agricultural

and Stock-Breeding Tribes]. In KSIIMK 88.

Tiushev, V. N.

1906 Po zapadnomu beregu Kamchatki [Along the Western Shore of Kamchatka]. In Zapiski

IRGO po obshchei geografii [Notes of Imperial Russian Geographic Society. Division of

General Geography ] 37(2). St. Petersburg.

Tolstoy, P.

1958 The Archaeology of the Lena Basin and Its New World Relationships. In American

Antiquity 23(4).

Tomirdiaro, S. V.

1969 Priroda obshchego pokholodaniia klimata v kainozoe i lednikovykh epokh v

antropogene [The Nature of the General Cooling of the Climate in the Cenozoic and the

Ice Age During the Anthropogene]. In Trudy IV soveshchaniia geografov Sibiri i Dal’nego

Vostoka [Works of the Fourth Conference of Geographers of Siberia and the Far East].

Moscow.

1976 Arkticheskaia lessovo-ledovaia ravnina kak amerikano-aziatskii most i ee

termokarstovoe razrushenie v golotsene [The Arctic Loess-Glacial Plain as the

American-Asian Bridge and its Thermkarstic Destruction During the Holocene]. In

Beringiia v kainozoe [Beringia in the Cenozoic]. Vladivostok.

Tozawa, M.

1965 Kanto chihino sendoki jidai. In Sendoki jidai [The Pre-Ceramic Period]. Tokyo.

1968 Preceramic Industry with Knife-Blades of Sunagawa, Saitama Pref. In Kokogaku Syukan

(Memoirs of the Tokyo Archaeological Society) 4(1).

Tseitlin, S. M.

1969 Nekotorye problemy geologicheskoi periodizatsii i paleogeografii paleolita Sibiri [Some

Problems of Geological Periodization and Paleogeography of the Siberian Paleolithic].

In Osnovnye problemy geologii antropogena Evrazii [Basic Problems of Geology of the

Eurasian Anthropogene]. Moscow.
Nikolai N. Dikov 321

1972 Nekotorye voprosy geologii i geologicheskoi periodizatsii pamiatnikov paleolita Sibiri

[Some Questions of Geology and Geological Periodization of Sites of Paleolithic

Siberia]. In BKIChP 38.

1975 Skhema geologicheskoi periodizatsii paleolita Severnoi Azii [A Schema of Geological

Periodization of the North Asian Paleolithic]. In Sootnoshenie drevnikh kul’tur Sibiri s

kul’turami sopredel’nykh territorii [Correlation of Early Cultures of Siberia with the Cultures

of Adjoining Territories]. Novosibirsk.

Tugarinov, A. Ya.

1934 Opyt istorii arkticheskoi fauny Evrazii [Experiment in the History of the Arctic Fauna

of Eurasia]. In Tr. II Mezhdunarodn. konferentsii Assotsiatsii po izucheniiu chetvertichnogo perioda

Evropy [Works of the 2nd International Conference of the Association for the Study of

the Quaternary Period in Europe]. Moscow-Leningrad 5. Novosbirsk.

Turner, C. G., and J. A. Turner

1974 Progress Report on Evolutionary Anthropological Study of Akun Strait District,

Eastern Aleutians, Alaska, 1970–1971. In APUA 16(1):25–57.

Vainshtein, S. I

1951 K voprosu ob etnogeneze ketov [On Questions of the Ethnogenesis of the Ket]. In

KSIE 13

1972 Istoricheskaia etnografiia tuvintsev (Problemy kochevogo khoziaistva) [A Historical Ethnography

of the Tuvin People (Problems of a Nomadic Economy)]. Moscow.

Vasil’evskii, R. S.

1959 Itogi polevykh issledovanii, provedennykh na Okhotskom poberezh’e v 1958 g. [Results

of Field Work Conducted on the Okhotsk Coast in 1958]. In Kraevedcheskie zapiski 2.

Magadan.

1960 Arkheologicheskie materialy poseleniia Atargan [Archaeological Materials from the

Atargan Site]. In Kraevedcheskie zapiski 2. Magadan.

