J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

DOI 10.1007/s10814-007-9019-6

Siberia at the Last Glacial Maximum: Environment

and Archaeology
Yaroslav V. Kuzmin

Published online: 12 January 2008

Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Abstract This article focuses on the presence of humans in Siberia and the
Russian Far East at the coldest time of the Late Pleistocene, called the Last Glacial
Maximum (LGM) and dated to c. 20,00018,000 rcbp. Reconstruction of the LGM
environment of Siberia, based on the latest models and compilations, provides a
background for human existence in this region. Most of Siberia and the Russian Far
East at c. 20,00018,000 rcbp was covered by tundra and cool steppe, with some
forest formations in the river valleys. Climate was much colder and drier than it is
today. Eighteen Upper Paleolithic sites in Siberia are radiocarbon dated strictly to
the LGM, and at least six of them, located in southern parts of western and eastern
Siberia and the Russian Far East, have solid evidence of occupation during that time
span. It seems clear that southern Siberia was populated by humans even at the
height of the LGM, and that there was no dramatic decline or complete disappearance of humans in Siberia at that time. The degree of human adaptation to
periglacial landscapes in the mid-Upper Paleolithic of northern Eurasia was quite
high; humans coped with the cold and dry environmental conditions using microblade technology, artificial shelters, tailored clothes, and megafaunal bones as fuel.
Keywords Last Glacial Maximum
Paleoenvironment
Upper Paleolithic

Human adaptation
Siberia
Russian Far East
Northern Eurasia

Introduction
The question of whether humans were present in extreme environments during the
Upper Paleolithic, mostly in northern Eurasia, has been an important topic of debate
Y. V. Kuzmin (&)
Institute of Geology and Mineralogy, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
3 Koptyug Ave., Novosibirsk 630090, Russia
e-mail: kuzmin@fulbrightweb.org

123

164

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

for the last few decades (e.g., Bocquet-Appel et al. 2005; Dolukhanov et al. 2002;
Goebel 2002; Hoffecker 2005a; Pavlov et al. 2004; Pitulko et al. 2004; Terberger
and Street 2002; Tseitlin 1979). Of special interest is the phenomenon of human
survival in the very cold and dry climate of the second Late Pleistocene glaciation
(named Late Weichselian in Europe), dated roughly to c. 25,00010,000 radiocarbon years ago (uncalibrated; hereafter rcbp), especially during its peak at c. 20,000
18,000 rcbp (e.g., Svendsen et al. 1999, 2004)the Last Glacial Maximum
(hereafter LGM).
At that time, the coldest and driest environmental conditions of the Late
Pleistocene (the last 125,000 years) prevailed in northern and central Eurasia.
However, human groups had already spread throughout the northern parts of central
and eastern Europe and northern Siberia at c. 35,00027,000 rcbp (e.g., Pavlov
et al. 2004; Pitulko et al. 2004), well in advance of the LGM. What kinds of
environment were characteristic of the LGM in Siberia and adjacent regions of
northern Eurasia? Were people able to cope with the extreme conditions of the
LGM? Did they retreat at that time from Siberia and northern and central parts of
Europe? If so, where might they have gone?
One of the major problems in studies on this topic is a lack of adequate
environmental studies of the LGM in northern Eurasia, particularly Siberia and the
Russian Far East. For decades, only very general paleoenvironmental schemes were
available (e.g., Frenzel 1968, p. 642; Velichko 1984). Only recently have up-to-date
reconstructions of ice sheets and environmental conditions become available (e.g.,
Svendsen et al. 2004; Velichko 2002, 2005) that allow us to reveal in more detail
the human environment of the Late Pleistocene of Siberia in general, and at the
LGM in particular. The regional aspect of the LGM landscapes also should be
considered. As was recently noted, to emphasise that not global climate change as
such (as supposedly stored in Greenland ice core records), but regional and relative
resource richness should be reinstalled as the critical variable in future investigations of pleniglacial settlement histories (Verpoorte 2004, p. 264). Here I use
Siberia as a case study for understanding the main patterns of human adaptation
during the Upper Paleolithic.
Another challenge related to the study of the Pleistocene human presence in the
Eurasian Arctic and sub-Arctic is the low frequency of survey for prehistoric sites in
northern Europe and Siberia compared with the better-studied southern and central
parts of these two large regions. However, in the last 3040 years, several wellplanned field campaigns have been undertaken to search for archaeological sites in
the northern parts of the Ural Mountains and western Siberia, and in the Taymyr
Peninsula, Yakutia, Kolyma River basin, and Chukotka (e.g., Dikov 1997; Kiryak
2005; Mochanov 1983; Pavlov et al. 2004; Pitulko et al. 2004), and numerous
Paleolithic sites have been discovered. Recent state-of-the-art surveys and
excavations in the arctic regions of Europe and Siberia are providing the general
features of colonization in these areas during the Late Pleistocene.
The time lag in the publication of excavation reports along with a limited number
of copies and the language barrier constitute a further key problem, particularly for
Western scholars. For example, information on two presumable LGM sites in
eastern Siberia, Mamakan 2 and Tesa (Fig. 1) (Belousov et al. 2002), was published

123

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

165

Fig. 1 The location of LGM-related Upper Paleolithic sites in Siberia (the most reliably LGM-associated
sites are in bold)

by a university in Irkutsk, Russia, which printed only 300 copies in Russian. Although
other sites such as Shestakovo and Ogonki 5 have been published simultaneously in
Russian and English (Derevianko et al. 2000; Vasilevski 2003; Zenin 2002), it is still
difficult in many western European and North American libraries to obtain the journal
where these articles appeared, Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia.
Relevant books are rarely found in libraries outside Russia (e.g., Derevianko and
Zenin 1995; Derevianko et al. 2003a, b; Petrin 1986; Sinitsyn and Praslov 1997;
Vasilievsky et al. 1988).
Because few scholars outside Russia are familiar with the primary publications,
models of population changes that assume a complete or significant depopulation of
Europe and Siberia at the LGM have been advanced (e.g., Bocquet-Appel and Demars
2000; Dolukhanov et al. 2002; Dolukhanov and Shukurov 2004; Goebel 1999, 2002;
Hoffecker 2005a). This review is devoted to presenting primary data about the LGM
environment and archaeology of Siberia to an international scientific audience.
Before any modeling of human presence at the LGM in the northern latitudes of
Eurasia is conducted, current evidence should be carefully and critically evaluated.
Here I present original data in an abridged fashion, providing both a bibliography of
sources and a critical review of the data. The main goal of this review is to acquaint
the reader with primary information on the paleoenvironment and archaeology of
Siberia and the Russian Far East in relation to the possible LGM human occupation
of these regions. I largely draw on original reports and publications but also cite
English papers published by site investigators when available.

123

166

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

Material and methods

An overview of modern Siberian geography can be found in the classical book by
Suslov (1961) and in a more recent volume edited by Shahgedanova (2002). The
major geographic subdivisions of Siberia are (1) western Siberia, which belongs to
the Ob River basin, bounded by the Ural Mountains on the west and the Yenisei
River on the east; (2) eastern Siberia, which covers essentially the Yenisei and Lena
River basins, includingTransbaikal east of Lake Baikal and the Taymyr Peninsula in
the north; (3) and northeastern Siberia, which lies east of the Lena River and up to
Chukotka in the extreme east (Fig. 1). Most of the Siberian territory corresponds to
the drainage basin of the Arctic Ocean. The Russian Far East is a separate large
region of northern Asia that covers the Pacific drainage basin, including Primorye
(Maritime) Province, the Amur River basin, and Sakhalin Island (Fig. 1). Farther
north, the Kamchatka Peninsula and the Bering Sea coast also may be associated
with the Russian Far East (Suslov 1961).
In this article the time span of the LGM is accepted as c. 20,00018,000 rcbp,
based on geological data for the Late Pleistocene of northern Eurasia (e.g., Svendsen
et al. 1999). Other recent research accepts a range from c. 19,500 to 16,100 rcbp,
which corresponds to a calibrated age (hereafter cal yrs B.P.) between 23,000 and
19,000 cal yrs B.P., centered at c. 21,000 cal yrs B.P. (Mix et al. 2001). Yokoyama
et al. (2000) consider the LGM to span the period from 22,000 to 19,000 cal yrs B.P.
Throughout the article I present mostly uncalibrated radiocarbon dates (hereafter
14
C) because it is not necessary to convert them all to a calendar time scale to make
comparisons, and also because the difference between 14C and calendar (i.e., true)
ages remain the same throughout the Northern Hemisphere (e.g., Reimer et al.
2004). In some cases, however, I use calibrated ages to evaluate the correspondence
of particular sites to the LGM time span.
For discussing the LGM environment of Siberia, I follow Grichuks (1984)
scheme (Fig. 2). This framework has been enhanced with results of a new generation
of research that began in the 1970s (e.g., Krivonogov 1988; Panychev 1979) and that
continues into the present decade (e.g., Andreev et al. 2002; Berger et al. 2004; Sher
et al. 2005), where 14C dating was widely applied. The latest compilations, in the
form of atlases (Frenzel et al. 1992; Velichko 1993, 2002), serve as updated sources
on the Late Pleistocene geography of Siberia. Although the main focus of this review
is Siberia and the Russian Far East, data on the LGM environment and prehistoric
sites in eastern Europe also are included in order to place the issue of humanenvironment relationship at the LGM in a broader context.
Original publications are used to characterize each Upper Paleolithic site that
presumably is associated with the LGM. Overviews in English of pre-1990 data can
be found in Larichev et al. (1988, 1990, 1992) and Derevianko et al. (1998a). Very
basic information (from the 1960s) on the Ikhine and Verkhne-Troitskaya sites is
available in Powers (1973, pp. 5658), and a review of Siberian Paleolithic
archaeology compiled by Klein (1971) reflects state-of-the-art information from the
late 1960s. The digest by Michael (1984) is more updated, including information
available before the early 1980s. Some sites, such as Ust-Ulma 1 and Ogonki 5, are
described in volumes edited by West (1996) and Nelson et al. (2006).

123

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

167

Fig. 2 Paleoenvironment of Siberia at the Last Glacial Maximum (after Grichuk 1984; Velichko 2002;
Svendsen et al. 2004; generalized): 1ice sheets and domes; 2extensive valley glaciers; 3coastline
at c. 20,00018,000 rcbp. Vegetation types: 4tundra with dwarf pine in the mountain, with cirque
glaciers; 5periglacial tundra; 6periglacial steppes; 7tundras and steppes with light forests and
woodlands; 8steppes

At least 18 sites in Siberia and the Russian Far East may be considered LGMrelated (see Fig. 1, Table 1). A general description of site geomorphology and
sediments, faunal remains, 14C and environmental records, and artifact assemblages
is presented for each site, all drawing on major original publications. Not all of these
sites have been equally studied in terms of archaeology, paleoenvironment, and 14C
chronology; hence, I provide a critical evaluation of the evidence along with a
description of basic materials.
The main criteria for association with the LGM are (1) 14C date(s) within the c.
20,00018,000 rcbp time frame; (2) secure association of datable material and
artifacts; (3) stratigraphic agreement in 14C date series, i.e., 14C value from the
upper layer must be younger than one from the lower layer; (4) faunal and pollen
data reflect cold environmental conditions; and (5) ice-wedge structures and other
evidence of sediment disturbance by permafrost activity. Usually, the combination
of at least two criteria is required to link a site with the LGM. As for 14C dating,
wood charcoal and human bone are accepted as the organics that best reflect human
presence at a given time and place. Bone and tusks, especially of megafaunal
species (woolly mammoth and rhinoceros), are less reliable due to possible
scavenging and reuse up to several centuries and even millennia after the animals
death.

123

168

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

Table 1 LGM 14C dates (c. 20,60017,700 rcbp) of mammoth localities and archaeological sites on the
West Siberian Plain within the territory of Mansi Lake (after Kuzmin et al. 2004a; Zolnikov et al. 2003)
(see Fig. 3)
Site name and
elevation a.s.l. (m)

Latitude, N

Longitude, E

14

Shikaevka 2 (80)

56 000

65 550

Tomsk (110)

56 29

85 000

Mogochino 1 (75)

57 440

Rychkovo (75)

C date, rcbp

Material dated

Lab code
and No.

18,050 95

Mammoth bone

SOAN-2211

18,300 1000

Charcoal

GIN-2100

83 330

20,140 240

Mammoth bone

SOAN-1513

59 270

62 210

17,810 320

Mammoth bone

SOAN-4463

Evalga (75)

59 230

62 200

19,710 205

Mammoth bone

SOAN-4464

Lyzhin Mys (75)

59 220

62 200

20,630 220

Mammoth bone

SOAN-4220

Kulachye (80)

55 120

73 150

17,740 385

Mammoth bone

SOAN-4793

Lugovskoe (25)

61 030

68 340

18,250 1100

Mammoth bone

SOAN-3838

a.s.l. = above sea level

Large variation in 14C date series from a single cultural layer, observed at some
LGM sites, is quite common for the Paleolithic of Siberia (e.g., Fiedel and Kuzmin
2007; Kuzmin and Keates 2005, p. 779) and elsewhere (e.g., Krenke and
Sulerzhitsky 1992; Kuzmin and Orlova 1998, pp. 2425; Sokoloff et al. 2004;
Sulerzhitsky 2004, p. 108). The wide range of 14C values can be explained by
repeated site occupations, when people were coming and going, leaving behind
organic material of different ages. In some cases (see the Novoselovo 6 example)
14
C dates are accepted as valid, despite the fact that age differences of several
millennia have been observed within the same cultural layer.

Environment of Siberia at the LGM (c. 20,00018,000 rcbp)

Research on Late Pleistocene stratigraphy and geography in northern Eurasia,
conducted in the 1990s and 2000s by several teams (e.g., Anderson et al. 2002;
Astakhov 2001; Edwards et al. 2000; Hubberten et al. 2004; Schirrmeister et al.
2002), has generated numerous reports and maps that provide a detailed
understanding of the LGM environment in Siberia.

