social evolution among neolithic and early bronze age foragers in the lake baikal region: new light...

Social Evolution among Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Foragers in the Lake Baikal Region:New Light on Old ModelsAuthor(s): Andrzej WeberSource: Arctic Anthropology, Vol. 31, No. 2 (1994), pp. 1-15Published by: University of Wisconsin PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40316360 .

Accessed: 18/06/2014 15:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Wisconsin Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArcticAnthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 15:00:35 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uwisc

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40316360?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


SOCIAL EVOLUTION AMONG NEOLITHIC

AND EARLY BRONZE AGE FORAGERS

IN THE LAKE BAIKAL REGION:

NEW LIGHT ON OLD MODELS

ANDRZEJ WEBER

Introduction

Abstract. The region of Lake Baikal, Central Siberia, contains perhaps the richest archaeological evidence for Holocene foragers in the entire Subarctic. This paper re- views archaeological research on social characteristics of the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age cultures of the region. In the 1950s, A. P. Okladnikov presented a model of social evolution of local foragers in which he suggested a gradual transition from matriarchal to patriarchal social relations accompanied by a subsistence change. This model dominated research on the subject for several decades, and its heritage continues to affect even the most recent work. This paper (1) argues that the model is to a

large extent an effect of political and ideological pressures of the time when it was de- vised; (2) demonstrates how the data were manipulated to fit the generally accepted theory; and (3) concludes that the entire body of evidence requires reexamination from a modern theoretical and methodological perspective.

The Lake Baikal region of south central Siberia is a unique place to study prehistoric foraging adaptations of the Early and Middle Holocene periods. Continuous occupation in the region for at least the last 20,000 years has resulted in numerous stratified habitation sites as well as scores of burial sites. Fortunately for archaeologists, preservation of organic material is generally very good. Usu- ally, archaeological excavations produce large quantities of both faunal and human osteological material. These existing collections as well as un- excavated sites provide exceptional potential to study a variety of aspects of prehistoric foraging adaptations in this region. The examination of social characteristics of these Holocene hunters and

gatherers is a particularly attractive research task due to the very rich mortuary evidence dating to the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of the area. The global relevance of this material is enhanced because there is a general paucity of stratified dwelling sites and well-preserved burials of parallel antiquity in other subarctic and arctic regions of the world. For example, lack of stratigraphy, poor preservation of organic material, and few cemeteries have meant that most work in boreal North America has been done on relatively young material, while the social side of early and middle Holocene adaptations remains obscure (Reid 1988).

This paper provides a review of archaeological research into social characteristics of Lake Baikal foragers. Strange as it may appear, the is-

Andrzej Weber, Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2H4

ARCTIC ANTHROPOLOGY Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 1-15, 1994



Okladnikov Model

2 Arctic Anthropology 31:2

sue has been practically dominated by one scholar, A. P. Okladnikov, who very early recognized the great potential of the local archaeological evidence to study social aspects of prehistoric cultures. Okladnikov dealt with this question first in his Ph.D. dissertation (Okladnikov 1938) and then in great detail and depth in his monumental two- volume synthesis of the Lake Baikal Neolithic (Okladnikov 1950, 1955). Since then, the contribution from other scholars has been very limited. The majority did not address the issue at all, others discussed it only in passing (e.g., Ger- asimov and Chernykh 1975; Georgievskaia 1989), and those very few who explicitly explored the problem did so within the conceptual and methodological framework established earlier by Ok- ladnikov (e.g., Khlobystin 1972; Khlobystina 1990).

The Okladnikov model is relatively well known to the Western archaeological community. Its outline was translated into English and published in the West in two essentially identical versions (Okladnikov 1959, 1964). Because of the shortage of other authors' translations and very limited access to original Russian works, these two publications practically monopolized the Western perception of Lake Baikal Holocene prehistory (Michael 1958; Tolstoi 1958; Griffin 1960; Chard 1974).

Thus, taking into consideration the overall uniqueness in the Subarctic and significance of the Lake Baikal evidence, I believe it is useful to revisit the model, and the data, and reevaluate it from the perspective of modern archaeology. This revaluation is useful and important for two reasons. First, as outlined by Okladnikov, the issue of social change occupied a paramount position in the entire model of regional cultural evolution and, as such, deserves special attention. Second, no alternative model of social change has ever been presented (cf., Khlobystina 1990), hence the impression that the majority of scholars involved in the region's prehistory still support the model as adequate. It appears therefore, that the perception of social change in the area has not varied significantly since the 1950s or even the late 1930s. It is merely fortuitous that, because of certain historical reasons, this research was dominated by Okladnikov and that his views survived unaltered and unchallenged for such a long time. Thus, simply out of unavoidable necessity, this paper emphasizes the role played by Okladnikov and discusses more thoroughly the major points of his model of social evolution. Other elements of the model, which integrate better with subsequent archaeological research in the area and were debated by Russian archaeologists with more vigour, will be discussed elsewhere. This paper, however, should not be viewed as a long overdue review of

the Okladnikov synthesis. The current state of archaeological reflection on social evolution within the Lake Baikal region during the Neolithic and Bronze Age is the focal point here.