1964a Drevnee naselenie Okhotskogo poberezh’ia i ego kul’tura [The Early Population of the

Okhotsk Coast and Its Culture]. In Drevniaia Sibir’. Ulan-Uda.

1964b Nakhodka metalla v poselenii Atargan na Okhotsskom poberezh’e [The Discovery of

Metal in the Atargan Site on the Okhotsk Coast]. In Arkheologiia i etnografiia Dal’nego

Vostoka [Archaeology and Ethnography of the Far East] I. Novosibirsk.

1965a Arkheologicheskie issledovaniia na poberezh’e Tauiskoi guby [Archaeological

Investigations on the Shore of Tauisk Bay]. In Kraevedcheskie zapiski 5. Magadan.

1965b K istorii drevnikh kul’tur Okhotskogo poberezh’ia: (po arkheologicheskim materialam

kollektsii M. G. Levina s ostrova Zav’ialova) [On the History of the Early Cultures of

the Okhotsk Coast (Based on Archaeological Materials from the Collection of M. G.

Levin from Zav’ialov Island)]. In SE 1. Moscow.
322 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

1966 Drevnekoriakskaia kul’tura Okhotskogo poberezh’ia i ee mesto v kul’turnoi istorii

Severo-Vostochnoi Azii [The Old Koryak Culture of the Okhotsk Coast and Its Place in

the Cultural History of Northeast Asia]. Avtoref. dis. . . . kand. ist. nauk [Abstract of

dissertation for candidacy in Historical Sciences]. Novosibirsk.

1968a Arkheologicheskie issledovaniia na Ilime v 1967 godu [Archaeological Investigations at

Ilim in 1967]]. In Izv. SO AN SSSR. Ser. obshch. nauk, 2(6).

1968b O pervonachal’nom formirovanii drevnekoriakskoi kul’tury v severnoi chasti

Okhotskogo poberezh’ia [On the Initial Forming of Old Koryak Culture on the

Northern Part of the Okhotsk Coast]. In Voprosy istorii sotsial’no-ekonomicheskoi i kul’turnoi

zhizni Sibiri i Dal’nego Vostoka [Questions of the History of Socioeconomic and Cultural

Life of Siberia and the Far East]. Novosibirsk.

1969 The Origin of the Ancient Koryak Culture on the Northern Okhotsk Coast. In Arctic

Anthropology 6(1).

1970a K voprosu o neolite Okhotskogo poberezh’ia [On the Question of the Neolithic of the

Okhotsk Coast]. In Sibir’ i ee sosedi v drevnosti [Yakutia and Its Neighbors in Antiquity].

Novosibirsk.

1970b The Problem of the North Pacific Sea Hunters Culture. In Proceedings of the VIII ICAES

(Ethnology and Archaeology) 3. Tokyo.

1971 Proiskhozhdenie i drevniaia kul’tura Koriakov [The Origin and Ancient Culture of the

Koryak]. Nauka, Novosibirsk.

1973 Drevnie kul’tury Tikhookeanskogo Severa [Early Cultures of the Pacific Ocean North].

Novosibirsk.

1974 Drevnie kul’tury Tikhookeanskogo Severa: (istoki, adaptatsiia i evoliutsiia primorskiky

kul’tur) [Early Cultures of the North Pacific Ocean (Sources, Adaptations, and

Evolution of Maritime Cultures)]. Avtoref. dis. . . . dokt. ist. nauk [Abstract of doctoral

dissertation in Historical Sciences]. Novosibirsk.

1975a Voprosy adaptatsii naseleniia k pribrezhnym usloviiam na Tikhookeanskom Severe

[Questions of the Adaptation of the Population to Coastal Conditions on the North

Pacific Ocean]. In Sootnoshenie drevnikh kul’tur Sibiri s kul’turami sopredel’nykh territorii

[Correlation of Early Cultures of Siberia with the Cultures of Adjoining Territories].

Novosibirsk.