The LGM glaciation and topography

During the LGM, glaciers developed in some parts of northern Eurasia (e.g.,
Hubberten et al. 2004). Recent reconstructions of Late Weichselian ice sheets
(Forsstrom and Greve 2004; Mangerud et al. 2002; for a review, see Svendsen et al.
2004) show clearly that continental-type glaciers in Siberia and neighboring regions
covered only Novaya Zemlya Island, the adjacent part of the modern Kara Sea shelf,
and possibly a small portion of the Taymyr Peninsula; a small ice cap existed on the
Putorana Plateau in the northern part of Eastern Siberia (Fig. 2). The glaciation of
mountain systems in eastern and northeastern Siberia was of limited scale,

123

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

169

represented mainly by cirque glaciers and some valley glaciers up to 2025 km long
(Arkhipov et al. 1986a, p. 472; Brigham-Grette et al. 2003; Velichko 1993) (Fig. 2).
Limited-scale glaciation of mountain systems in the Russian Far East was of the
cirque type (Kuzmin 1996), similar to neighboring Hokkaido, Japan (e.g., Ono et al.
2005). In western Siberia and the arctic part of northeastern Siberia, aeolian loess
and loess-like sediments accumulated. Thick continuous permafrost covered all of
Siberia and the Russian Far East.
One of the major changes in the paradigm for the Late Pleistocene for Siberia,
which took place in the 1990s and 2000s, is that the reconstructed extent of the
second Late Pleistocene [hereafter Late Weichselian, as suggested by Astakhov
(2001)] glaciation in Siberia is now considered to be much smaller than in earlier
reconstructions (e.g., Arkhipov 1998; Grosswald and Hughes 2002). Even in the
high Arctic, the ice caps were very limited in size; for example, the glaciation of the
Severnaya Zemlya archipelago was smaller than today (Berger et al. 2004;
Svendsen et al. 2004, p. 1237).
Since the 1960s several researchers have put forth the concept of a so-called
Mansi Lake, which formed during the LGM in the northern and central parts of
the West Siberian Plain (e.g., Arkhipov et al. 1995; Volkov et al. 1978) as a result
of a Late Weichselian ice barrier that blocked the discharge of the Ob and Yenisei
Rivers to the Arctic Ocean and caused flooding of vast territories up to elevations
of c. 130 m a.s.l. (Fig. 3). However, the existence of giant ice-dammed lakes in
western Siberia and the adjacent Yenisei River basin was recently challenged by
numerous finds of Late Pleistocene megafauna localities and some Upper
Paleolithic sites in the West Siberian Plain directly associated with the LGM
(Kuzmin et al. 2004a; Zolnikov et al. 2003). Of special importance are mammoth
localities in the lowermost part of western Siberia, at elevations that do not exceed
80 m a.s.l. (Fig. 3). The 14C ages for most of these localities (Lyzhin Mys, Evalga,
Lugovskoe, Rychkovo, and Kulachye) correspond to the time period of Mansi Lake
(Table 1).
Petrin (1986) and Nikolaev and Petrin (1996, p. 297) were first to notice a
controversy between the Mansi Lake concept and the geographic position of Upper
Paleolithic sites in western Siberia. Today, several Upper Paleolithic sites on the
West Siberian PlainMogochino 1, Tomsk, and Shikaevka 2are dated to c.
20,00018,000 rcbp (Table 1, Fig. 3). The location of the Shikaevka 2 site in the
Turgai Channel (Mangerud et al. 2001a, p. 775), through which the waters of Mansi
Lake might have discharged toward the south, is the critical point in the discussion
about the existence of an ice-dammed lake in western Siberia (Volkov et al. 1978).
Since Shikaevka 2 corresponds to c. 18,000 rcbp, no intense southward water flow
could have occurred at the level of about 120130 m a.s.l., or even at a lower level,
up to 70 m a.s.l.
Thus the available information on the distribution of mammoth finds and Upper
Paleolithic sites with absolute heights below 100 m a.s.l. contradicts the presence
of a glacial Mansi Lake. Taphonomic data available for Shikaevka 2 (Tseitlin 1979,
p. 63), Tomsk (Kashchenko 1901; Petrin 1986, pp. 7274), and Lugovskoe and
Kulachye (Leshchinskiy et al. 2001; Pavlov and Maschenko 2001; Zenin et al.
2006) include articulated parts of mammoth carcasses. The reliability of the in situ

123

170

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

Fig. 3 Paleogeographic map of the West Siberian Plain at the LGM (after Kuzmin et al. 2004a). 1
southern boundary of the Late Weichselian (Sartan) glaciation (after Volkov et al. 1978); 2Mansi Lake
area (after Volkov et al. 1978); 3mammoth localities; 4archaeological sites

position of 14C-dated mammoth remains on the West Siberian Plain is the most
important issue for investigating the existence and dimensions of Mansi Lake. Even
if it were possible to accept that Mansi Lake existed slightly earlier, at c. 21,000
19,000 rcbp (Volkov and Orlova 2000, p. 1440), instead of the more conventional
age of 20,00018,000 rcbp (Volkov et al. 1978), mammoth localities and prehistoric sites also are known for that time spanLyzhin Mys, Evalga, and Mogochino
1 (Kuzmin et al. 2004a) (Table 1).
Stratigraphic data recently obtained for the Late Pleistocene of northern Eurasia
(e.g., Astakhov 2006; Mangerud et al. 2001b, 2004) affirm that large continental
ice sheets and giant ice-dammed lakes existed in the northern part of western
Siberia during the Early Weichselian glaciation, c. 90,00060,000 years ago
(Lower Zyryanka or Ermakovo in Siberian stratigraphic schemes; e.g., Arkhipov

123

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

171

et al. 1986b). The Late Weichselian (Upper Zyryanka or Sartan in Siberia; see
Arkhipov et al. 1986b) glacial lakes were smaller because of the mountain-andvalley nature of the glaciation in the polar Urals (Fig. 2). The LGM environment
was mainly of subaerial type, with ephemeral shallow lakes. The landscapes of that
time in western Siberia provided a suitable habitat for large herbivores such as
mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, bison, and horse.
Because of a drop in ocean levels during the LGM, the coastal plains of northern
Siberia extended hundreds of kilometers northward compared with the modern
Arctic Ocean shoreline (e.g., Biryukov et al. 1988) (Fig. 2). The estimated value of
ocean and sea level regression is c. 120130 m (e.g., Peltier 2002). When dry, the
shelves were covered with thick permafrost (Rozenbaum and Shpolyanskaya 1998).

The LGM vegetation and climate

Before the late 1990s, the conventional view of LGM landscapes in Siberia (e.g.,
Grichuk 1984) was that most of the territory had been covered with tundra and
periglacial forest steppe (there are no modern analogs for the latter). More recent
studies in northern Eurasia (e.g., Edwards et al. 2000; Tarasov et al. 1999, 2000),
including those using a biome model approach (e.g., Kutzbach et al. 1998; Prentice
and Webb 1998), have made possible more detailed reconstructions of vegetation
and climatic conditions during the LGM in Siberia. Based on 17 pollen records from
14
C-dated sections, Tarasov et al. (1999, 2000) concluded that tundra and cool
steppe occupied most of the northern and central parts of western and eastern
Siberia. Cool conifer forest formations existed in the southern part of western
Siberia, whereas tundra was the dominant plant formation in northeastern Siberia
during the LGM (Edwards et al. 2000, p. 547).
Recent studies of LGM glaciation and landscape are presented in a volume edited
by Velichko (2002) (Fig. 2). Polar deserts and tundra dominated the extreme
northern part of Siberia, on the dried shelf of the Arctic Ocean, while the northern
part of todays Siberia was covered with a mixed plant formation (tundra, steppe,
and some trees) called near-glacier [prilednikovaya] vegetation (Grichuk 2002,
pp. 8788). On the Okhotsk Sea coast and Kamchatka Peninsula, there were light
forests with larch and birch, along with tundra formations. Steppe formations
dominated on the plains of western and eastern Siberia, whereas trees grew in the
river valleys, a type of vegetation called periglacial forest steppe (Grichuk 2002,
p. 88). In the southern part of eastern Siberia and in the Russian Far East, forest
vegetation (pine, birch, spruce, larch, and fir) survived as light forests and
woodlands in combination with steppe and tundra elements (Fig. 2). Velichko
(2002) has highlighted the collapse of forest formations during the LGM in northern
Eurasia, a time when trees grew only sporadically and did not create their own
communities.
Based on pollen data and consecutive modeling of LGM climatic conditions
(Bush 2004; Kageyama et al. 2001; Shin et al. 2003; Tarasov et al. 1999), LGM
winter temperatures in Siberia were 715C colder than today, and summer
temperatures were up to 17C colder. Annual precipitation was about 110430 mm

123

172

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

less than today. According to the global climatic LGM model (Ganapolsky et al.
1998), the average air temperature was around 6C lower than during preindustrial
times. These data represent significant progress in modeling the LGM environment
of northern Eurasia compared with the results of CLIMAP and COHMAP projects
(CLIMAP Project Members 1976; COHMAP Project Members 1988).
The LGM environment is known in more detail for some regions of Siberia.
However, due to the cold climate and reduced sedimentation rate, only a few
records from terrestrial sources, lakes, and loess-like deposits are available, most of
which are from northern Siberia.
In the northern and central Taymyr Peninsula, the LGM environment was
characterized by steppe-like vegetation, although tundra with dwarf alder, willow,
and birch also was present. The average annual temperature was 36C lower than
today, with precipitation about 100 mm per year less than now (Andreev et al.
2002, 2003). On the Laptev Sea coast, the main vegetation type at c. 24,000
15,000 rcbp was arctic tundra with a very dry climate, a type of plant community
that often is called tundra-steppe and is characterized by mosaic arctic grasslands
(Sher et al. 2005). Megafauna such as woolly mammoth, bison, and horse, and other
smaller species were present at that time in the Siberian Arctic and the area to the
south (see reviews in Kuzmin and Orlova 2004; Markova et al. 1995; Orlova et al.
2004a; Stuart 1991). In northeastern Siberia, vegetation in the mountains of the
Upper Kolyma region at c. 22,00012,800 rcbp consisted mainly of sedge-cerealdominated tundra with microhabitats of shrubs and dwarf trees (Anderson et al.
2002; Lozhkin et al. 1993).
The issue of the possible existence of trees at the LGM in Siberia and eastern
Europe was raised decades ago (e.g., Velichko and Kurenkova 1990). Kienast et al.
(2005) recently suggested that summer temperatures in the Siberian Arctic at the
LGM were higher than today and that it was the dry climate and harsh winters that
prevented trees from growing north of the Arctic Circle. However, at the LGM some
tree vegetation survived in the river valleys of central and eastern Europe (e.g.,
Velichko and Zelikson 2005; Willis and van Andel 2004) and in Siberia south of
55 N (see below). Even further north, patchy tree communities existed in major
valleys. For example, wood from the Verkhne-Troitskaya site in Yakutia, at 60 N,
was 14C-dated to c. 18,300 rcbp (Mochanov and Fedoseeva 1996). Larch trees grew
on the Taymyr Peninsula at c. 16,000 rcbp (MacDonald et al. 2000, pp. 307308).
The finding of larch (Larix sp.) macrofossils in the gut of the Fishhook mammoth
on the Taymyr Peninsula, located at 74 N and 14C-dated to c. 20,600 rcbp (Mol et al.
2006, p. 193), reveals larch growth in the high Arctic at the LGM. Today, the northern
limit of larch on Taymyr is about 200 km south of the Fishhook mammoth locality.
In a recent synopsis of the environment of the second part of the Late Pleistocene
in western Beringia (or northeastern Siberia in traditional Russian geographic
terminology), Brigham-Grette et al. (2004) reported the survival of tree vegetation
during the LGM, primarily near the coast of the Sea of Okhotsk, in the Kolyma
River headwaters, and even on the coast of the Arctic Ocean. According to
Brigham-Grette et al. (2004, p. 59), the picture of an extremely cold, arid
environment may be true for portions of LGM Beringia, but it is insufficient to
describe the whole of this vast subcontinent.

123

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

173

Thus environmental conditions in Siberia at the LGM were cold and dry. The
southward shift of the Atlantic storm track and the weakening of the Asian summer
monsoon (e.g., An 2000; Liu and Ding 1998; Porter 2001) caused a decrease in
precipitation in Siberia and most of northern Eurasia (Tarasov et al. 1999, p. 237).
At the same time, LGM precipitation values in the Mediterranean zone of Europe
were higher than today (Tarasov et al. 1999, p. 238), also because of the southward
shift of the Atlantic storm track, which likely was a major cause of people retreating
at the LGM to southern Europe from the central and northern parts of the continent
(see discussion below). Siberian climatic conditions also were generally drier at the
LGM than in eastern Europe. The difference between winter, summer, and annual
mean temperatures at the LGM and today for Siberia is less than for eastern Europe
(e.g., Tarasov et al. 1999, p. 235). The distinction between the LGM and todays
climate in Siberia is less pronounced than elsewhere in Europe (e.g., Kageyama
et al. 2001, p. 26).

The Paleolithic record of Siberia at the LGM

In this section the basic archaeological, geological, and environmental descriptions
of Upper Paleolithic sites in Siberia that correspond to the LGM are presented
(Fig. 1, Tables 2 and 3). Volumes edited by Derevianko et al. (1998a), West (1996),
and Abramova (1991) are the basic sources. A recent comprehensive summary of
the archaeology, environment, and faunal remains from LGM-associated sites in
western Siberia and adjacent regions may be found in Zenin (2002); data from the
Russian Far East are presented in Nelson et al. (2006). Kashin (2003) compiled a
review of research and problems related to the age and archaeological definition of
the main Paleolithic cultural complexes in northeastern Siberia. Vasilev (2003a)
has assembled updated information on the Upper Paleolithic mammalian remains of
Siberia, including LGM sites.