The term Neolithic in Siberian prehistory does not have the socioeconomic connotations of agri- culture and sedentism customary in Western literature. The advent of the Neolithic in this region is associated with the generally contemporaneous appearance of pottery, the bow and arrow, and stone polishing techniques (e.g., Khlobystin 1978:94). This definition of the Neolithic, generally accepted in all of Soviet archaeology, relates directly to the original work of J. Lubbock (1865), who first identified the Paleolithic and Neolithic as two separate chronological stages within the Stone Age. Soviet scholars (e.g., Khlobystin 1978) point out that this traditional approach is more consistent because it uses the same technological criteria for all major stages of human cultural evolution, i.e., Stone Age, Copper Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age. The other approach applies different criteria to define the Neolithic (mode of subsistence) while retaining technological measures for other chronological divisions. This inconsis- tency, according to Khlobystin, leads to major difficulties because the archaeological record provides numerous examples where a shift in subsistence was not paralleled by technological change. Populations of the Lake Baikal region, with the exception of the Trans -Baikal area where animal husbandry was introduced during the Bronze Age, retained foraging adaptations until historical times.

The Okladnikov model for the historical development of the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age cultures in the Lake Baikal region was based on the analysis of available archaeological material accumulated essentially throughout the 1930s and later updated with excavations during the 1940s and early 1950s. The core of the archaeological evidence consisted primarily of burial data. The overrepresentation of mortuary evidence resulted from the nature of early archaeological survey in the area (common also in other regions of the world). Many findings were accidental discov- eries via various construction projects and field cultivation. The rich nature of mortuary grave goods and preservation of human bones resulted in burials being more frequently reported than findings of occupation sites, which typically are marked by less conspicuous material. Some of the sites were located by Okladnikov himself during his frequent boat reconnaissance of the Angara shores. Among several dozen sites thus discov- ered, only very few were excavated in a more sys-



Weber: Social Evolution in the Lake Baikal Region 3

tematic manner. For example, excavations of the eponymic cemetery at Kitoi by Vitkovski in 1880 and 1881 revealed 23 graves, while Ponomarevo yielded 18 (Okladnikov 1950). The Verkholensk cemetery, excavated by Okladnikov from 1949 to 1951 produced 39 graves (Okladnikov 1955, 1978). Other burial sites were usually represented only by a handful of graves (Okladnikov 1950:94-96). Of several known occupation sites, only the stratified deposits of Ulan-Khada (on Lake Baikal, excavated by E. B. Petri in 1912 and 1913) produced evidence of greater significance.

Analysis of this body of evidence led Oklad- nikov to suggest unilinear progression through four developmental stages: the Isakovo, Serovo, Kitoi, and Glazkovo cultures. Each of these cultural stages was characterized by specific forms of artifacts, technologies, subsistence, mortuary practices, and social structure. A summary of the model will now be presented, with emphasis on aspects that relate directly to the issue of social change. Since Okladnikov never introduced any substantial modifications to his synthesis (cf., Okladnikov 1970, 1974), and contributions of other scholars also did not recommend any major revisions (e.g., Khlobystina 1990), the following outline is based entirely on the original publications, where the model was presented in its most comprehensive form (Okladnikov 1950, 1955).

The Isakovo Culture Only 12 graves were classified by Okladnikov as representative of the Isakovo stage (Okladnikov 1950:93); thus the description of this culture was rather brief (Okladnikov 1950:165-190). The Isa- kovo people were the first to introduce the bow and arrow, pottery, and stone polishing, thus en- tering, according to the local terminology, the Neolithic stage of cultural evolution (Okladnikov 1950:190).

In general terms, the Isakovo culture and its burial ritual are best described as simple and uni- form in every respect. Isakovo grave pits are typically filled with limestone slabs and the deceased placed in an extended position on the bottom of the pit. Associated artifacts consist most notably of an array of hunting equipment, including bone spear points, flint knives, numerous stone arrowheads, and a clay vessel. No bows have been preserved, suggesting that they were noncomposite and made solely of wood. The pottery of this stage is crude and simple, usually covered with net im- pressions. Ornamental items include boar tusk pendants and antler beads. The Isakovo graves do not contain any fishing gear, thus implying that these people subsisted primarily on hunting large game with little or no contribution from fishing (Okladnikov 1950:238).

The overall small number of Isakovo graves

suggested an equally small population density and a very mobile life-style. The presence of small burial grounds (e.g., Ponomarevo and Bratskii Ka- men') reflected small social units. This conclusion was further supported by the observation that Isakovo graves typically contain single individuals. In general, the Isakovo culture appeared to Okladnikov to be extremely archaic, showing direct linkages with the Mesolithic (Okladnikov 1950:184-190).

The Serovo Culture Okladnikov believed that the Serovo culture represented a peak in the evolution of the local hunting adaptation. The dominant role of hunting large game such as red deer, moose, and roe deer is reflected in every sphere of this culture (Oklad- nikov 1950:191, 214-263, 265-271).