1975b Pamiatniki kamennogo veka na Kuril’skikh ostrovakh [Stone Age Sites in the Kurile

Islands]. In Arkheologiia severnoi i tsentral’noi Azii [Archaeology of Northern and Central

Asia]. Novosibirsk.

1975c The Problem of the Origin of the Ancient Cultures of the Sea Hunters on the North

Pacific Coast. In IX ICAES. Chicago.

1976 O roli Beringii v zaselenii Aleutskikh ostrovov [On the Role of Beringia in the

Settlement of the Aleutian Islands]. In Beringiia v Kainozoe [Beringia in the Cenozoic].

Vladivostok.
Nikolai N. Dikov 323

Vasil’evskii, R. S., and B. G. Grigorenko

1968 K voprosu ob okhotskoi kul’ture [On the Question of Okhotsk Culture]. In Voprosy

istorii sotsial’no-ekonomicheskoi i kul’turnoi zhizni Sibiri i Dal’nego Vostoka [Questions of the

History of Socioeconomic and Cultural Life in Siberia and the Far East] 2. Novosibirsk.

Vasil’evskii, R. S., and V. O. Shubin

1976 Novye materialy po drevnei istorii Sakhalina [New Materials on the Early History of

Sakhalin]. In Sibir’, Tsentral’naia i Vostochnaia Aziia v drevnosti [Siberia and Central and

Eastern Asia in Antiquity]. Novosibirsk.

Vasil’evskii, R. S., and V. A. Golubev

1976 Drevnie poseleniia na Sakhaline: Susuiskaia stoianka [Early Sites on Sakhalin: The Susuiskaia

Site]. Nauka, Novosibirsk.

Vas’kovskii, A. P.

1963 Ocherk stratigrafii antropogennykh (chetvertichnykh) otlozhenii Krainego SeveroVostoka Azii [An Outline of the Stratigraphy of the Anthropogene (Quaternary)

Deposits of Extreme Northeast Asia]. In Materialy po geologii i poleznym iskopaemym SeveroVostoka SSSR [Materials on the Geology and Minerals of the Northeastern USSR]16.

Magadan.

Vdovin, I. S.

1944 Rasselenie narodnostei Severo-Vostoka Azii vo vtoroi polovine XVII i nachale XVIII v.

[Resettlement of the Peoples of Northeast Asia During the Second Half of the

Seventeenth and Beginning of the Eighteenth Centuries]. In Izv. VGO 76(5).

1950 K istorii obshchestvennogo stroia chukchei [Toward a History of the Social Structure of

the Chukchi]. In Uchen. zap. Leningr. Un-ta 115.

1954 Istoriia izucheniia paleoaziatskikh yazykov [The History of the Study of Paleo-Asiatic

Languages]. Moscow-Leningrad.

1961 Eskimosskie elementy v kul’ture chukchei i koriakov [Eskimo Elements in the Culture

of the Chukchi and Koryak]. In Sibirskii etnograficheskii sbornik. TIE, new series, 64.

1965 Ocherki istorii i etnografii chukchei [Outline of the History and Ethnography of the

Chukchi]. Moscow; Leningrad.

1966 The Traces of an Aleut-Eskimo Culture on the Kamchatka Pacific Shore. In XI Pacific

Science Congress. Tokyo.

1968 Narody Severo-Vostoka (koriaki i chukchi) [Peoples of the Northeast (the Koryak and

Chukchi)]. In Istoriia Sibiri [The History of Siberia] 1. Leningrad.

1970 K probleme etnogeneza itel’menov [On the Problem of the Ethnogenesis of the

Itel’men]. In SE 3.
324 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

1971 Zhertvennye mesta koriakov i ikh istoriko-etnograficheskoe znachenie [Sacrificial Places

of the Koryak and Their Historical-Ethnographic Significance]. In Religioznye

predstavleniia i obriady narodov Sibiri v XIX–nachale XX v. [Religious Images and

Ceremonies of the Peoples of Siberia in the Nineteenth and Beginning of the Twentieth

Centuries]. Leningrad: Nauka.