Western Siberia
Shikaevka
Shikaevka 2 is located in the Tobol River valley (Fig. 1), which is part of the
longitudal Turgai Channel that connects the west Siberian drainage basin with the
central Asian river network (Fig. 3). Excavations carried out by Petrin in 1971
1973 exposed about 740 m2 (Petrin 1986, pp. 2334; see review in Derevianko
et al. 1998a, p. 80). Geoarchaeological studies were conducted mainly by Tseitlin
(1979).
Shikaevka 2 is situated on the second terrace of Tobol River, up to 15 m above
the current water level and about 10 km from the river channel. The cultural layer is
in a sandy loam matrix on the top of alluvial sands, at a depth of c. 1.8 m below the
ground surface (Petrin 1986). Permafrost structures (polygonal frost cracks) were
observed above the cultural layer. Tseitlin (1979, pp. 6263) described the

123

174

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

Table 2 Geographic position of LGM-associated sites in Siberia

No.

Site name

Latitude, N

Longitude, E

Region

Shikaevka 2

56 000

65 550

West Siberian Plain

83 330

West Siberian Plain

Mogochino 1

57 44

Tomsk

56 290

85 000

West Siberian Plain

Shestakovo

55 540

87 570

West Siberian Plain

Novoselovo 6

55 020

90 580

Yenisei River basin

Tarachikha

55 030

91 030

Yenisei River basin

Shlenka

55 130

91 570

Yenisei River basin

Ui 1

52 580

91 260

Yenisei River basin

Ust-Kova

58 180

100 200

Angara River basin

10

Krasny Yar

53 400

103 260

Angara River basin

11

Malta

52 500

103 320

Angara River basin

12

Mamakan 2

57 470

113 590

Transbaikal

13

Tesa

57 300

112 300

Transbaikal

108 29

Transbaikal

14

Studenoe 2

50 10

15

Ikhine 2

63 070

133 370

Yakutia

16

Verkhne-Troitskaya

60 210

134 270

Yakutia

17

Ust-Ulma 1

51 550

129 180

Amur River basin

18

Ogonki 5

46 470

142 260

Sakhalin Island

following sequence of layers (from bottom to top): (1) cultural layer; (2) first
paleosol in sandy loam; (3) sandy loam with second paleosol; (4) ice-wedge
structure in loam down to sandy loam of layer 2. According to Tseitlin (1979, pp.
2931), two paleosols in the upper part of the second terrace of main Siberian rivers
correspond to warm intervals in the Late Glacial, Blling and Allerd, c. 10,800
12,800 rcbp.
The few pollen grains identified in the cultural layer belong to pine and spruce
(arboreal pollen); Chenopodiaceae, Artemisia, and Compositae (nonarboreal pollen);
and ferns and sphagnum mosses (spores) (Petrin 1986). Petrin (1986, p. 27) agrees
with palynologist V. K. Nemkova that the climate was very cold when the site was
occupied. Faunal remains include bones from two woolly mammoths, several other
mammal species (Petrin 1986, p. 29), and three species of small rodents (Table 4).
The presence of articulated mammoth bones, especially vertebrae with attached ribs,
show that the bones were found in situ.
Mammoth bone from the cultural layer has been 14C-dated to c. 18,050 rcbp
(Tables 1 and 3) (Zenin 2002, p. 27). This older date replaces the earlier one, based
on geomorphology and stratigraphy, of c. 12,00014,000 rcbp (Petrin 1986), or
c. 13,000 rcbp (Tseitlin 1979).
Archaeological materials at Shikaevka 2, found in direct association with faunal
remains, are not numerous and include 35 stone artifacts, mainly retouched blades
and bladelets [plastinki] (or small blades), and nine geometric tools (Table 5). The
raw material is jasper from the Ural Mountains, up to 300400 km away (e.g., Zenin
2002, p. 40).

123

OxA-7129

19,540 90
18,035 180
19,100 100
19,900 800
19,880 160
18,830 300
18,670 600

Novoselovo 6

Tarachikha, locality 1, cultural layer 2

Shlenka

Ui 1, layer 2, horizons 23

Ust-Kova,a middle complex

Krasny Yar 1, layer 6

Maltaa

Studenoe 2, layer 4/5

Mamakan 2a

10

11

12

13

Tesa

GIN-7705

19,280 200

Shestakovo, cultural layer 5

14

SOAN-1900
KRIL-621

18,300 1000

Tomska

3
SOAN-3610

GIN-2862

18,600 2000

20,040 765

GIN-2861

19,700 200

SOAN-4419

SOAN-4546

AA-26739

GIN-5330

LE-4257

GIN-2863

LE-3834

18,930 320
20,100 100

LE-3821

19,850 180

LE-4807

18,040 175
18,090 940

SOAN-3609

19,190 310

GIN-2100

SOAN-1513

SOAN-2211

Mogochino

18,050 95
20,150 240

Shikaevka

Lab code

Site name and layer No.

Site No.

C date, rcbp

C dates (see Fig. 1)

14

14

Table 3 LGM-associated Upper Paleolithic sites in Siberia and their

Lisitsyn 2000
Lisitsyn 2000
Lisitsyn 2000

Boneb
Tuskb
Boneb
Bone

Bone

Charcoal

Bone

Belousov et al. 2002

Belousov et al. 2002

Goebel et al. 2000

Medvedev et al. 1996

Richards et al. 2001

Bonec

Medvedev 1998

Starikov et al. 1991

Orlova 1995

Vasilev 1996

Bone

Bone

Charcoal

Charcoal

Bone

Lisitsyn 2000

Lisitsyn 2000

Boneb

Abramova 1979a

Zenin et al. 2000a

Zenin et al. 2000a

Petrin 1986

Petrin 1986

Petrin 1986

Reference

Bone

Bone

Bone

Charcoal

Bone

Bone

Material dated

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

175

123

123
AA-20864
AA-25434

19,320 145
18,920 150

Human bone

Surface finds

The most secure LGM-associated sites (see Fig. 1)

Beta-115986

19,380 190

Beta-115987

19,440 140

Ogonki 5,a horizon 3

18

LE-905

19,360 65

SOAN-2619

18,300 180

Verkhne-Troitskaya

Ust-Ulma 1,a layer 2b

SOAN-3185
SOAN-3186

20,080 150
19,695 100

Lab code

17

Ikhine 2

15

C date, rcbp

14

16

Site name and layer No.

Site No.

Table 3 continued

Charcoal

Charcoal

Charcoal

Charcoal

Charcoal

Wood

Bone

Bone

Material dated

Kuzmin et al. 1998

Kuzmin et al. 1998

Vasilevski 2003

Vasilevski 2003

Zenin 1996

Tseitlin 1979

Vasilev et al. 2002

Vasilev et al. 2002

Reference

176
J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

+?

Arctic fox (Alopex

lagopus L.)

Roe deer
(Capreolus
capreolus L.)

++

Saiga antelope
(Saiga tatarica
L.)

++

++

++

++

+?

Reindeer (Rangifer
tarandus L.)
+

++

++

++

++

Cave lion
(Panthera
spelaea Gold.)

Brown bear (Ursus

arctos L.)

Red fox (Vulpes

vulpes L.)

Wolf (Canis lupus

L.)

+?

Bison (Bison
priscus Boj.)

++

Horse (Equus
caballus L.)

++

Wolverine (Gulo
gulo L.)

Woolly rhinoceros
(Coelodonta
antiquitatis
Blum.)

++

++

+?

++

11

11

11

++

Woolly mammoth
(Mammuthus
primigenius
Blum.)

++

Shikaevka 2 Mogochino 1 Tomsk Shestakovo Novoselovo 6 Tarachikha Shlenka Ui 1

Ust- Krasny
Malta
Studenoe 2 Mamakan 2 Tesa Ikhine 2 Verkhne- Species
(layer 5)
(layer 2) Kovaa Yar
(layer 8) (layer 4/5)
(layers
Troitskaya frequency
(layer 6)
IIa-IId

Species

Table 4 Mammal remains from LGM-associated sites in Siberia (after Vasilev 2003a; with additions)

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

177

123

123

+
+

Middle complex

+ presence; ++ dominant species; +? determination is questionable

Hare (Lepus sp.)

Rodents

++

++

+?

Snowy sheep (Ovis

nivicola Esch.)

Ibex (Capra
sibirica Pall.)

Wild ass (Equus

hemionus Pall.)

+
+

Elk (Alces alces L.)

+?

++
+

+?

Shikaevka 2 Mogochino 1 Tomsk Shestakovo Novoselovo 6 Tarachikha Shlenka Ui 1

Ust- Krasny
Malta
Studenoe 2 Mamakan 2 Tesa Ikhine 2 Verkhne- Species
(layer 5)
(layer 2) Kovaa Yar
(layer 8) (layer 4/5)
(layers
Troitskaya frequency
(layer 6)
IIa-IId

Wild sheep (Ovis

ammon L.)

Red deer (Cervus

elaphus L.)

Species

Table 4 continued

178
J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

10

11

328
431

5535

24

11

51

142

64

80

324

81

3716

4416

32

10

225

13

82

70

125

2215

2730

12

10

40

30

32

60

33

650

850

Chisel-like
tools

19

105

29

10

62

248

1850

2304

14

33

125

20

61

436

4799

5450

Bifaces

17

55

Knives

34
4

48

55

389

44

136

33

3285

3891

Borers

37

17

Points

280

Burins

101

42

69

241

39

Skreblos

Scrapers

Total amount
of tools

Pebbles

Core performs

107

121

Core
fragments

24

104

6737

Cores

73

995

440

263

114

Microblades
and its
fragments

Bladelets

Blades

Debitage

1348

25

19

129

510

683

61

245

40

802

1155

21

11

34

52

Shikaevka Mogochino Tomsk Shestakovo Novoselovo 6 Novoselovo 6 Tarachikha Shlenka Ui 2

Ui 2
Ust- Krasny Studenoe 2 Ikhine 2 Verkhbne2
1
(layer 5)
(coll. 1968)
(surface coll.)
(layer 2,
(layer 2,
Kovaa Yar
(layer 4/5) (layers
Troitskaya
horizon 2) horizon 3)
(layer
IIa-Iid) (layer 3)
6)

Total amount 35
of artifacts

Artifacts

Table 5 Artifact assemblages from LGM-associated sites in Siberia

69

21

35

380

180

113

8576

9249

21

90

339

305

8390

9145

UstOgonki 5
Ulma 1 (horizon
(layer
3)b
2b)

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

179

123

123

Present, number not given

Flakes, spalls, scales, and fragments

54

Other tools

8
57

25

12

14

59

Pebble tools

10

Tool
fragments

148

17

18

57

58

16

23

14

18

75

25

26

Tomsk Shestakovo Novoselovo 6 Novoselovo 6 Tarachikha Shlenka Ui 2

Ui 2
Ust(layer 5)
(coll. 1968)
(surface coll.)
(layer 2,
(layer 2,
Kovaa
horizon 2) horizon 3)

46

15

Shikaevka Mogochino
2
1

121

Retouched
flakes and
bladelets

Retouched
blades

Denticulate
and
notched
tools

Artifacts

Table 5 continued

25

11

Krasny Studenoe 2 Ikhine 2 VerkhbneYar

(layer 4/5) (layers
Troitskaya
(layer
IIa-Iid) (layer 3)
6)

39

165

29

10

UstOgonki 5
Ulma 1 (horizon
(layer
3)b
2b)

180
J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

181

Mogochino
Mogochino 1 is situated in the Ob River valley (Fig. 1), at an elevation of c. 14 m
above the water level. It was excavated by V. I. Matushchenko and M. V. Anikovich
in 1973, and then by Petrin in 19741976 (Petrin 1986, pp. 7599; see also
Derevianko et al. 1998a, p. 84). An area of 190 m2 was excavated (Petrin 1986,
p. 76).
The geomorphological position of this site is quite complex due to numerous
landslides along the bluffs of the Ob River. The cultural layer is located on top of
alluvial sands at a depth of 35 m below the surface. The matrix is sandy loam,
0.10.4 cm thick, impregnated with iron oxides. Above the cultural layer are traces
of permafrost, frost cracks, and solifluction structures. A layer of sapropel (organicenriched matter) above the cultural layer, with abundant plant remains, i.e.,
fragments of wood, bark, and twigs, was 14C-dated to 27,300 400 rcbp (GIN1701) and 34,200 1300 rcbp (GIN-1702) (Petrin 1986). Taking into account
mammoth bone from the cultural layer 14C-dated to c. 20,200 rcbp (Tables 1 and 3),
it seems clear that sedimentation at Mogochino 1 was quite active, including
redeposition of material from the upper surfaces of the river bank (the sapropel with
older 14C dates). Yet there are no traces of cultural layer disturbance (Petrin 1986, p.
82). Bones found at the site are mostly mammoth and horse (Derevianko et al.
1998a, p. 84) (Table 4), including a mammoth tusk split on the end found in the
cultural layer (Petrin 1986, p. 82).
Petrin (1986, p. 102) associates Mogochino 1 with the early Afontovo cultural
complex, which is not older than c. 16,00017,000 rcbp. Yet the presence of woolly
rhinoceros bones at Mogochino 1 indicates an early Sartan age for the site. The
bones of this species are absent at other Paleolithic sites in Siberia dated to
c. 16,00017,000 rcbp, according to Petrin (1986), although he suggested that
woolly rhinoceros might have survived in western Siberia longer than in the Yenisei
River valley (this is now supported by new data; see Orlova et al. 2004a, p. 305).
While the 14C date of c. 20,200 rcbp may be too old for the cultural layer, it does
support the early Sartan age.
Goebel (2002, p. 120, 2004, pp. 329331) is skeptical of the LGM age for
Mogochino 1, largely because he believes microblades appeared in Siberia after the
LGM (Goebel 2002, 2004; see also Kuzmin and Rybin 2005, pp. 4647). However,
Goebel (2004, p. 329) writes: cultural component appears to be in a primary
context, given the tight vertical distribution of artifacts and faunal remains and
the horizontal clustering of them into recognizable activity areas (Petrin 1986,
pp. 8485). Therefore, the in situ position of the cultural layer is beyond a doubt,
and the 14C mammoth date of c. 20,200 rcbp perhaps reflects site occupation at the
LGM, taking into consideration possible scavenging of subfossil megafaunal bones
(see below).
Cultural material from Mogochino 1 is represented by a microblade complex
(Derevianko et al. 1998a, p. 84; Petrin 1986), but without formal microblades. Twothirds of the cores are wedge-shaped, and common tools were wedges and
microtools (grouped with other tools in Table 5). Pebble raw material was collected
from the channel of the Ob River in the vicinity of the site (Petrin 1986, p. 97).