Graves of the Serovo culture were more numerous (18 localities with 37 burials on the An- gara), and their geographic distribution was also wider (Serovo graves have also been reported from the Upper Lena area). Serovo graves were typically lined and filled with stones. The majority of them contain only one individual, usually in an extended position, but communal graves with individuals of different age and sex are also known (Fig. 1). The most striking feature of the Serovo burial ritual is its uniformity within an individual site as well as between sites often sepa- rated by a great distance. This uniformity is seen in body position, orientation, and grave goods. The Serovo grave inventory is clearly dominated by hunting gear and typically includes such items as a bow, arrows, a clay vessel, a polished slate or green nephrite adze, a polished slate knife, a large bifacial knife, and sometimes an insert spearhead or laurel-shaped knife. The standardization of grave objects is such that it does not differentiate between men and women. Also, there were no exceptionally rich or poor interments.

All of this, according to Okladnikov, represented an egalitarian foraging culture where subsistence was dominated by hunting large game, as indicated by artifactual and osteological evidence (bones of moose, roe deer, red deer, bear, wolf, sa- ble, beaver, and squirrel were repeatedly found in graves and on habitation sites). The Serovo people were responsible for a number of technological and economic innovations, such as the introduction of the composite bow of wood and bone and improvements in stone and bone tool manufacturing techniques and pottery making. The Serovo people also began using riverine resources for food, as documented by occurrences of harpoons, fish hooks, net sinkers, polished stone figurines carved in the images of different fish species, and fish bones. Taken together, all these advancements led to a substantial population increase.




Figure 1. Communal burials of the Serovo culture at Ponomarevo, grave 7. (A) bone bow braces (after Okladnikov 1950: Fig. 102).

The apparent uniformity of the burial ritual suggested a distinctively egalitarian society with minimal sexual division of labor, and social status of women equal to that of men. Further evidence for the prominent role of women in Serovo society was provided by associations of a bow and arrowheads in female graves, and by the presence of paired burials of a female together with a child which, Okladnikov assumed, was deliberately killed for the occasion (Okladnikov 1950:271). Graves arranged in rows reflected clan member- ship of the deceased, while the presence of communal graves further enhanced the impression of uniformity and equity between all members of the .community.

The entire pattern of evidence best con- formed with Engels' description of a primitive matriarchal organization in which all members of a society were equals, women occupied indepen- dent and distinguished positions on a par with men, there was no or minimal sexual division of labor, and slavery did not exist (Okladnikov 1950:269, 271).

The Kitoi Culture The Kitoi culture continues the trend toward greater reliance on fishing, increased diversifica- tion of social relations, and technological progress (Okladnikov 1950:355-376, 378-383, 403-411). The data base for describing the Kitoi culture was provided by 42 graves from eight localities, including the famous sites of Kitoi and Lokomotiv (also known in the literature as the Glazkovo or Tsiklodrom cemetery). Characteristic features used to identify Kitoi graves were the consistent use of red ochre to cover the deceased and the less consistent - but frequent and abundant - presence of composite fish hooks. Body position is usually extended, but skeletons often have missing skulls. Orientation of burials also shows greater variation. At the Kitoi site, some of the burials were oriented toward the NE, the rest toward the SW. Graves normally contain one individual, but communal graves are more frequent and more diverse in their content than before. There are paired burials of males, a male and a child, and a male with a female. Some of these paired graves show an interesting and entirely new orientation of bodies relative to each other: they rest in a head-to-toe position.

Kitoi burials also exhibit a change in the kind and quantity of grave goods. Grave assemblages vary considerably, but the prevalence of fishing equipment with composite fish hooks and harpoons is conspicuous. The proportion of fish hooks to arrowheads is reversed, compared to the earlier Serovo culture. There are individual graves with rich grave furnishings, but very poor burials are also present. In paired male graves, one of the two is better furnished than the other. Male grave goods also appear to be richer and show greater diversity compared to female graves.

The phenomena of multiple burials and vari- able grave furnishing were interpreted by Oklad- nikov as evidence for the transition from a matriarchal to a patriarchal society. The head-to-toe graves of two males and a male with a female were interpreted as burials of prominent male masters buried with a slave or concubine. Further proof of the encroaching patriarchate was provided by burials of adult males together with small children. According to Okladnikov, in all simple societies with preserved remnants of a matriarchal organization and matrilineal kinship,




small children are buried with mothers, which was the case in the Serovo culture, and not with fathers. Thus, Kitoi male/child burials must have reflected the rights exercised by fathers over their children (Okladnikov 1950:409). The appearance of male anthropomorphic idols was believed to provide yet another indication of the beginnings of a patriarchate.

The shift towards increased use of fish for food and the development of patriarchal social relations was accompanied by other important pro- gressive changes. New technologies included more frequent use of tools made of very tough green nephrite (which was still a very rare com- modity in the Serovo culture), development of exceptional bone tool technology, the invention of shaft straighteners, and the use of very fine re- touch on flaked stone artifacts (advancements in fishing gear were mentioned before). This picture of a total cultural progression was somewhat cor- rupted by the disappearance of the superior composite bow of the Serovo type, and occasional sloppy stone working.