1972 Yukagiry v etnicheskoi istorii koriakov i chukchei [The Yukagir in the Ethnic History of

the Koryak and Chukchi]. In Etnicheskaia istoriia narodov Azii [The Ethnic History of the

Peoples of Asia]. Moscow: Nauka.

1973 Ocherki etnicheskoi istorii koriakov [An Outline of the Ethnic History of the Koryak].

Leningrad.

Vereshchagin, N. K., and Yu. A. Mochanov

1972 Samye severnye v mire sledy verkhnego paleolita (Berelekhskoe mestonakhozhdenie v

nizov’iakh r. Indigirka) [The World’s Northernmost Traces of Upper Paleolithic (The

Berelekh Site on the Lower Reaches of the Indigirka)]. In SA 3.

Viazovskaia, V. V.

1968 Neoliticheskaia stoianka na r. Liutoge i mikroliticheskie plastinki Imchina [A Neolithic

Site on the Liutoga River and the Microlithic Blades of Imchin]. In Narody Sovetskogo

Dal’nego Vostoka v dooktiabr’skii period istorii SSSR [Peoples of the Soviet Far East During

the Pre-October Period of USSR History]. Vladivostok.

1973 Mikrolity Severnogo Sakhalina [Microliths of Northern Sakhalin]. In Istoriia i kul’tura

narodov Dal’nego Vostoka [History and Culture of the Peoples of the Far East].

Vladivostok.

Vinogradov, A. P., A. D. Devirts, E. I. Dobkina, and N. G. Markova

1966 Opredelenie absoliutnogo vozrasta po C-14. Soobshchenie 5 [Determination of

Absolute Age by C-14. Report 5]. In Geokhimiia [Geochemistry] 10.

Volkov, F. K., and S. I. Rudenko

1910 Etnograficheskie kollektsii iz byvshikh rossiisko-amerikanskikh vladenii [The

Ethnographic Collections from the Former Russian-American Possessions]. In Materialy

po etnografii Rossii 1. St. Petersburg.

Vorob’ev, M. V.

1958 Drevniaia Yaponiia [Ancient Japan]. Moscow.

Wasson, V. P., and R. G. Wasson

1957 Mushrooms, Russia and History 1. New York.
Nikolai N. Dikov 325

Weidenreich, F.

1938 The Classification of Fossil Hominids and Their Relations to Each Other, with Special

Reference to Sinanthropus pekinensis. In Congress of International des sciences anthropologiques et

éthnologiques. Copenhagen.

West, F. H.

1967 The Donnelly Ridge Site and the Definition of an Early Core and Blade Complex in

Central Alaska. In American Antiquity 32(3):360–382.

1976 Arkheologicheskii kompleks Tangl-Leike (Tsentral’naia Aliaska) i ego sviaz’ so Starym

Svetom [The Archaeological Complex at Tangle Lakes (Central Alaska) and Its

Connection with the Old World]. In Beringiia v kainozoe [Beringia in the Cenozoic].

Vladivostok.

Wheat, J. B.

1971 Lifeways of Early Man in North America. In Arctic Anthropology 8(2).

Wormington, H. M.

1963 The Paleo-Indian and Meso-Indian Studies of Alberta, Canada. In APUA 10(2).

1971 Comments on Early Man in North America, 1960–1970. In Arctic Anthropology 8(2).

Wrangel, F. P.

1948 Puteshestvie po severnym beregam Sibiri i po Ledovitomu moriu, sovershennoe v 1820, 1821, 1823 i

1824 gg. [Travels on the North Coasts of Siberia and the Arctic Ocean Carried Out in

1820, 1821, 1823, and 1824]. Moscow.

Wright, H. T., and R. E. Morlan

1964 The Hart Site: A Dustin Complex Fishing Camp on the Shiawassee Embayment. In

Michigan Archaeologist 10(3).

Wright, J. V.

1970 The Origins of New World Ceramics as Seen from Eastern Canada. In Proceedings of the

VIII ICAES (Ethnology and Archaeology) 3. Tokyo.