123

182

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

Tomsk
The Tomsk site was found in a former Military Garden [Lagerny Sad] within the
modern city of Tomsk, c. 40 m above the Tom River, and was excavated by
Kashchenko in 1896 (Derevianko et al. 1998a, pp. 8384; Kashchenko 1901; Zenin
2002, pp. 2829). It is one of the first Paleolithic finds reported for Siberia. The site
occupies the Tom River terrace, with the cultural layer at a depth of 3.5 m below the
surface in a loess-like loam (Petrin 1986, p. 72). An area of c. 30 m2 was excavated.
The only mammalian remains are mammoth (Table 4); bones were found lying
on a thin but continuous layer of charcoal. Some of the bones were broken by
humans, perhaps for marrow extraction. The charcoal pieces were carefully
collected, perhaps by Kashchenko himself, during the excavations and preserved in
a sealed glass tube for decades (Tseitlin 1983, p. 182). In the 1970s, charcoal from
the site was 14C-dated to c. 18,300 rcbp (Tables 1 and 3).
Goebel (2004, pp. 314315) describes the Tomsk site, citing Tseitlin (1979)
as the source for the sites location on the sixth terrace of the Tom River and the
14
C date. However, in the original source (Tseitlin 1979, pp. 182183 and elsewhere) there is no mention of either the Tomsk site or its 14C date. This 14C date was
originally published in another paper (Tseitlin 1983, p. 182), and then again by
Petrin (1986, p. 101).
Goebels skepticism about the reliability of the single conventional 14C (i.e.,
nonaccelerator mass spectrometry, hereafter AMS) date from the Tomsk site3 g
of charcoal is not much for conventional 14C analysis, so that the 14C age may be
artificially too young (Goebel 2004, p. 315)should not be taken seriously
because 3 g of clean charcoal is a fairly good amount for conventional 14C dating
(e.g., Aitken 1990, p. 78). Goebel also contradicts himself when discussinig the age
of the Tomsk site: the charcoal found in the test tube could have come from the
band of charcoal and ash that Kashchenko found underlying the mammoth, so that
this date [c. 18,300 rcbpY. K.] actually may be a lower-limiting age ... I tentatively
conclude, though, based on the absence of microblades in the assemblage, that the
Tomsk Paleolithic site does predate the LGM, but how many years cannot be
determined (Goebel 2004, p. 315). Goebels disbelief about the pre-LGM age of
the microblade complexes in Siberia seems to prevent him from accepting the
Tomsks charcoal 14C date.
Tseitlin (1983), being skeptical about the possibility of human existence in
Siberia at the LGM, c. 19,000 to 17,00016,000 rcbp (see also Tseitlin 1979, p.
260), believes the Tomsk site is not older than c. 17,00015,000 rcbp, although he
admitted that if we take into consideration the whole range of 14C age variation,
c. 17,00019,000 rcbp, the younger limit is close to the 14C date of the charcoal. The
presence of another sealed tube with wood remains from the Tomsk site, collected in
1896 and determined to be birch or aspen (Populus tremula) (Kashchenko 1901),
reveals that trees were surviving at the LGM in the Tom River basin, as it is known
now in central Europe and Siberia (see above). Thus, in my opinion there are no real
geological obstacles to accepting the Tomsk 14C date.
The artifact assemblage of the Tomsk site consists largely of debitage
(Derevianko et al. 1998a, p. 84) (Table 5). The stone industry is a blade type

123

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

183

(Zenin 2002, p. 29). One bone tool, or skreblo (large side scraper), made on a flake
from a mammoth limb bone is noteworthy (Zenin 2002).

Shestakovo
Shestakovo (Fig. 1) is located on the top of a bluff facing the Kiya River (tributary
of the Chulym River), at an elevation of c. 30 m above the water level (Derevianko
et al. 2000, 2003b; Zenin 2002). It was excavated in 19761978 and 19921999,
with the results fully published in the 2003 (Derevianko et al. 2003b). A total area
of c. 680 m2 was excavated as of the end of 1999.
Cultural material at the site is at a depth of c. 3.03.5 m below the surface;
the matrixes are colluvial loams and aeolian loess-like loams (Zenin et al. 2000a,
p. 747). There are many traces of permafrost in the cultural layers, mostly wedgelike cracks. Pollen data allowed the reconstruction of spruce-pine forests for cultural
layer 5, the possible LGM occupation (Derevianko et al. 2003b, p. 17). In the
material collected from the 19921999 excavations, mammoth remains account for
more than 90% of the total assemblage; other species include roe deer, hare, and
reindeer (Table 4). A mineral lick [solonets] existed for a long time in the vicinity of
the site, and this attracted mammoths and other animals to the area (Derevianko
et al. 2000, pp. 5253; Leshchinskiy 2001).
Three 14C dates were obtained for layer 5: two with LGM-related values, c.
18,000 and 19,200 rcbp (Table 3), and one older date, 21,560 100 rcbp (GrA13234) (Zenin et al. 2000a, b). Bone material (mammoth ribs and vertebrae) for the
LGM dates produced in Novosibirsk (Lab code SOAN) by liquid scintillation
counting was gathered from two locales (each 2 m2) and thus represent pooled
samples. The material (the fragment of a mammoth tooth) for the AMS date GrA13234 made in Groningen was collected from a single spot (Derevianko et al.
2003b, pp. 6768). The presence of a mammoth cemetery near Shestakovo and
the scavenging of mammoth bones (Zenin et al. 2000a, b) may be responsible for
the wide variation of 14C ages obtained from layer 5. Based on horse and reindeer
bones dated to c. 20,400 rcbp and a charcoal date of c. 20,800 rcbp for the
underlying layer 6 (Zenin et al. 2000b), the 14C value of c. 21,560 rcbp from layer 5
appears to be too old.
The stone artifact assemblage of layer 5 contains 440 items, of which 101 are
tools (Zenin 2002, p. 33), including 53 thornlike tools and one hammerstone (other
tools in Table 5). One hundred twenty-six stone artifacts were recovered from layer
5 during the 19921999 excavations when stratigraphic control was very strict; they
are directly associated with 14C dates of c. 21,60018,000 rcbp. The artifacts
include 108 debitage pieces, 3 cores, 1 bladelet, and 14 tools (mainly retouched
bladelets and thornlike and denticulate tools) (Derevianko et al. 2003b, p. 69). The
dominant raw material is microquartzite. No bone artifacts were found in layer 5;
however, 11 needle fragments were found in the underlying cultural layer 6, dated to
c. 23,30020,800 rcbp (Derevianko et al. 2003b, pp. 86, 124; Zenin et al. 2000a).

123

184

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

Eastern Siberia
Novoselovo
Novoselovo 6, situated in the Yenisei River valley (Fig. 1), was found and
excavated in 1968 by Abramova (1979a, 1991, p. 89). An area of about 250 m2 was
uncovered; the site was submerged after construction of the Krasnoyarsk Reservoir.
A geoarchaeological study was conducted by Tseitlin (1979, pp. 121124).
The site occupies a terrace-like surface 2326 m above the Yenisei River, with
cultural material found in sandy loam at a depth of 1.5 m below the surface; the
cultural layer is about 0.4 m thick (Tseitlin 1979, p. 122). Most of the mammal
remains are reindeer (Vasilev 2003a, p. 548) (Table 4), and articulated reindeer
bones were often found (Abramova 1991, p. 89). A fragment of a human mandible
also was recovered.
Three 14C values were obtained from the cultural layer: one charcoal date of
11,600 500 rcbp (GIN-403) and two reindeer bone dates of 13,570 140 rcbp
(LE-5045) and c. 18,100 rcbp (Table 3) (Lisitsyn and Svezhentsev 1997, p. 96;
Vasilev et al. 2002, p. 525). Unfortunately, provenance details for these dates are
not available. The stone industry of Novoselovo 6 is of the early Kokorevo cultural
complex (Abramova 1979a; Lisitsyn 2000). Lisitsyn and Svezhentsev (1997, p. 88)
assume that the roots of this tradition may be found in the assemblages of the Ui 1
site (lower layer) and Novoselovo 13. The 14C dates for these complexes are c.
22,800 rcbp (Ui 1) and c. 22,000 rcbp (Novoselovo 13) (e.g., Vasilev et al. 2002).
Thus the 14C value of c. 18,100 rcbp from Novoselovo 6 appears reasonable.
The artifact assemblage from Novoselovo 6 consists of two collections: one
obtained during the 1968 excavations and the other gathered from the surface of the
destroyed site by Lisitsyn (2000, p. 47) (Table 5). Blades and microblades are
prevalent in the excavated material, and microcores (grouped with other tools in
Table 5) are common tools in the surface collection. The raw material is mainly
silicified shale and quartzite; a jasper-like rock is less common (Abramova 1991).
Among the bone tools, there are points with grooves and two eye needles
(Abramova 1979a, p. 146).

Tarachikha
Tarachikha is located in the Yenisei River basin near Novoselovo 6 (Fig. 1), on top
of a terrace c. 40 m above water level. It was never properly excavated because it
was already largely destroyed when it was found; material was collected from the
surface by Abramova and by Lisitsyn (Lisitsyn 2000, p. 33; see summary in
Derevianko et al. 1998a). The lower cultural layer (No. 2), possibly related to the
LGM, was found in colluvial loam at a depth of about 2.5 m below the surface.
Faunal remains belong mainly to mammoth (Table 4); some rodents (Marmota sp.
and Citellus sp.) also were identified (Vasilev 2003a, p. 538). Two 14C dates were
obtained from the site: c. 18,900 rcbp on mammoth bone and c. 19,900 rcbp on
reindeer bone (Table 3). Both samples were collected from the destroyed part of the

123

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

185

site (Lisitsyn and Svezhentsev 1997, p. 96), and Lisitsyn (2000, p. 33) assumed that
they were associated with cultural layer 2.
The corpus of stone artifacts from cultural layer 2 includes 5450 items (Table 5).
Cores are generally small and were used to produce bladelets. Although single
platform (unifacial) cores dominate, there also are subprismatic, cubelike, and end
cores. No wedge-shaped prismatic cores were found at Tarachikha (Derevianko
et al. 1998a, p. 117). Slate-argillite, silicified rocks, jasper, quartzite, and
chalcedony were used to manufacture the artifacts (Abramova 1983; Derevianko
et al. 1998a). A single bone tool, an antler point, and a pendant made of a reindeer
incisor represent the bone artifacts from cultural layer 2.

Shlenka
Shlenka is located on a high terrace-like surface (70 m above water level) in the
Yenisei River basin, near the modern Krasnoyarsk Reservoir and the Novoselovo 6
and Tarachikha sites (Fig. 1). There were no true excavations due to earlier site
destruction; several test pits were dug to get faunal and pollen samples by A. F.
Yamskikh and by Lisitsyn (2000, p. 37). Archaeological material was collected
from the bottom of a bluff and the surface of the destroyed site. In test pits, where
cultural material was found in situ, it was incorporated in the loess-like loam matrix
at a depth of ca. 2.5 m below the surface. Near the site, abundant mammoth bones
were found.
Bone material was identified mainly as reindeer; rodent remains also were
present (Table 4). Based on pollen analysis (Lisitsyn 2000, pp. 3738), the
vegetation consisted of cold forest steppe with a dominance of sedge-chenopod
formations and a few trees. Along with three LGM-associated 14C dates from
mammoth tusk (GIN-2863), mammoth limb bone (GIN-2861), and combined bison
and reindeer bones (GIN-2862) (Table 3), a slightly younger 14C value was obtained
on a pooled sample of bison and reindeer bones: 17,660 700 rcbp (GIN-2862a).
The material for all four 14C dates was collected in the destroyed area where the site
was located (Lisitsyn and Svezhentsev 1997, p. 98).
The stone inventory of Shlenka is quite numerous (Table 5); no end cores were
found, and the assemblage is of a typical bladelet type (Lisitsyn 2000). The raw
material includes mainly quartzite, with some flint, jasperoid, and silicified shale
(Astakhov et al. 1993).

Ui
Ui 1 is positioned near the mouth of the Ui River, an upstream tributary of the
Yenisei River (Fig. 1). The site is on the Ui River terrace 2325 m above the
water level. It was discovered and excavated by Vasilev (1996, p. 145); an area of
c. 200 m2 with cultural remains was exposed. A geoarchaeological study was
conducted by Tseitlin and Yamskikh (see summary in Vasilev 1996).