An additional context for the process of cultural change in the Lake Baikal region during the Kitoi period is provided by the documented dis- coveries of nephrite artifacts in such distant loca- tions as the Lower Tunguska River, Krasnoiarsk, and the Minusinsk Basin. Since the Sayany Moun- tains, west of Lake Baikal, are the only source of green nephrite in Siberia, these finds are indica- tive of the growth in interregional exchange. The Kitoi people, who inhabited the valleys of the Be- laia and Kitoi rivers that lead directly to the source of green nephrite, controlled this exchange to a certain extent (Okladnikov 1950:372-376). Thus the process of cultural change during the Kitoi stage was additionally inspired and accelerated due to contacts with pastoral cultures from the steppes of Western Siberia, the Caspian and Black Seas, the Minusinsk Basin, and the south, where at this time, i.e., during the third millennium BC, patriarchal social relations were already well established (Okladnikov 1950:411).

The Glazkovo Culture The Glazkovo culture represents the continuation of major changes that were initiated earlier during the Serovo culture and particularly advanced during the Kitoi. Fishing gains further importance, the social position of women deteriorates even more, and population density continues to grow (Oklad- nikov 1955:6-7, 12-59, 61-117, 203-265, 307-322).

The characteristics of the Glazkovo culture were inferred by Okladnikov first on the basis of 75 graves known to him from the Angara Valley (Okladnikov 1950:96), and supplemented later by evidence from the Verkholensk cemetery. A total of about 200 graves were known, including those

from the Trans -Baikal and the Upper Lena (Ok- ladnikov 1955:65). Glazkovo graves differ from the earlier interments in that they are covered by an elongated paving of slabs or boulders. Grave pits, similar to Isakovo and Serovo, are also stone filled. The burial is usually placed on the bottom of the pit in an extended position with arms close to the trunk, and one hand sometimes resting on the abdomen. Slightly flexed burials occur more frequently than before. An entirely new and typically Glazkovo feature is the appearance of burials in a sitting or squatting position (Okladnikov 1955:307-308). In its classic form, the body rests in a grave pit in such a position that the knees are pulled all the way toward the chin and the arms are wrapped around the shins. Cremation or partial cremation was also occasionally practiced.

Most of the graves are single, but communal graves exist as well. In addition to multiple burials in one common grave pit, as known from earlier times, there are also new arrangements. There are two burials, each in a separate grave pit in close proximity to each other and covered by a common small mound. These were dubbed by Oklad- nikov the "neighbor" burials (Okladnikov 1955: 204, 234). The sex and age characteristics of these paired burials are similar to those known from the Kitoi culture. Orientation of Glazkovo graves is also distinct. On those sites that produced larger numbers of graves, and where Serovo and Glazkovo graves sometimes coexist, a new pattern can be observed. For example, at the Verkholensk cemetery, the Glazkovo graves are neatly arranged in rows perpendicular to the river. In these rows, individual graves are parallel to the Lena River with heads pointing downstream, while the Se- rovo burials are all perpendicular to the river and do not show any particular spatial order or, at best, are concentrated in small groups (Fig. 2; Okladnikov 1955:235-236).

With regard to grave goods and material culture, the most important novelty is the appearance of copper objects (e.g., fish hooks, needles, knives, and rings); otherwise the material culture seems to be entirely typical of the Stone Age. Fishing equipment continues to dominate grave assemblages. Similar to the Kitoi culture, there are few very rich (usually male) or poor graves, and numerous average interments. Male graves usually contain fishing gear (harpoons and fish hooks) and, to a certain extent, also hunting tools (knives and arrowheads). Female graves display essentially only domestic gear (scrapers, needles, needle boxes, and adzes) as well as ornaments. In male graves, ornaments are usually less frequent and not so rich. Never before was the role separa- tion of men and women so clearly reflected in grave goods.

In the Glazkovo culture, the most typical and




Figure 2. Site plan of the Verkholensk cemetery: empty ovals - graves of the Serovo culture; hatched ovals - graves of the Glazkovo culture; dotted-line ovals - damaged graves (after Okladnikov 1978: Fig. 1).

impressive graves are those of fishermen (Oklad- nikov 1955:111-112). Personal hunting equipment, such as daggers and spears, is very rare. The exception is a simple wooden bow, the use of which is well documented by frequent finds of stone arrowheads with interments. Also, the disappearance

of large adzes, used in manufacturing cftigout boats, may suggest that boats of new design were in use. A new type of large bone knife was probably used for building light birch bark canoes. This, as well as the development of new harpoon types, two- and three-pronged leisters, copper fish hooks,



Chronology


amulets of fish bones, and smaller-sized arrowheads, all seem to indicate that fishing was a pri- mary source of food, and that the importance of hunting continued to decline.