Yakimov, V. P.

1972 Neandertal’tsy i chelovek sovremennogo vida [Neanderthals and Man of Modern Life].

In Kur’er IuNESKO [The UNESCO Courier], August-September. Moscow.

Yanoshin, D.

1976 Nekotorye novye dannye o faunisticheskom obmene cherez Beringiiskii most [Some

New Data on Faunal Exchange over the Bering Land Bridge]. In Beringiia v kainozoe

[Beringia in the Cenozoic]. Vladivostok.
326 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

Yarborough, M. R.

1974 Analysis of Pottery from the Western Alaska Peninsula. In APUA 16(1):85–89.

Yoshizaki, M.

1963 Prehistoric Culture in Southern Sakhalin in Light of Japanese Research. In Arctic

Anthropology 1(2).

1973 Stoianka Tatikarusiunai (raskopki v 1972 g.) [The Tatikarusiunai Site (Excavations in

1972)]. In Otchet ob issledovanii paleo- i mezoliticheskoi stoianki Tatikarusiunai V na o.

Khokkaido [Account of Investigations at the Paleo- and Mesolithic Tatikarusiunai V Site

on Hokkaido Island]. Engaru 3. (In Japanese)

Zakharuk, Yu. N.

1964 Problemy arkheologicheskoi kul’tury [On the Problem of Archaeological Culture]. In

Arkheologiia 17. Kiev.

1977 O poniatii “fakt” v arkheologicheskoi nauke [About the Idea “Fact” in Archaeological

Science]. In SA 4.

Zamiatnin, S. N.

1948 Miniatiurnye kremnevye skul’ptury [Miniature Flint Sculptures]. In SA 10. MoscowLeningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR.

1961 Ocherki po paleolitu [Essays on the Paleolithic]. Moscow-Leningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR.

Zamyslova, E. A.

1967 Drevnii chelovek v Severnoi Amerike [Early Man in North America]. In BKIChP 34.

Zhukov, E. M.

1975 Nekotorye voprosy teorii sotsial’no-ekonomicheskoi formatsii [Some Questions on the

Theory of Socioeconomic Formations]. In Problemy sotsial’no-ekonomicheskikh formatsii.

Istoriko-tipologicheskie issledovaniia [Problems of Socioeconomic Formation. HistoricalTypological Investigations]. Moscow.

Zibert, Z. V.

1937 Arkheologicheskie nakhodki na Aliaske [Archaeological Finds in Alaska]. In SA 2.

Zolotarev, A. M.

1938 Iz istorii etnicheskikh otnoshenii na Severo-Vostoke Azii [From the History of Ethnic

Relations in Northeast Asia]. In Izv. Voronezh. gos. ped. in-ta. 4.

Zolotarev, A. M., and G. F. Debets

1976 Proiskhozhdenie amerikanskogo cheloveka [The Origin of American Man]. In

Antropologicheskii zhurnal [Anthropological Journal] 1.
Nikolai N. Dikov 327

Zubov, A. A.

1963 Chelovek zaseliaet svoiu planetu [Man Settles His Planet]. Moscow.

1968 O fizicheskom tipe drevneishego naseleniia Ameriki [On the Physical Type of the

Earliest Population in America]. In SE 4.

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]. Preface to Drevnie kul’tury aziatskikh eskimosov by S. A. Arutiunov and D. A.

Sergeev. Moscow.

1976 Integratsiia, kak edinaia tendentsiia sovremennogo chelovechestva [Integration, As the

Sole Tendency of Modern Humanity]. In SE 5.

1977 Nekotorye dannye po odontologii drevnego naseleniia Chukotki [Some Data on Odontology of

the Early Population of Chukotka]. In Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki Kamchatki, Chukotki i

Verkhnei Kolymy: (Aziia na styke s Amerikoi v drevnosti) [Archaeological Sites of

Kamchatka, Chukotka, and Upper Kolyma (Asia at the Crossroads with America in

Antiquity)] ( Nauka, Moscow, 1977) by N. N. Dikov.
328 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia
Abbreviations

AMNH American Museum of Natural History.