123

186

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

The LGM-related cultural layer 2 is at a depth of c. 2.3 m in alluvial sands. There

are several sediment layers in the Ui 1 section with traces of permafrost: polygonal
wedge-shaped structures below the cultural layer 2, and polygonal structures and
solifluction textures above the cultural layer 2 (Vasilev 1996, p. 148; Vasilev et al.
2005, p. 31). Pollen of birch, pine, larch, sedge, and chenopods, and spores of
mosses and ferns were identified in cultural layer 2, indicating the presence of
mixed conifer-birch forests with large open spaces covered with steppe (Vasilev
et al. 2005). Predominant mammals from cultural layer 2 are bison, Asiatic wild ass,
and ibex (Table 4) (Vasilev 2003a, p. 538).
Five 14C dates are known for cultural layer 2: one charcoal value of
22,830 530 rcbp (LE-4189) and four bone dates: 16,700 120 rcbp (LE-3358),
17,520 130 rcbp (LE-3359), 17,690 210 rcbp (AA-38054) (Vasilev et al.
2005), and c. 19,300 rcbp (Table 3). Cultural layer 2 is subdivided into three
horizons, 1 through 3 from top to bottom; artifacts were found mainly in horizons 2
and 3 (Vasilev 1993, 1996). These two horizons are not separated from each other
by sterile sediments, but may be distinguished by their lithological characteristics:
horizon 2 is situated in sandy loam while horizon 3 is associated with coarse sand
(Vasilev 1996, p. 150). This makes subdivision of cultural layer 2 into horizons
quite secure. The 14C dates are associated with horizons 23 (Vasilev, personal
communication 2005).
Descriptions of artifacts from horizons 2 and 3 are given separately (Table 5). In
horizon 2, cores are represented by single and multiplatform specimens with parallel
splitting, a triangular core of Levallois type, and by discoidal, prismatic, and end
cores. There also is one bone tool, a fragment of an antler point without groove, and
a retouched bone fragment (Vasilev 1996, p. 170). In horizon 3, there are discoidal,
prismatic, and end cores, and two wedge-shaped core preforms. There also are two
bone borers from this horizon (Vasilev 1996, p. 170). The presence of 324 bladelets
and microblades indicates a blade-type stone assemblage, with some evidence of
microblade manufacture from wedge-shaped cores (Vasilev 1996, pp. 169170).
The raw material is represented mainly by quartzite (4849%) and microquartzite
(4043%); pebbles of these rocks were brought to the site from the nearby river
channel (Vasilev 1996, p. 191). An oval-shaped structure made of 21 rib fragments
was identified in cultural layer 2, perhaps for processing hides, although no tools
associated with hide removal were found (Beyries et al. 2002).

Ust-Kova
Ust-Kova, on the 1417-m terrace of the Angara River in the central part of eastern
Siberia (Fig. 1), was originally discovered by A. P. Okladnikov in 1937 and
excavated by Drozdov in the 1970s and 1980s (Drozdov et al. 1990; Goebel 2004,
p. 316; Vasilievsky et al. 1988). The results of excavations are still not fully
published (Drozdov et al. 1990; Vasilievsky et al. 1988). About 1200 m2 of
Paleolithic cultural layer was exposed. Geoarchaeological research was conducted
mainly by S. A. Laukhin (see summary in Drozdov et al. 1990).

123

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

187

The site stratigraphy is extremely complex. The main Upper Paleolithic component (the so-called middle complex in Vasilievsky et al. 1988) is located in
heavy loams at a depth of c. 2.02.5 m below the surface, on top of the alluvium
(sands with pebbles and boulders) of the second terrace of the Angara River. These
loams are intensively disturbed by different permafrost processesice-wedge
formation and downslope solifluction movement of sedimentsso that it is almost
impossible to trace levels of human occupation at Ust-Kova. Only major
subdivisionslate, middle, and early cultural complexesmay be distinguished.
Most of the Paleolithic artifacts from the middle complex were incorporated into clay
and loam with carbonates, paleosol, and grayish-brown sandy loam (Vasilievsky
et al. 1988, p. 87). However, I am certain that almost all the faunal remains were
deliberately brought to the site by its Paleolithic inhabitants; charcoal pieces are
directly related to the human occupation. Thus, their 14C dates reflect the timing of the
Paleolithic peoples presence. For this site, the direct association of 14C-dated bones
and charcoal and the artifacts is not crucial to establish the time span for human
occupation.
Pollen data from the middle complex show a dominance of nonarboreal
pollen and spores; arboreal pollen is rare. The vegetation included steppe-like
formations with a limited presence of trees (pine, birch, spruce, and larch); the
climate was wet and cold (Vasilievsky et al. 1988, p. 78). Mammal remains belong
to mammoth and reindeer (the prevailing species), and other ungulates (Table 4)
(Vasilev 2003a).
The charcoal 14C dates for the middle complex are 23,920 310 rcbp (KRIL381), c. 18,000 rcbp (KRIL-621), and c. 19,500 rcbp (SOAN-1900) (Table 3).
There also is a mammoth bone 14C date from this complex, 21,755 230 rcbp
(AA-8887) (Goebel 2004, p. 318). Poor sample provenance for dates SOAN-1900
and KRIL-621 does not allow association of these dates precisely with the middle
complex of Ust-Kova, but the similar depths of charcoal for the SOAN-1900 value
(1.51.8 m below the surface; a pooled sample collected from pit 4; see Orlova
1995, p. 223) and the KRIL-621 age determination (1.5 m below the surface)
(Starikov et al. 1991, p. 144) makes the LGM-related 14C dates from Ust-Kova
acceptable. The previous association of the SOAN-1900 value with the late complex
(Kuzmin and Orlova 1998, p. 35) was aberrant, as mentioned by Goebel (2002,
p. 120), but its association with the early complex (Goebel 2004, pp. 317318) also
is questionable (e.g., Kuzmin and Rybin 2005, p. 46). Lisitsyn and Svezhentsev
(1997, p. 100) reported a bone 14C date of 13,860 780 rcbp (LE-3820) from the
middle complex (at the bottom of the paleosol). This value is in disagreement with
the charcoal 14C date of the late complex, 14,200 110 rcbp (LE-1872), and should
be discarded. Unfortunately, the patterns of Ust-Kova site formation are still not
fully understood.
The stone assemblage of the middle complex includes 2731 items (Table 5)
(Vasilievsky et al. 1988). Typical for this complex are three kinds of primary reduction: parallel, radial, and Levallois (Fig. 4) (Drozdov et al. 1990, p. 162); wedgeshaped cores are absent (Vasilievsky et al. 1988, p. 85). The tools include nine bifaces
(Fig. 5). The artifacts were manufactured using quartzite, flint, jasper, chalcedony,
diabase, argillite, and marlstone. Bone artifacts are plentiful; there are cores and

123

188

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

Fig. 4 Stone artifacts from middle complex of the Ust-Kova site (after Vasilievsky et al. 1988, p. 203).
17, 9, 10cores; 8plane. Scale bar = 1 cm

anvils, a needle, and numerous adornments (pendants and beads), figurines, and an
engraving (Fig. 6). Many bones have traces of cutting, sawing, polishing, and drilling
(Drozdov et al. 1990, p. 171).

123

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

189

Fig. 5 Stone artifacts from middle complex of the Ust-Kova site (after Vasilievsky et al. 1988, p. 205).
110bifaces; 11, 12combined tools. Scale bar = 1 cm

123

190

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

Fig. 6 Bone artifacts from middle complex of the Ust-Kova site (after Drozdov et al. 1990, p. 176).
1bracelet fragment; 2, 4, 7pendants; 3solar sign; 5, 1421beads, 6, 813bead preforms. Scale
bar = 1 cm

123

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

191

Krasny Yar
Krasny Yar (Krasnyi Iar and Krasnyi-Iar-1 in some sources) is located in the Angara
River basin (Fig. 1). It was excavated by Abramova and by Medvedev (see summary
in Medvedev 1998); a total area of about 830 m2 was uncovered. In 1967, the site
was flooded by the Bratsk Reservoir. A geoarchaeological study was conducted by N.
A. Logachev, L. N. Ivanyev, Ermolova, and Tseitlin (see Tseitlin 1979).
Cultural materials, subdivided into seven occupation layers, were recovered from
the matrix of alluvial sands of the third terrace of the Angara, c. 20 m above the
water level (Tseitlin 1979, p. 170). There are several horizons with permafrost
structures, ice-wedge pseudomorphoses, above layer 5 (Abramova 1965; Tseitlin
1979, p. 172). Layer 6 at a depth of approximately 4.55.0 m below the surface is
14
C-dated to c. 19,100 rcbp (Table 3). Faunal remains belong mostly to reindeer,
woolly rhinoceros, bison, and rodent (Lagurus lagurus Pall.) (Ermolova 1978,
pp. 2627) (Table 4). Goebel (2002, p. 120) has stated: the early components at
Krasnyi-Iar-1 may very well date to 19,000 B.P., suggesting an appearance of
microblade technology in the southern Angara region at the height of the last
glacial. More radiocarbon determinations, however, are necessary to confirm this.
Unfortunately, Krasny Yar is now submerged underneath the Bratsk Reservoir, at a
modern depth of c. 10 m. Perhaps the finding, sampling, and 14C dating of
paleontological collections might help establish the age of this site more securely.
Archaeological data from layer 6 have been widely published (e.g., Abramova
1965; Michael 1984, pp. 3738; see summary in Medvedev 1998, pp. 129131)
(Table 5). The assemblage contains 19 wedge-shaped cores and microcores, and
they are among the earliest evidence of microblade production in eastern Siberia.
Raw material is flint, chalcedony, jasper, and argillite. Ten ornaments made of
reindeer incisors are notable.

Malta
Malta in the Angara River headwaters, about 100 km downstream from modern
Irkutsk (Fig. 1), is known worldwide due to its rich Upper Paleolithic assemblage
that includes numerous human and animal figurines and a human burial (e.g., Bahn
2001, p. 275; Darvill 2002, p. 243). It was excavated by M. M. Gerasimov in the late
1920s and in the 1930s and 1950s; smaller-scale excavations (460 m2) were
conducted under the leadership of Medvedev in the 1990s (Lipnina 2002; Lipnina
et al. 2001; Medvedev et al. 1996). Below the main cultural component are artifacts
associated with bones 14C-dated to c. 43,00041,000 rcbp (Hedges et al. 1998,
p. 234; Lipnina et al. 2001). Geoarchaeological studies were conducted in the
1930s1990s, mainly by V. I. Gromov, E. I. Ravsky, A. I. Moskvitin, Logachev, and
Tseitlin (Tseitlin 1979, p. 177); and in the 1990s by S. A. Nesmeyanov, G. I.
Vorobeva, and E. B. Oshchepkova (Lipnina et al. 2001, pp. 4748).
Malta is located on a terrace-like surface, c. 15 m above the Belaya River
(tributary of the Angara River), in colluvial loess-like deposits overlying alluvial
pebbles (Tseitlin 1979, p. 179). There are well-distinguished permafrost structures

123

192

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

in the cultural-containing sediments, ice-wedge pseudomorphoses, frost cracks, and

solifluction textures. Pollen data from the main cultural layer shows a periglacial
environment; however, identified charcoal fragments revealed birch and possibly fir
(Tseitlin 1979, pp. 180181). The primary mammal species are reindeer and Arctic
fox (Table 4) (Ermolova 1978, pp. 2223; Vasilev 2003a, p. 539). Bones of birds
(goose, gull, and crow) (Ermolova 1978), rodents (pikas, lemmings, and mice)
(Khenzykhenova and Shushpanova 2001), and fish (hucho, Hucho taimen Berg)
(Lipnina et al. 2001, p. 66) also were identified.
There are numerous 14C dates on bone from the main cultural component of
Malta (layer 8), ranging in age from c. 22,900 to c. 19,900 rcbp (Lipnina et al.
2001, p. 62; Vasilev et al. 2002, pp. 526527). There was no charcoal in cultural
layer 8; however, a recent direct 14C date of a child burial from Malta returned an
age of c. 19,900 rcbp (Table 3), with stable isotope values of d13C = 18.4% and
d15N = +12.2% (Richards et al. 2001). Based on these data, 2550% of the Malta
inhabitants diet was derived from aquatic sources, namely, fish and fowl (Richards
et al. 2001, p. 6529). With such a diet, the reservoir correction should apply to the
OxA-7129 date. If we use the Danube River reservoir age value of c. 540 years
(Bonsall et al. 2004) as a possible analog to the Angara River, where no comparable
information exists, the Malta date may be no more than a few hundred years
younger. Thus the LGM association of the main cultural layer of Malta seems
secure.
Although archaeological data for Malta is well published (e.g., Medvedev 1998;
Vasilev 2000), analysis of the stone tools is very preliminary. The assemblage
consists of 12,263 pieces of flaked stone and 566 bone, antler, and ivory artifacts
(Medvedev 1998, p. 126). The stone industry is characterized by blade production
(dominant), with some evidence of microblade manufacture from wedge-shaped
cores. Raw material is flint, jasper, quartzite, and hornblendite (Medvedev 1998),
most likely collected from the nearby river channel. The site has a rich bone artifact
assemblage, including ivory needles.

Studenoe
Studenoe 2 is located in the southern Transbaikal (Fig. 1), in the alluvium that
constitutes the second terrace of the Chikoi River, c. 10 m above the water level.
The LGM-related layer 4/5, which lies at a depth of 2.62.7 m below the surface,
was excavated by Konstantinov (2001, pp. 96110), in collaboration with M. V.
Konstantinov. Geoarchaeological studies were undertaken by L. D. Bazarova
(Tseitlin and Aseev 1982, pp. 6869) and Buvit (Buvit et al. 2003, 2004).
Pollen data from the Studenoe 2 section where cultural layer 4/5 was later found
(layer 6 in Tseitlin and Aseev 1982, pp. 6869) shows a vegetation of light
coniferous forests with birch, alder, and sedge-cereal associations. Faunal remains
from layer 4/5 include mainly brown bear, red deer, and roe deer (Table 4),
although ungulates, possibly sheep (Ovis sp.), aurochs (Bos sp.), bison, and wild yak
(Poephagus sp.) also were present. Currently, there are seven AMS 14C dates run on

123

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

193

charcoal from dwelling hearths (Goebel et al. 2000; Kuzmin et al. 2004b) that range
in age from c. 17,900 to c. 14,500 rcbp; one AMS 14C date obtained on bone
collected near hearth 1 (Goebel et al. 2000) is c. 18,800 rcbp (Table 3) and could be
LGM-related (but see Discussion section below).
Lithic artifacts are represented by 1155 specimens (Table 5). There are seven
wedge-shaped cores, 46 microblades, and 197 microblade fragments (Konstantinov
2001, pp. 105106). The raw material is mainly jasper. Four bone needles were
found in layer 4/5; a complete one with eye is 4.2 cm long. Fifteen beads made of
rhyolite (five beads) and ostrich eggshell (ten beads) were found in the dwelling
(Konstantinov 2001).