This increased reliance on fishing, one of the most labor intensive modes of subsistence, invariably led to a consolidation of truly patriarchal social relations which are so clearly reflected in Glazkovo burial customs. The division of labor was very distinct, with men fishing and hunting, and women doing domestic chores. Since it was men who established their control over subsistence, their social position became even more prominent. The subordinate status of women is suggested by the evidence of violent deaths of women buried together with men in paired syn- chronous graves, and by "neighbor" graves of men and women. The former were probably slaves or concubines and the latter wives, who were obliged to accompany their masters or join their husbands in their respective afterlives. One of the concubines was deliberately killed by a bow and arrow while lying on the ground face down as documented by the arrowhead embedded in the hip bone (Okladnikov 1955:231, Fig. 112). The fact that there were only very few concubine burials seemed to indicate also a great degree of social inequality between men. Apparently, some accumulated more wealth and were more powerful than the rest. Additional evidence for the exis- tence of highly ranked men was provided by a male burial showing signs of sudden death (interpreted as a ritual offering), and paired burials of males believed to represent a slave and master type of relationship (Okladnikov 1955:258).

Thus, it appears that the Glazkovo society was dominated by a handful of men who concentrated a great deal of power and wealth, and who possessed slaves and concubines. Families, as indicated by the presence of row and "neighbor" burials, featured strong patriarchal relations with very prominent male leadership. This hierarchy did not develop in isolation from an outside world, but, to the contrary, the process of social change was influenced by growing trade contacts with pastoral cultures of steppe Asia, as well as even more culturally advanced China (sea shells of Arca subcrenata and Cassus strigata in Glaz- kovo graves, Okladnikov 1955:7, 264-265).

In summary, Okladnikov argued for cultural change that was unique but at the same time in accordance with the theory of human social evolution as described in the writings of Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, and generally accepted in So- viet social science. According to Okladnikov:

This material clearly and definitely indicates that the principles of the outstanding essay by F. Engels "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and

the State," where he developed a model of universal shift from a matriarchal clan to a patriarchal clan, are fully and entirely supported by new evidence regardless of its cultural or geographic origin, and that various attempts by reactionary scientists to distort the true history of a primitive society, and to "prove" the eternity of a patriarchate and monogamy are always and invariably al- together defeated (Okladnikov 1950:27, translation A. W.).

Later in this paper, I shall demonstrate that Ok- ladnikov himself also yielded to political pressures of his times.

Okladnikov argued for continuous cultural evolution of local foragers from the Early Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age, and gave it the chronological framework illustrated in Figure 3 (Okladnikov 1955:139, Table 8).

It is not an objective of this paper to discuss thoroughly the foundations of Okladnikov's dating (see Michael 1958 for a better summary), but a brief explanation will be helpful. The entire process of devising a chronological scheme was based on relative dating techniques of which ty- pology played the most important role. Stratigra- phy was less useful because of the paucity of data. Chronological relations between the four cultures were established on the basis of typological similarities and/or differences in material culture and mortuary ritual. The Glazkovo culture was placed at the end of the sequence due to the presence of copper and bronze objects. Of the re- maining three units, the Kitoi showed more similarities with Glazkovo (nephrite artifacts, frequent findings of fishing gear, and presence of communal burials) and thus was believed to be its direct predecessor. The Isakovo assemblages displayed primitive pottery and stone working, which justified its placement at the beginning of the sequence. The intermediate position of the Serovo culture was confirmed by similarities with both Isakovo (hunting gear) and Kitoi (e.g., nephrite knives and asymmetric arrowheads).

The absolute chronology of the younger stages was determined on the basis of artifactual similarities with neighboring regions (Fig. 3). Oc- currences, for example, of copper and bronze knives, shell beads, and nephrite bracelets in Glazkovo, and of marble rings, bone pins, and use of ochre in Kitoi were correlated with other geographic regions (e.g., Minusinsk Basin, China, the Near East, Scandinavia, northern Russia, and central Europe) where similar phenomena were also reported. The chronology of the Isakovo and Se- rovo cultures was derived on the basis of their in-



8 Arctic An thropology 31 :2

Figure 3. Typological and calibrated radiocarbon chronology of the Cis -Baikal Neolithic and Early Bronze Age (after Mamonova and Sul- erzhitskii 1989; Baziliiskii, personal communication). Chronological ranges were determined on the basis of 25 dates for the Kitoi culture, 14 dates for the Isakovo culture, and 19 and 52 determinations for the Serovo and Glazkovo cultures respectively. Only dates obtained from human bones in burials were used and obvious outliers were ignored.

ferred position between the end of the Mesolithic and the succeeding cultures.