AN Akademiia nauk [Academy of Sciences].

AO Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia [Archaeological Discoveries].

AP Asian Perspectives.

APAMNH Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History.

APUA Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska.

Archiv MOKM Arkhiv magadanskogo okruzhnogo kraevedcheskogo muzeia [Archive of the

Magadan District Regional Museum].

ArINA Arctic Institute of North America.

ARNMC Annual Report of the National Museum of Canada.

BKIChP Biulleten’ komissii po izucheniiu chetvertichnogo perioda [Bulletin of the

Commission for the Study of the Quaternary Period].

DVNTs Dal’nevostochnyi nauchnyi tsentr [Far East Science Center].

GIM Gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii muzei [State Historical Museum].

GME Gosudarstvennyi muzei etnografii [State Museum of Ethnography].

ICAES International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences.

IRGO Imperskoe Russkoe Geograficheskoe obshchestvo [Imperial Russian

Geographic Society].

Izv. VGO Izvestia Vsesoiuznogo geograficheskogo obshchestva [Bulletin of the AllUnion Geographic Society].

KSIA Kratkie soobshcheniia instituta arkheologii [Brief Reports of the Institute of

Archaeology].

KSIE Kratkie soobshcheniia instituta etnografii [Brief Reports of the Institute of

Ethnography].
330 Early Cultures of Northeastern Asia

KSIIMK Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta istorii material’noi kul’tury [Brief Reports of

the Institute of the History of Material Culture].

LGPI Leningradskii gosudarstvennyi pedagogicheskii institut [Leningrad State

Pedagogical Institute].

LGU Leningradskii gosudarstvennyi universitet [Leningrad State University].

MAE Muzei antropologii i etnografii [Museum of Anthropology and

Ethnography].

MANH Memoir of the American Museum of Natural History.

MGU Moskovskii gosudarstvennyi universitet [Moscow State University].

MIA Materialy i issledovaniia po arkheologii SSSR [Materials and Investigations in

the Archaeology of the USSR].

MKAEN Mezhdunarodnyi kongress antropologicheskikh i etnograficheskikh nauk

[The Seventh International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnographic

Sciences].

RGO Russkoe geograficheskoe obshchestvo [Russian Geographical Society].

SA Sovetskaia arkheologiia [Soviet Archaeology].

SAA Society for American Archaeology.

Sb. MAE Sbornik muzeia antropologii i etnografii [Journal of the Museum of

Anthropology and Ethnography].

SE Sovetskaia etnografiia [Soviet Ethnography].

Ser. obshch.

nauk seriia obshchestvennykh nauk [social science series].

SO Sibirskogo otdeleniia [Siberian Division].

SSSR Soiuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik [Union of Soviet Socialist

Republics—USSR].

SVKNII Severo-Vostochnogo kompleksnogo nauchno-issledovatel’skogo instituta

[Northeast Interdisciplinary Scientific Research Institute].

SWJA Southwestern Journal of Anthropology.
Nikolai N. Dikov 331

TIE Trudy Instituta etnografii [Works of the Institute of Ethnography].

Tr. SVKNII SO

AN SSSR Trudy Severo-Vostochnogo kompleksnogo nauchno-issledovatel’skogo

instituta Sibirskogo otdeleniia Akademii nauk SSSR [Northeast

Interdisciplinary Scientific Research Institute of the Siberian Division of the

Academy of Sciences, USSR].

Uch. zap. LGU Uchenye zapiski Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Study

Notes of Leningrad State University].

VDI Vestnik drevnei istorii [Bulletin of Early History].

VGO Vsesoiuznoe geograficheskoe obshchestvo [All-Union Geographic Society].

VSO Vostochno-Sibirskogo otdeleniia [East Siberian Division].

Zap. ChOKM Zapiski Chukotskogo okruzhnogo kraevedcheskogo muzeia [Notes of the

Chukotka District Regional Museum].