Mamakan
Mamakan 2 is situated in the northern Transbaikal (Fig. 1), in the valley of the
Mamakan River (a tributary of the Vitim River). This region is on the boundary
between two mountain systems, North Baikal and the Patom highlands (Suslov
1961, p. 290) or uplands (Shahgedanova et al. 2002, p. 335). There was mountain
glaciation in this region in the Late Weichselian (see summary in Shahgedanova
et al. 2002, pp. 337338), which affected Paleolithic humans (Ineshin 2003, p. 57).
Mamakan 2 occupies the top of a 1214-m terrace at the confluence of the
Mamakan and Vitim Rivers, and artifacts were found in sands overlying alluvial
pebbles and boulders. The site was discovered and surveyed by Ineshin (2003), who
excavated a 4-m2 pit.
There are four cultural layers at the site; charcoal collected at a depth of 0.9 m
between the third and fourth layers returned a 14C date of c. 18,700 rcbp (Belousov
et al. 2002, p. 26; Table 3). Mammoth tusks from approximately the same layer and
depth were dated to 17,610 200 rcbp (SOAN-4418) and 22,480 420 rcbp
(SOAN-4416) (Ineshin et al. 2005). A mammoth tusk from the bottom of the
outcrop, at a depth of 18 m below the surface, was 14C-dated to greater than
48,000 rcbp (GIN-9066) (Belousov et al. 2002; Ineshin et al. 2005). Very little is
published thus far on the stone industry of Mamakan 2, although a microlithic
technology and flakes have been noted (Belousov et al. 2002, p. 26; Ineshin,
personal communication 2005).

Tesa
The Tesa site in the North Baikal highland was found and preliminarily studied by
Ineshin (Ineshin et al. 2005). It is situated on the Mama River, another tributary of
the Vitim River. The left humerus of a bison with traces of human modification,
14
C-dated to c. 20,000 rcbp (Table 3), was recovered at a depth of about 56 m
below the surface in a gold placer area. The matrix for this find is fine loams and
sands, overlain by laminated lacustrine clays (Belousov et al. 2002, p. 37; Ineshin
et al. 2001, p. 168; Ineshin et al. 2005, p. 53). The flat top of the bone was retouched
by humans into a sharp edge that was used perhaps for scraping (Ineshin, personal

123

194

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

communication 2005). Osteologists with extensive experience in taphonomic

research in Siberia (e.g., Turner et al. 2003) and who have examined the bone also
agree that it was modified by humans (Ineshin, personal communication 2005). This
find might represent human occupation of the northern Transbaikal at the LGM,
along with the more solid data from Mamakan 2.

Ikhine
Ikhine 2 is located on the 12-m terrace of the Aldan River in the central part of
eastern Siberia, also called Yakutia (Fig. 1). The site was found by Mochanov, who
excavated an area of 216 m2 (Mochanov 1983, p. 65). A geoarchaeological study
was conducted by Tseitlin (1979).
Cultural materials were discovered at a depth of c. 0.41.8 m below the surface
in alluvial loams. Palynological data show a prevalence of nonarboreal pollen and
spores in the culture-bearing sediments (e.g., Savvinova et al. 1996), suggesting a
cold periglacial environment. The mammal assemblage is rich, including proboscidean, ungulate, and carnivora species (Mochanov 1983, p. 65) (Table 4).
There are several cultural layers at Ikhine 2, with a series of 14C dates from c.
24,300 to c. 31,200 rcbp and some age inversions (Mochanov and Fedoseeva 1996,
p. 193). These 14C dates have been questioned because of the uncertainty of the
degree of association between 14C-dated wood specimens and artifacts (e.g.,
Abramova 1979b; Kuzmin and Orlova 1998; Yi and Clark 1985; but see Larichev
et al. 1992, pp. 460462). A small excavation in 1992 recovered bone samples
submitted for 14C dating without provenance details (Orlova, personal communication 2005), which returned 14C ages of c. 19,700 rcbp (bison bone), c.
20,100 rcbp (woolly rhinoceros bone) (Table 3), and 15,780 70 rcbp on elk
bone (SOAN-3187) (Vasilev et al. 2002, p. 530). The two LGM-related values
obtained from bone may be more securely associated with the artifacts than are
numerous 14C dates obtained from wood, which possibly include pieces redeposited
from older sediments (see Kuzmin and Orlova 1998; Vasilev et al. 2002), if we
assume that the bones were brought to the site by humans.
Various publications include discussions of the Ikhine 2 site (e.g., Mochanov and
Fedoseeva 1996, pp. 189195). The stone artifact assemblage is small, with only 21
items (Table 5), including one wedge-shaped core (Mochanov and Fedoseeva 1996,
p. 194, Fig. 321, e). Kashin (2003, p. 132) has cast doubt on this core, suggesting
that it might be a rock fragment without traces of human working. The raw materials
are hornfels, diabase, chert, and argillite.

Verkhne-Troitskaya
Verkhne-Troitskaya is on the 1013-m terrace of the Aldan River (Fig. 1). It was
found by Mochanov (1983, p. 55), who excavated an area of 350 m2. A geoarchaeological study was conducted by Tseitlin (1979).

123

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

195

Cultural material is incorporated into loams lying on the top of alluvium, at a

depth of c. 5.06.0 m below the surface according to Mochanov and Fedoseeva
(1996, p. 180, fig. 311) or c. 4.5.2 m according to Tseitlin (1979, p. 230). Goebel
(2004, p. 330, fig. 11.5, p. 335) seems to mistakenly have measured the artifact
position at a depth of 3.54 m. There are ice-wedge pseudomorphoses above the
artifact-containing layer (Tseitlin 1979, p. 231). Most of the faunal remains
identified at the site are bison (Mochanov and Fedoseeva 1996, p. 181) (Table 4).
The oldest 14C date for the site, c. 18,300 rcbp (Table 3), was obtained from a wood
sample collected just above the artifacts (Mochanov and Fedoseeva 1996, p. 180,
fig. 311). Kashin (2003, p. 133) is not so confident about the stratigraphic position
of the dated sample and assumes that the site could be younger, c. 14,000
12,000 rcbp, citing Tseitlins (1979) opinion.
The archaeological assemblage of layer 3 at Verkhne-Troitskaya is small, with
only 52 stone artifacts (Table 5) and one bone needle (Mochanov and Fedoseeva,
1996, p. 181). Among the lithics, there are two wedge-shaped cores. The raw
material is mainly chert.

The Russian Far East

Ust-Ulma
Ust-Ulma 1 (Ust-Ulma and Ust-Ulma in some sources) is situated in the valley of
the Selemdzha (in some sources Selemdga; see Derevianko 1996) River, a tributary
of the Zeya River that is part of the greater Amur River basin (Fig. 1). It was
discovered and excavated originally by Derevianko and A. I. Mazin, and later by
Zenin (Derevianko and Zenin 1995, p. 3). A total of c. 670 m2 of cultural deposits
have been uncovered.
The site is on a terrace-like surface 2527 m above the Ulma River, near the
confluence of the Ulma and Selemdzha Rivers. Cultural materials are incorporated
into a matrix of heavy loam; the LGM-related cultural layer 2b was found c. 0.5
0.6 m below the surface (Derevianko and Zenin 1995). There are traces of
permafrost in the form of cracks in cultural layers 13. No bone material was found,
perhaps due to the high soil acidity common in the Russian Far East and
neighboring Japan and Korea.
Charcoal from a hearth in cultural layer 2b at a depth of 0.6 m below the surface
(Orlova 1995, p. 228) was 14C-dated to c. 19,400 rcbp (Table 3). Goebel (2002, p.
121) is skeptical about this age determination: This is the only determination from
the site, however, and microblades come from a fairly shallow (\ 1 m) context.
More information on the dated sample and its association with cultural remains is
needed, as are additional radiocarbon determinations, in order to fully evaluate the
sites age. Yet details of the charcoal sample provenance are given in basic sources
(Derevianko 1996, p. 285; Derevianko and Zenin 1995, pp. 30, 64). The hearth is
1518 cm deep and 90 cm in diameter, and several flakes were found in the hearths
fill (Derevianko and Zenin 1995, p. 30). Thus the association of the Ust-Ulma 1
occupation with the LGM is quite secure.

123

196

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

The paucity of datable material at Ust-Ulma 1 hampers further dating of this

complex. Attempts to get additional Pleistocene 14C dates from the layers above
failed; charcoal from a depth of 0.180.24 m returned an age of 1230 55 rcbp
(SOAN-2454), and another charcoal sample from a depth of 0.180.31 m was dated
to 990 55 rcbp (SOAN-2455) (Orlova 1995, p. 228). These dates show human
occupation of the site in the Middle Ages. Finally, almost all the Upper Paleolithic
sites in the Russian Far East are in shallow contexts (e.g., Kuzmin 1992, 1994;
Kuzmin et al. 1998), due to lack of sedimentation on terraces and terrace-like
surfaces at the time of human occupation and afterwards.
Archaeological materials from Ust-Ulma and other sites in the Selemdzha River
basin have been fully published (Derevianko and Zenin 1995; Derevianko et al.
1998b; Nelson et al. 2006, pp. 6568) (Table 5). The assemblage from layer 2b is
typical of the microblade complex of the late Upper Paleolithic, which is widely
distributed in Siberia, the Russian Far East, Japan, Korea, China, and Mongolia
(Derevianko and Zenin 1995, pp. 7375). The layer 2b assemblage includes 8 end
cores and 18 wedge-shaped cores (Fig. 7) and 69 bifaces (Fig. 8). Liparite was the
main raw material, with minor proportions of flint and jasper.

Ogonki
Ogonki 5 is located in the southern part of Sakhalin Island (Fig. 1), on a surface c.
40 m above the Lutoga River, in colluvial loams overlying the alluvium of the third
river terrace. It was discovered by Vasilevski (2003) who excavated an area of c.
170 m2. A geoarchaeological study was conducted by Kuzmin (Kuzmin et al.
1998).
No bones were found at the site. Pollen data reveal a vegetation of light fir-spruce
forest with shrubs and rare deciduous trees (Kuzmin et al. 1998). A series of
charcoal 14C dates from hearths, c. 19,40018,900 rcbp (Table 3), was obtained
from cultural horizon 3. Charcoal from the upper horizon 2 produced a 14C date of
17,860 120 rcbp (AA-23137) (Kuzmin et al. 1998; Vasilevski 2003). These
dates, along with flakes refitted to cores (Vasilevski 2003), provide strong evidence
of the in situ position of the artifacts at Ogonki 5. There is also an older 14C value
from horizon 3, 31,130 440 rcbp (AA-23138), but its association with the main
cultural component is not clear.
Archaeological data from Ogonki 5 have been published in a very preliminary
fashion (Nelson et al. 2006, pp. 8283; Vasilevski 2003). Although the total
number of stone artifacts from horizon 3 is 11,450, information is given for only
9145 (Table 5), which includes 339 microblades and microspalls and 6 wedgeshaped cores made with the Horoka technique (see, for example, Morlan 1967,
p. 173). The raw material includes obsidian, basalt, flint, and silicified shale
(Vasilevski 2003). Amber found at the site came from the seashore, which was
c. 100 km away when the site was occupied (Nelson et al. 2006, p. 81; Vasilevski
2003). Obsidian was obtained from the Shirataki source on Hokkaido Island,
c. 380 km away as the crow flies (Kuzmin et al. 2002). The presence of these

123

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

197

Fig. 7 Cores from layer 2b of the Ust-Ulma site (after Derevianko and Zenin 1995, p. 129). Scale
bar = 1 cm

substances is indicative of long-distance exchange of raw material and other

products. In general, the Ogonki 5 assemblage is typical of the late Upper
Paleolithic of Northeast Asia, with a well-developed microblade technology
(Vasilevski 2003).

123

198

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

Fig. 8 Bifaces from layer 2b of the Ust-Ulma site (after Derevianko and Zenin 1995, p. 142). Scale
bar = 1 cm

Discussion
After reviewing the available environmental and archaeological data for the LGM
time span in Siberia, it is necessary to discuss in more detail several important issues
directly related to the LGM human occupation of Siberia and Eastern Europe: (1)

123

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

199

evaluation of 14C dates from Siberian LGM-related sites; (2) dynamics of the Upper
Paleolithic occupation of Siberia; (3) presence of humans in Eastern Europe at the
LGM; and (4) scenarios of human adaptation in northern Eurasia at the LGM.

Reliability of

14

C records from the LGM Paleolithic sites in Siberia

A major problem with Paleolithic 14C dates from Siberia is that people scavenged
subfossil bones, tusks, and teeth of megafauna, mainly of mammoth and woolly
rhinoceros, for different purposes. As a result, the 14C ages of these faunal remains
do not necessarily reflect the timing of human occupation. In Siberia and eastern
Europe, mammoth bones were utilized as fuel, and ivory was used to make tools and
adornments (e.g., Amirkhanov 2000; Derevianko et al. 2000; Soffer 1985, 1993).
Scavenged subfossil bones of older age have been detected in Siberia with 14C
dating at the Shestakovo, Kaminnaya Cave, and Studenoe 2 sites (e.g., Buvit et al.
2004; Markin et al. 2001; Zenin et al. 2000a, b). Thus, the bone and tusk 14C dates,
from Upper Paleolithic sites generally and LGM-associated sites specifically, should
be treated with caution.
Although there is concern about the possible distortion of the true occupation
age by older bone 14C dates (Kuzmin and Keates 2005; Velichko and Zelikson
2005, p. 149), alteration of 14C records is more likely at sites located near so-called
mammoth cemeteries, i.e., large concentrations of subfossil megafaunal remains.
In Siberia, the best-known mammoth cemeteries are situated near the Paleolithic
sites of Shestakovo, Lugovskoe, Volchya Griva, and Berelekh (e.g., Derevianko
et al. 2000, 2003c; Orlova et al. 2004b; Vereshchagin and Baryshnikov 1984,
pp. 492493, 508509; Zenin 2002). Several series of Paleolithic 14C dates obtained
on both charcoal and bone from the same layer in Siberia range in age from
c. 24,000 to c. 12,000 rcbp, particularly at Listvenka (layer 19), Kurtak 4 (layer 11),
Kokorevo 1 (layer 3), Novoselovo 7, Ui 1 (layer 2), Golubaya 1 (layer 3), and
Bolshoi Yakor (layers 7 and 6) (see Vasilev et al. 2002, pp. 524527). At these
sites, bone dates are not significantly older or younger than charcoal dates.
Therefore, it appears that scavenging of subfossil bones in the Upper Paleolithic of
Siberia was of limited scale outside of large mammoth cemeteries and does not
seriously affect the 14C chronology of the sites.
There are currently 18 sites with 27 14C dates corresponding to the LGM interval
of c. 20,15018,035 rcbp (Table 3). These include 11 sites with 14C values generated
on megafaunal bones not necessarily directly corresponding to the LGM. This is
especially true for Studenoe 2, where the single LGM value of c. 18,830 rcbp from
layer 4/5 (Buvit et al. 2003; Goebel et al. 2000; Kuzmin et al. 2004a; Table 3)
contradicts the general site stratigraphy. The charcoal 14C value of 17,165
115 rcbp (AA-23657) from the underlying cultural layer 5 (Buvit et al. 2004; Goebel
et al. 2000) does not overlap with the LGM date with 2r; calibrated ages for these
two dates also do not overlap (see Kuzmin et al. 2004b). Thus the c. 18,830 rcbp
value and Studenoe 2 should be excluded from the LGM occupation records in
Siberia.