This sequence was essentially well received, although it did not escape some criticism from the Russian archaeological community. The pri- mary bone of contention was the position and the role of the Kitoi stage in the cultural evolution of the area. Several scholars (e.g., Gerasimov 1955; Gerasimov and Chernykh 1975; Khlobystin 1965, 1978; Svinin 1974, 1976), using different lines of evidence, debated the issue. For example, the physical anthropologist Gerasimov suggested that the Kitoi culture should be placed at the beginning of the sequence, while Isakovo should be incorporated into the Serovo complex. Reanalyzing the Neolithic craniometrie data from the region, he observed that Kitoi skulls have less differenti- ated features and show a number of protomongol- oid characteristics and, as such, should be re- garded as older than the Isakovo, Serovo, and Glazkovo cultures. Gerasimov also believed that archaeological material identified by Okladnikov as Isakovo and Serovo did not display any significant differences and suggested that the two should be considered to be one archaeological complex. Next, he observed that the Serovo and Glazkovo cultures show similarity and continuity in many respects, thus providing sufficient evidence that the two cultures should be placed next to each other on the chronological scheme. Finally, Ger- asimov also criticized Okladnikov's focus on burial data associations and questioned his dating of the relevant layers in Ulan-Khada.

Radiocarbon dating was applied to the Lake Baikal Neolithic relatively late but already the first results (Konopatskii 1982; Michael 1992) showed that it was Gerasimov who was probably right. Unfortunately, the debate could not resume as both scholars passed away before the arrival of convincing radiocarbon evidence. Subsequent series of dates clearly proved the antiquity of the Kitoi culture and contemporaneity of Isakovo and Serovo (Mamonova and Sulerzhitskii 1986, 1989; Baziliiskii, personal communication). Several very early determinations for Glazkovo burials indicate that the definition and role of this culture relative to the Isakovo/Serovo phase also requires revaluation (Fig. 3).

Other Views As mentioned above, most of the attention of the Lake Baikal archaeological community was di- rected not toward the social part of the model, but focused on chronological issues. The question of how these various chronological modifications would affect the pattern of social change was never considered. Only Khlobystin (1972) and Khlobystina (1990) addressed explicitly the issue of social characteristics. Khlobystin's paper is basically a general survey of archaeological reflection on social organization during the north Eurasian Neolithic and deals with the Lake Baikal region only marginally. He claims that various regional groups of northern foragers probably developed their own specific models of social organization. Khlobystin also believes that the archaeological record does not support the notion that Neolithic communities in northern Eurasia should be uni- versally described as matriarchal with matrilineal clans and matrilocal marriage patterns. For example, evidence from various burial sites (e.g., Oleneostrovskii, Mariupol'skii, Vovnigskii II, De- reevskii, Kitoi, and Lokomotiv) shows patterns in- dicative of a prominent role of males in these societies throughout the entire Neolithic. He noted that burials of males are typically associated with hunting gear, while female interments usually have objects used in processing, and that rich male graves are more frequent. Finally, male burials with females and children are also seen as proof for a dominant position of men among Neo- lithic foragers of the Eurasian boreal forest. Ac- cording to Khlobystin, it was probably the inten- sification of foraging activities during the Late Neolithic that led to more pronounced social in- equalities (beginnings of slavery) with the evi- dently dominant position of males. Patterns in the distribution of pottery styles also support the claim that females, whose small fingerprints are believed to be visible on some of the vessels, moved around more frequently than males be-



Discussion


cause of the practices of exogamy and patri- locality.

Similarities with the Okladnikov model are clear. Both emerged from the same theoretical tradition and both see the Kitoi and Glazkovo cultures as male dominated. Earlier, male and female roles as providers and processors, respectively, were complementary and equally important and resulted in more or less equitable social positions of both sexes. The only difference is that, according to Khlobystin, the entire Neolithic economic system of northern foragers, based on hunting large game and fishing, was never conducive to the development of truly matriarchal social relations. Thus, in boreal Eurasia the classic matriar- chate never existed. Overall, the difference between the two models is minimal because Oklad- nikov also argued for basically equitable sex roles and statuses during Isakovo and Serovo times.

The paper by Khlobystina (1990) is worth examining because it is the latest contribution to the issue. Thus, it provides a valuable basis for comparison between current theory and method- ology and the Okladnikov approach. In her paper, Khlobystina attempts a social interpretation of male burials with children from the Lake Baikal Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. From the total of about 900 Neolithic and Early Bronze Age burials known at this time (cf., Mamonova 1983), she se- lects a few cases where male graves were found together or in close proximity to children. The evidence includes graves 10, 11, and 12 at Pon- omarevo (Isakovo culture), grave 13 at Bratskii Kamen' and 2 at Serovo (both Serovo culture), graves 1 and 2 at Kitoi and 4 at Lokomotiv (Kitoi culture), and grave 26 from the Verkholensk cemetery (Glazkovo culture). She notes that the child graves of earlier stages have more grave goods, some being of an adult category (a dagger or a bow), and some having been buried under separate stone pavements (Isakovo cases) as opposed to the communal treatment prevailing in the Se- rovo, Kitoi, and Glazkovo examples. The exam- ined child interments of the Kitoi and Glazkovo cultures were devoid of grave goods. Thus, Khlo- bystina suggests an evolutionary change in the mortuary treatment of children from an indepen- dent, considerate, and respectful burial ritual quite similar to an adult norm during the Isakovo times, through communal graves with adult males and still with some grave goods in the Serovo culture, to communal graves of males and children with no child-oriented grave objects in both the Kitoi and Glazkovo cultures. For Khlobystina, this pattern reflects two interlaced trends. The first is a continuous decline in the position of children to the point where they were used as ritual sacrifices by the Kitoi and Glazkovo peoples to mark a death of a prominent male. This, she

believes, reflected the second trend: a simul- taneous increase in the status of males.

The heritage of the Okladnikov model is again evident in this study. The analysis follows his chronological sequence even though radiocarbon evidence has already raised serious doubts about its validity (Konopatskii 1982; Mamonova and Sulerzhitskii 1986, 1989). It also uses the same theoretical approach. Thus, even though the paper provides further corroborative evidence for the development of patriarchal social relations toward the end of the Neolithic/Early Bronze Age era as argued by Okladnikov about 40 years earlier, its validity is disputable in the face of already known radiocarbon dating.

Three other monographs are also worth men- tioning because they illustrate a different attitude toward the issue of social evolution in the Lake Baikal region. In all three studies, burial data constitute a substantial part or even the only category of the entire analyzed evidence. Konopatskii (1982), in his book on the Neolithic of the OPkhon region of Lake Baikal, remains essentially silent on the issue, even though he was the first to pub- lish a series of radiocarbon dates showing a greater antiquity for the Kitoi culture than had been generally accepted. Georgievskaia, in her monograph on the Kitoi culture, makes only an evasive statement in one of the last paragraphs of the book, namely, that while the problem was addressed in detail by Okladnikov it does require further study (Georgievskaia 1989:134). So, she dismisses the issue, despite the fact that on the basis of stratigraphic and typological evidence she argued for more direct linkages of the Kitoi culture with a Mesolithic background. Thus, both scholars did not elaborate on how Kitoi's early dating would affect the model of social change. Finally, the authors of the monographic publica- tion of the Shumilikha burial site, which produced 45 Bronze Age burials, did not devote a single paragraph to the issue (Savel'ev et al. 1981).

My own criticism of the Okladnikov model stems from the assessment of its theoretical and methodological foundations. It is worthwhile to em- phasize that the model was essentially born in the 1930s (Okladnikov 1938), and as such reflects the intellectual and political climate of the time. It was shaped by Okladnikov's philosophical ad- herence to the theory of social evolution as outlined by Engels (1972), which, through the writings of Lenin, Plekhanov, and Stalin, was incorporated into historical materialism - the theoretical foun- dation of Soviet social and historical science, including archaeology (cf., Miller 1956; Soffer 1983; Trigger 1989:207-243; McGuire 1992:56-59). This



1 0 Arctic An thropology 31 :2

theoretical orientation advocated a universal evolution of human society from a pre-clan community to a matriarchal clan, then through a patriarchal clan to a terminal clan as the highest form of pre-class society. The history of human society was seen in terms of universal and continuous evolution through these stages, which were marked by steady progress in every area of human culture (technology, economy, social relations, etc.). Tran- sition from one stage of social formation to another was caused by a shift from one to a different form of production. Thus, it was imperative that technological change was always explained in a social context (Trigger 1989:221). This school also re- jected diffusion and migration as causes of culture change and instead advocated autochthonous development and change due to internal culture dynamics. In this theoretical orientation, the role of archaeologists was "to use their data to illustrate the laws and regularities of historical processes and by doing so demonstrate the accuracy and utility of Marxist concepts" (Trigger 1989:222- 223).

Analytical methods, applied by Okladnikov to his archaeological material, involved liberal use of ethnographic analogy for various inter- pretations (including social issues), extensive reliance on archaeological analogies with neighboring regions for dating, and often rather frivolous treatment of archaeological data. Most of these techniques are not very popular and useful today, but in Okladnikov's times they were certainly generally accepted by the Soviet archaeological community and in many ways did not differ much from other archaeological schools of thought. For example, an essentially analogous approach was used by other Soviet archaeologists to exam- ine similar archaeological evidence (e.g., Efi- menko 1926; Tret'iakov 1935; Ravdonikas 1939, 1940, 1947).

Returning to the issue of political context, Okladnikov developed his model when Stalin was considered to be the most preeminent histo- rian, sociologist, ethnographer, and linguist of the Soviet Union, and soon after the raging terror of the "Cultural Revolution" (1930-1934) decimated the intellectual elite of the country (Miller 1956; Trigger 1989).