123

200

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

However, in most cases with megafaunal dates, such an interpretation is very

difficult. The charcoal dates can be used as a main criterion for site association with
the LGM. The problem is that at many sites in Siberia only a few charcoal 14C dates
were obtained, and the majority of them were run on bone. For example, at
Shestakovo charcoal 14C values of 23,290 200 rcbp (AA-35322), 23,250 100
rcbp (GrA-13233), and 20,800 450 rcbp (SOAN-3606) were obtained from
cultural layer 6 (Derevianko et al. 2003c, p. 124; Zenin et al. 2000a, p. 748).
Several bone 14C dates, produced on unburned material from layer 6, range in age
from c. 22,300 to c. 20,500 rcbp (mammoth bones) and c. 20,300 rcbp (pooled
horse and reindeer bone sample) (Zenin et al. 2000a, p. 749). The 14C ages of
burned mammoth bones from layer 6 are c. 24,400 rcbp and c. 20,800 rcbp. In
cultural layer 5, which is above layer 6, there is an older mammoth 14C date of
c. 21,600 rcbp, perhaps due to scavenged subfossil faunal remains from the nearby
mammoth cemetery or earlier occupation layers. It seems possible that people were
present at Shestakovo (cultural layers 6 and 5) during the LGM or close to that time,
based on the c. 20,800 rcbp charcoal date and bone dates of c. 19,20018,000 rcbp.
Nevertheless, this site also is excluded from the list of the most securely LGMassociated settlements of Siberia.
At two other presumably LGM sites in Yakutia, Ikhine 2 and Verkhne-Troitskaya,
the degree of association between the 14C dates and artifacts is not clear. The bone
14
C dates from Ikhine 2 may be more reliable than the wood dates because subfossil
wood might have been redeposited in younger sediments (e.g., Abramova 1989;
Kuzmin and Orlova 1998, pp. 3839), but bones could have been brought to the site
soon after the animals had died or were killed by humans. In this case, the bone 14C
dates, c. 20,100 rcbp and c. 19,700 rcbp (Table 3), indicate site occupation at the
LGM. However, it also is possible that these bones were scavenged and that this site
was occupied after c. 20,000 rcbp. For Verkhne-Troitskaya (Mochanov and
Fedoseeva 1996, pp. 180184), a wood sample that produced the 14C date of c.
18,300 rcbp (Table 3) may have come from reworked older material preserved in the
permafrost (see Kuzmin and Orlova 1998, pp. 3637) and therefore may not
correspond to the LGM.
Nevertheless, there are at least six sites with 14C dates run on wood charcoal and
human bone within c. 20,00018,000 rcbp: Tomsk, Ust-Kova, Malta, Mamakan 2,
Ust-Ulma 1, and Ogonki 5 (Tables 2 and 3). These sites, which are distributed
across the southern and central parts of western and eastern Siberia and the Russian
Far East, represent the minimal scenario of LGM human presence in Siberia
(Fig. 1). The most reliable 14C dates associated with the LGM contain a value of c.
19,900 rcbp generated on human bone collagen from Malta (Richards et al. 2001,
p. 6530). The calibrated age of these sites (Table 6) corresponds well with the LGM
time span of c. 19,00023,000 cal B.P. Despite the large standard deviation for the
Tomsk 14C value, 1000 years, its calendar age of c. 19,50024,200 cal yrs B.P.
lies within the LGM limits. The Malta human bone 14C date correlates with the
beginning of the LGM, c. 23,30024,300 cal yrs B.P.

123

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

201

14

Table 6 Calibrated

C dates for the most secure LGM-associated Upper Paleolithic sites in Siberia
14

Lab code

Calibrated date, cal

B.P. ( 2 sigmas)a

18,300 1000

GIN-2100

19,49024,220

19,540 90

SOAN-1900

22,81023,710

18,035 180

KRIL-621

20,81022,020

19,900 800

GIN-7705

22,05026,000b

Site No.

Site name and layer No.

Uncalibrated
date, rcbp

Tomsk

Ust-Kova, middle complex

Malta

19,880 160

OxA-7129

23,33024,290

Mamakan 2

18,670 600

SOAN-4546

20,61023,780

Ust-Ulma 1, layer 2b

19,360 65

SOAN-2619

22,65023,390

Ogonki 5, horizon 3

19,440 140

Beta-115987

22,64023,650

19,380 190

Beta-115986

22,52023,680

19,320 145

AA-20864

22,52023,510

18,920 150

AA-25434

22,15022,800

Calibration made with Calib Rev. 5.0.1 software, Intcal04.14C dataset (Reimer et al. 2004)

This value can slightly exceed 26,000 cal B.P

Values are rounded to the next ten years

Evaluation of

14

C date frequencies and the LGM occupation of Siberia

The analysis of 14C date frequencies for certain time periods started in the 1980s
(Rick 1987) and became commonly employed for Paleolithic research in the last
decade (e.g., Bocquet-Appel and Demars 2000; Dolukhanov et al. 2002; Gamble
et al. 2004; Goebel 1999, 2002; van Andel and Davies 2003). However, the number
of 14C dates does not necessarily reflect the pattern of human occupation because at
many sites there are multiple 14C measurements for single cultural components
(e.g., Kuzmin and Keates 2005; van Andel and Davies 2003, pp. 2728). BocquetAppel et al. (2005, p. 1665) warn scholars about this phenomenon, citing the case of
Paviland Cave in south Wales, UK, where more than 40 14C dates were obtained
(Aldhouse-Green and Pettitt 1998). A similar situation occurs at some sites in
Siberia (Kuzmin and Keates 2005).
To eliminate the effect of multiple 14C measurements for single cultural
components, which distorts the true picture of the frequency of human occupation,
Kuzmin and Keates (2005) proposed the use of combined 14C values, assuming that
the length of each individual episode was less than 1000 14C years. This approach is
different from other studies, especially those conducted by Dolukhanov and
co-authors (Dolukhanov 2004; Dolukhanov and Shukurov 2004; Dolukhanov et al.
2002, 2005), where the mean age values of 14C date series for the same stratum were
counted and used as evidence of human occupation. Some of the so-called
frequencies per millennium of uncalibrated radiocarbon dates (Dolukhanov et al.
2002, p. 598, fig. 1) are in fact pooled and averaged 14C values derived from
different cultural layers; by doing so, several outliers were not taken into account
(Kuzmin and Keates 2006). Such a selective approach with definite violation of the
stratigraphic integrity of sites leads to errors, and the results produced by

123

202

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

Dolukhanov and co-authors (Dolukhanov and Shukurov 2004; Dolukhanov et al.

2005) should not be accepted.
The use of the number of unaudited 14C dates (sensu Gamble et al. 2004;
Pettitt et al. 2003) instead of the number of occupations may create the illusion of a
large quantity of sites for certain time periods, with further conclusions about the
correspondence of these fluctuations to climatic events in the second part of Late
Pleistocene (e.g., Dolukhanov et al. 2002; Gamble et al. 2004; van Andel and
Davies 2003, pp. 2129). When 14C values are combined in certain time intervals
(500, 1000, and 2000 14C years), the patterns of human occupation become more
reliable. Pooling and averaging of 14C dates, as done by Dolukhanov and coauthors, is a violation of the nature of 14C records from archaeological sites,
where each dated sample is related to human activity through time, and where
averaging of the 14C dates with consequent statistical calculations (e.g., Dolukhanov
and Shukurov 2004; Dolukhanov et al. 2002, 2005) leads to a loss of original
information.
Our recent study (Kuzmin and Keates 2005) reveals 278 occupation episodes for
the time period of c. 46,00012,000 rcbp in Siberia, each less than 1000 14C years in
duration. We are most interested in the LGM frequency of occupation compared
with previous and later time periods. In Siberia, the number of 14C dates for the time
interval of c. 20,00018,000 rcbp decreased (Kuzmin and Keates 2005, p. 781,
fig. 2), while the frequency of occupations was unchanged compared with the
c. 24,00020,000 rcbp period (Fiedel and Kuzmin 2007; Kuzmin and Keates 2005,
pp. 781782, figs. 3, 4). This is due to the multiple number of 14C dates from two
sites that existed immediately before the LGM, at c. 21,00020,000 rcbp (Malta, 6
dates, and Shestakovo, 5 dates) and c. 22,00021,000 rcbp (Malta, 7 dates). Therefore, the analysis of the number of occupations instead of the number of 14C dates
seems to be a much more objective means of investigating human population
density through time. Based on the number of occupations, there was no decrease in
the intensity of human presence in Siberia at the LGM compared with earlier and
later time intervals (Kuzmin and Keates 2005).
Recently, Waguespack (2007, p. 65) misrepresented my view of the size for the
LGM population in Siberia. She wrote: Trends in the Eurasian radiocarbon record
suggest that the occupation of Siberia slowly grew in both population and
geographic extent from *40,00022,000 CYBP, and that its growth slowed or
declined during the LGM (Brantingham et al., 2004, Kuzmin and Keates, 2005).
This is not true in the case of Kuzmin and Keates (2005, p.783), where it is stated
that the number of Paleolithic occupations in Siberia during the LGM has not
declined compared with pre-LGM time.

The LGM human occupation of eastern Europe: A brief overview

The northern and central parts of Europe at the LGM exhibited cold climatic
conditions (e.g., Huijzer and Vandenberghe 1998), with tundra-like landscapes
(Frenzel et al. 1992). The East European (or Russian) Plain was covered mostly
with tundra (Grichuk 1989, p. 164; Tarasov et al. 1999, 2000), with tree patches in

123

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

203

river valleys (e.g., Velichko and Zelikson 2005, p. 142). In western and southern
parts of Europe, the LGM landscapes were mainly cool steppes with some forests in
Mediterranean regions and shrub tundra in France; climatic conditions in the
Mediterranean were wetter compared with northern Europe (Peyron et al. 1998).
On the Russian Plain and adjacent regions, numerous sites correspond directly to
the LGM (e.g., Dolukhanov et al. 2001; Hoffecker 2002, p. 201, fig. 6.3; Lisitsyn
and Svezhentsev 1997, pp. 2166; Soffer 1990; Velichko and Kurenkova 1990). A
minimum of 30 14C dates from 19 sites in the central Russian Plain and Northern
Urals belong strictly to the LGM (Gribchenko and Kurenkova 1997, p. 177;
Svezhentsev 1993; Svezhentsev and Popov 1993; Velichko and Zelikson 2005).
This provides unequivocal evidence of human presence in periglacial conditions of
the LGM in eastern Europe. Based on the frequency of 14C dates from European
Paleolithic sites, toward the LGM the number of dates decreases for northern
Europe and increases for southern Europe (Pettitt 2000, p. 26).
The biggest cluster of LGM-related Upper Paleolithic sites in the central Russian
Plain is in Kostenki, where at least seven sites have 14C dates corresponding to c.
20,00018,000 rcbp (see latest summary in Anikovich 2005). Another example of
LGM occupation is the Zaraisk site (Amirkhanov 2000). At the Sungir site (latitude
of 56 N), situated only 300 km south of the Late Weichselian ice sheet (e.g.,
Velichko and Zelikson 2005, p. 141), the direct 14C date of a human skeleton,
Sungir 1, is c. 19,200 rcbp (Kuzmin et al. 2004c). Although this age determination
does not fit with the previous one of c. 22,900 rcbp (Pettitt and Bader 2000), Sungir
still may provide important evidence of the LGM occupation of the Russian Plain.
Even further east and north, the Medvezhya site (62 N) was occupied at c.
20,000 rcbp (14C date of 20,070 180 rcbp, without indication of material dated,
Lab code, or No.; see van Andel and Davies 2003, p. 45); the Byzovaya site (65 N)
existed at c. 18,300 rcbp (Lisitsyn and Svezhentsev 1997, p. 63; Velichko and
Zelikson 2005, p. 148). However, Byzovaya could be older than the LGM, if we
take into account the latest 14C dates, all older than c. 25,500 rcbp (Mangerud et al.
1999, p. 75; Pavlov et al. 2004).

Models of the LGM human presence in northern Eurasia

Based on summaries of the paleoenvironment in Siberia at the LGM, most of its
territory was free of continental ice sheets, and only in the northern part of western
Siberia did small ice domes exist (Fig. 2). Northern and central parts of Siberia were
covered mainly with tundra and steppe formations, adapted to cold and dry climatic
conditions. In southern Siberia and in the whole Russian Far East, steppes and
tundra biomes, with some trees, existed (Fig. 2). Trees survived in many parts of
Siberia, mainly in the river valleys as azonal elements of landscapes. Climate was
much colder (especially in winter) and drier than today.
Recent studies of the LGM and the problem of human adaptation to periglacial
environments make it possible to put forward several models of human existence,
particularly for Siberia as well as generally for northern Eurasia. They may be
subdivided into two groups: (1) models that assume that people either completely

123

204

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

deserted Siberia and eastern Europe at the height of the LGM (e.g., Goebel 1999,
2002; Graf 2005; Hoffecker 2005a, b) or did not occupy Siberia at the LGM but
were present in eastern Europe in significant numbers (e.g., Dolukhanov et al. 2002,
p. 598; Dolukhanov et al. 2005, p. 1128); and (2) models that suggest that humans
were able to cope with the extreme cold and dry conditions of the LGM in Siberia
and eastern Europe (e.g., Fiedel and Kuzmin 2007; Kuzmin and Keates 2005;
Kuzmin and Orlova 1998; Velichko and Kurenkova 1990). Based on data presented
above, I offer a critical evaluation of both models.
Goebel (2002) suggested that people, who did not know how to manufacture
microblades, retreated from Siberia southward (perhaps to Mongolia) immediately
before the LGM: humans left Siberia during the LGM and that microblade
technology originated in temperate Asia, perhaps in central or eastern Mongolia
(Goebel 2002, p. 127). After c. 18,000 rcbp, according to Goebel, people returned
to Siberia with microblade technology. However, there are no sites in Mongolia
that can be securely attributed to the LGM (e.g., Orlova et al. 2005). There is a
single 14C date from the Upper Paleolithic of Mongolia immediately preceding the
LGM at 23,595 155 rcbp (SOAN-2883) from layer 4 of the Orhon 7 site
(Derevianko et al. 1992). The poor record of the pre-LGM human presence in
Mongolia does not support the possible retreat from the cold toward the south
and return to the north at a later time. The first reliable evidence of microblades in
Mongolia is from c. 11,500 rcbp at the Chikhen Agui site in the Gobi Altai
Mountains (Derevianko et al. 2003c), although it may be earlier, c. 27,400 rcbp
(Derevianko et al. 2001, 2004). Furthermore, Goebels (2002, 2004) disbelief
about the pre-LGM age of microblade complexes in Siberia does not allow him to
accept the age determinations of some microblade-bearing sites associated with
the LGM: Mogochino 1, Krasny Yar, Studenoe 2, and Ust-Ulma 1 (see Kuzmin
and Rybin 2005, pp. 4446).
Some scholars ignore the fact that the frequency of 14C dates for the LGM in
Europe is quite high. Hoffecker (2002, p. 201) shows that the number of 14C dates
for the c. 20,00018,000 rcbp time range in eastern Europe is about 1020 per 1000
14
C years; the conclusion is that Although a number of radiocarbon dates fall into
the 19,00016,000 years BP range, the sample of dates from many sites is now
sufficiently large that a bimodal distribution around this interval is apparent
(Sinitsyn et al. 1997, pp. 2938). This suggests that settlement of the region was
either terminated or significantly reduced during the period of maximal cold
(Hoffecker 2002, p. 200). This statement contradicts the original data.
Solid evidence obtained over the last ten years or so supports human
occupation of northern Eurasia at the LGM, which contradicts earlier models
suggesting that people were virtually absent in northern Europe at the LGM (e.g.,
Roebroeks et al. 1992, p. 565). Recent studies permit us to draw the conclusion
that even in the northern part of central Europe, near the edge of the Scandinavian
ice sheet, some populations continued to live. In western and central Europe, the
LGM population was relatively small north of the Alps (e.g., Street and Terberger
2000, 2004; Terberger and Street 2002; Verpoorte 2004) but quite large in
southern France and Iberia (e.g., Bocquet-Appel et al. 2005; Gamble et al. 2004).
Further to the east, numerous sites on the Russian Plain correspond directly to the

123

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

205

LGM. Some sites may have existed in the northern part of the region, in the
Pechora River basin close to the Arctic Circle (Medvezhya and Byzovaya sites).
Thus, there was no dramatic depopulation of eastern Europe at the LGM as was
suggested (e.g., Hoffecker 2005a, pp. 9495). The LGM-related Upper Paleolithic
sites are spread throughout the northern, central, and eastern parts of Europe and
southern and central Siberia.
As for the size of Upper Paleolithic populations at the LGM compared with
earlier times, it is clear that the number of people declined at c. 20,00018,000 rcbp
in the northern and central parts of Europe (e.g., Bocquet-Appel et al. 2005) but
increased in eastern Europe (e.g., Dolukhanov et al. 2002). In Siberia, the human
population remained comparatively stable throughout the LGM in comparison to
earlier times (Kuzmin and Keates 2005). However, although the number of truly
LGM-associated sites in Siberia is not great, the presence of Paleolithic populations
in central and southern Siberia at c. 20,00018,000 rcbp is unequivocal.

Human subsistence and adaptation in Siberia at the LGM

Based on paleontological records from LGM-associated sites in Siberia in particular
(Table 4), and from the middle and late Upper Paleolithic sites in Siberia in general
(Vasilev 2003a), the main objects of hunting were reindeer, bison, horse, woolly
rhinoceros, and wild sheep; other important species hunted for fur were carnivora,
red and Arctic foxes, and wolf. Specialized reindeer hunting at the fords where
herds of this seasonally migrating species crossed rivers (such as Malta on the bank
of Belaya River) is known in Siberia (e.g., Vasilev 2003a, p. 522). In some parts of
Siberia, such as the Yenisei River basin (Tarachikha, Shlenka, and Ui 1; see
Table 4), wild sheep and ass were common prey. The presence of red deer, a foresttype species, at several LGM-associated sites indicates the existence of some forest
formations in the river valleys. Overall, reindeer were the most important source of
meat, hide, and antler in the middle and late Upper Paleolithic of Siberia (Vasilev
2003a).
The problem of woolly mammoth hunting deserves special attention. Although
mammoth remains are common in the faunal assemblages of LGM-associated sites,
and in some cases is the dominant species (Shikaevka 2, Mogochino 1, Shestakovo,
Tarachikha, and Ust-Kova; see Table 4), there is doubt that mammoths were
directly hunted (e.g., Derevianko et al. 2003b, p. 125; Orlova et al. 2004c; Zenin
2002). Taphonomic observations at the Shestakovo site, such as the weathered
nature of mammoth bones which shows long exposure in open air versus the fresh
appearance of other species remains (reindeer, horse, and bison) and gnaw marks on
some mammoth bones (Zenin et al. 2000a, b; Derevianko et al. 2003b, pp. 121
122), indicate that people at Shestakovo did not hunt mammoths but mostly
collected subfossil bones for fuel and bones and ivory as raw material for tools. To
date the single direct evidence of mammoth hunting in Siberia is known at the
Lugovskoe locality in central West Siberian Plain, a vertebra with a cone-shaped
hole and remains of stone notches embedded in the bone matrix (Zenin et al. 2006),

123

206

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

which is 14C-dated to c. 13,470 rcbp (Orlova et al. 2004b). Mammoth hunting in the
Upper Paleolithic of Siberia was of limited scale.
Microblade tools and so-called microinventory (or microindustry) assemblages (Zenin 2002) are frequently found at LGM-associated sites in Siberia.
Mogochino 1, Shestakovo, Novoselovo 6, Tarachikha, Shlenka, Ui 1, Krasny Yar,
Malta, Studenoe 2, Mamakan 2, Verkhne-Triotskaya, Ust-Ulma 1, and Ogonki 5
contain evidence of microblade technology and microindustries. Thus, the LGM
people in Siberia were fully equipped with microblade tools that were very effective
for hunting large mammals such as bison, horse, reindeer, and other hoofed species
(e.g., Elston and Brantingham 2002). The microblade technology was an important
part of the Upper Paleolithic way of life in Siberia.
The degree of human adaptation to the cold environment of northern Eurasia was
quite high at the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic. In the cool conditions of the
Middle Weichselian, characterized by unstable climates with many colder and
warmer oscillations (e.g., Guthrie and Kolfschoten 2000), people were able to
occupy northern parts of eastern Europe and Siberia at c. 35,00027,000 rcbp (e.g.,
Pavlov et al. 2004; Pitulko et al. 2004). Recent excavations in Khayrgas Cave in
southern Yakutia (59580 N; 117230 E) have revealed an assemblage in cultural
layer 7 with wedge-shaped cores, bone points with grooves for insets, and needles,
14
C-dated to 21,500 775 rcbp (SOAN-4249; mammoth bone) (Stepanov et al.
2003). The overlying cultural layer 6 was dated to c. 16,000 rcbp (e.g., Vasilev
et al. 2002, p. 529). This is solid evidence of human existence in Yakutia before the
LGM, along with the Yana RHS site farther north, which was occupied even earlier
at c. 28,00027,000 rcbp (Pitulko et al. 2004).
The mid-Upper Paleolithic technological level was high enough to equip people
with dwellings and tailored clothes. Artificial dwellings and tailored clothes were
known to the Old World people well in advance of the LGM. The earliest dwelling
structures have been found in central and eastern Europe at some sites dated to at
least c. 26,00025,000 rcbp (see summaries in Hoffecker 2002; Soffer 2003). In
Siberia, the first unequivocal evidence of slab-lined house structures are known in
Transbaikal, dated to c. 18,000 rcbp at Studenoe 2 (Vasilev 2003b) or perhaps
earlier to c. 27,000 rcbp at Tolbaga (Konstantinov 2001, p. 138). Remains of
semisubterranean dwellings are known at some LGM-related sites in Siberia:
Studenoe 2, layers 4/5 and 5 (Konstantinov 2001), Malta and Krasny Yar
(Medvedev 1998), and Ogonki 5 (Vasilevski 2003).
The emergence of eye needles, closely connected with the production of tailored
clothes, was traditionally dated to c. 21,000 rcbp (e.g., Sinclair 1996, p. 554). New
data show that the first eye needles appeared in central and eastern Europe and
Siberia much earlier. In central Europe, the oldest needle is from the Predmost site,
dated to c. 26,000 rcbp (e.g., Soffer 2000, p. 61). In eastern Europe, the first eye
needles are known from the early Upper Paleolithic assemblages of the Kostenki
cluster, dated to c. 29,00021,000 rcbp (for the latest data, see Anikovich 2005;
Hoffecker 2002, p. 172), and at the Sungir site, where tailored clothes were
reconstructed for a double burial (e.g., Bader 1998, pp. 97114), dated to c.
24,000 rcbp (Pettitt and Bader 2000) or c. 27,000 rcbp (Kuzmin et al. 2004c). For
Siberia, the earliest evidence of eye needle manufacture comes from the Altai

123

J Archaeol Res (2008) 16:163221

207

Mountains, from layer 11 of Denisova Cave (Derevianko and Shunkov 2004, p. 22;
Derevianko et al. 2003a, p. 133; see also Derevianko et al. 1998a, pp. 8991), dated
to greater than 37,235 rcbp (SOAN-2504) (e.g., Vasilev et al. 2002, p. 522), and
from Igeteiskiy Log 1 in the Angara River basin, dated to c. 24,400 rcbp (Medvedev
1998, p. 125). Needles have been found at several LGM-related sites in Siberia:
Shestakovo, Novoselovo 6, Ust-Kova, Studenoe 2, and Malta.

Conclusion
Based on critical evaluation of data available for the LGM sites in Siberia, people
were present at least in the southern parts of Siberia and the Russian Far East
throughout the coldest and driest environmental conditions at c. 20,00018,000
rcbp. Human populations in central and eastern Europe also did not retreat
completely to the south but remained in the vicinity of continental ice sheets. These
findings clearly support a high degree of human adaptation to cold climatic
conditions and their ability to cope with unfavorable environments. The mid-Upper
Paleolithic of central and eastern Europe and Siberia shows technological advances
that allowed people to occupy the tundra-dominated landscapes of northern Eurasia
prior to the LGM, beginning at least at c. 35,00027,000 rcbp, and perhaps even
earlier. Thus, models of significant or complete depopulation of Siberia and
eastern Europe at the LGM contradict the primary evidence and should not be
accepted. Instead, the data indicate that some Upper Paleolithic populations were
spread across the central and eastern parts of Europe and southern and central
Siberia at c. 20,00018,000 rcbp. This was possible because of well-developed
technological industries that were necessary for survival in the Arctic-type
environment, especially microblade tools, dwellings, tailored clothing, and use of
fossil megafaunal bones as fuel.
Acknowledgments I am grateful to colleagues for providing important information and explanations
regarding the Upper Paleolithic archaeology of Siberia, especially Vasily N. Zenin (Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk), Sergei A.
Vasilev (Institute of History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg), and
Evgeny M. Ineshin (Irkutsk State Technical University, Irkutsk). Thanks also go to my long-term
colleagues Lyobov A. Orlova and Vyacheslav N. Dementiev (Institute of Geology and Mineralogy,
Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk) for providing additional information
about some 14C dates used in this review and help with preparation of illustrations; to Susan G. Keates
(London) for grammar corrections and helpful suggestions; and to five anonymous reviewers for their
important comments. Finally, I am pleased that Gary M. Feinman (The Field Museum, Chicago) found my
review useful for a scientific audience and supported its release by giving valuable advice and assistance.
Linda M. Nicholas (The Field Museum) thoroughly checked the consistency of the manuscript and
indicated several flaws, which were fixed. This work was partly funded by grants from different
organizations: the Russian Foundation for Basic Sciences (RFFI), Nos. 96-06-80688, 96-05-64837, 99-0680348, 00-06-80410, 02-06-80282, 03-06-80289, 03-05-64434, 06-06-80258, and 06-06-80108; U.S.
National Science Foundation, Nos. EAR95-08413, EAR97-30699, and EAR01-154881; the Fulbright
Program, Nos. 21230 (1997) and 27672 (2004); and the International Research and Exchange Board
(IREX) (1995; SUNY-Brockport No. 122-0645A), with funds provided by the U.S. Department of State
(Title VIII). None of these organizations are responsible for the views expressed here, and any mistakes are
my own.

123