A good example of how this frightening environment might have affected Okladnikov's examination of the Lake Baikal Neolithic relates to the career of E. B. Petri (SaveFev 1991). Petri, an ethnographer and archaeologist, was academically active in the Lake Baikal region prior to the Bol- shevik revolution. When the University of Irkutsk was founded by Kol'chak's decree in 1918 during the Civil War (Irkutsk was the capital of his Si- berian stronghold), it was Petri who was assigned the mission to establish a department of archaeol-

ogy and ethnography at this new academic institution. This energetic man soon also became involved in community work and founded a science club to which scores of young enthusiasts of nature were soon recruited. A. P. Okladnikov, G. F. Debets, and M. M. Gerasimov, all in their teenage years, were among the first members of the club. They all became Petri's most zealous students of the local past. This relationship continued through the relatively liberal 1920s until it was inter- rupted by the tragic events of the "Cultural Revo- lution." Petri joined scores of other archaeologists of the pre-Bolshevik era and was executed apparently because of his role in founding the university and his evolutionist approach. By the time the Okladnikov synthesis was in the making, this overwhelming political pressure was all but gone. In 1934, Okladnikov was invited to the GAIMK in Leningrad (the State Academy for the History of Material Culture) to work on his dissertation under the supervision of P. P. Efimenko (VasiPevskii 1981; Boriskovsii 1982). Although the immediate danger of the "Cultural Revolution" had already passed, its ghost was still present. Okladnikov's arrival in Leningrad coincided with the end of the purge (about 20 archaeologists were affected in Leningrad alone) and installation of its leaders at the top of the country's most prestigious archaeological institution.

Thus, considering the political environment of Okladnikov's early career, it is understandable that in his material he was seeking further evidence in support of the generally accepted model of social evolution. Unfortunately, as mentioned above, this led directly to a selective, rather than systematic, examination of the archaeological evidence and to a biased, instead of impartial, interpretation of the data. A few examples will suffi- ciently illustrate this methodological deficiency.

The most important part of the Okladnikov model is the interaction between the social and economic forces affecting the entire process of cultural evolution. He believed that the transition to intensive fishing in the Lake Baikal region resulted in a shift from matriarchal to patriarchal social relations and caused an elevation of men's role and deterioration of women's status. In Okladnikov's opinion, this social change was best reflected in grave goods. However, his approach to the sub- stantiation of this process is not convincing. For example, the contents of the 12 Isakovo graves were not documented at all; of the 37 Serovo graves known to him, Okladnikov described the contents of only 14; and of the 74 listed Glazkovo graves, he tabulated the contents of only 19. Only the characteristics of all 42 Kitoi graves were described in some detail (Okladnikov 1950:71-96, Ta- bles 1, 2, 3 and 4). Furthermore, for none of the burials did he provide sex and age data, and for




each of these cultures he used a different set of characteristics to describe grave contents. Thus, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to evalu- ate his findings regarding burial patterns.

Two more specific examples will illustrate the shortcomings of the social part of the model. The use of a bow by women was believed to be key evidence for the prominent position of women during Isakovo and Serovo times. Of the 16 documented occurrences of composite bows in Serovo graves, two - according to Okladnikov - were associated with women (Okladnikov 1950: Table 9). The first case refers to a communal grave of a man, woman, and a child at Ponomarevo (grave 7). The placement of the two bows found in this grave is such, however, that they both could as well have belonged to the child (Fig. 1). The second burial, Serovo 2, turned out upon later an- thropological examination to be that of a young child (Mamonova, personal communication, 1990). The evidence for allegedly frequent finds of arrowheads with female burials was not presented, with the exception of the Ushkanka grave, which contained four points (Okladnikov 1950:269, 1955: Table 5).

The second example involves the evidence for consolidation of a patriarchate in the Glazkovo culture. Okladnikov emphasized rows of Glazkovo graves found on the Verkholensk site where, according to him, the sex and age and grave good data demonstrate the establishment of a fully patriarchal family (Okladnikov 1950:266-267, 1955:219, Fig. 104). Unfortunately, he overlooked the fact that the Isakovo and Serovo graves in this and other cemeteries were also arranged in a similar way (Fig. 2). Moreover, the spatial characteristics of Kitoi cemeteries (Kitoi and Lokomotiv) were not discussed. Demographic and artifactual evidence from all these row arrangements also was neither presented nor thoroughly compared.

The process of social change was correlated with the shift in subsistence. The apparent abun- dance of fishing gear in Glazkovo graves meant to Okladnikov that it was the development of intensive fishing economy that was responsible for patriarchal social relations in this culture. Since social evolution in the Lake Baikal region must have been triggered by processes of economic change, it was necessary for Okladnikov to demonstrate that during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, the role of fishing changed relative to other subsistence activities. His entire reconstruc- tion of economy is based on the assumption that mortuary data are just as informative about the subsistence characteristics of a prehistoric community as they are about its social aspects. Unfor- tunately, Okladnikov is quite vague with regard to how mortuary evidence can be used to recon- struct in any meaningful way economic aspects of

the Lake Baikal past, although he seems to favor a version of the direct approach: more arrowheads mean more game hunting while more fish hooks indicate a dominance of fishing. Thus, many of his conclusions about subsistence change raise a number of legitimate questions. For example, is the change in relative frequencies of arrowheads and fish hooks in grave assemblages related with subsistence change or, rather, technological shift? Is the reduction in arrowhead length over time good evidence for decreased food contribution from large game hunting? And finally, is site se- lection for mortuary ritual an indicator of dominant subsistence activity?

It is not my intention to argue with Oklad- nikov's approach from the perspective of modern theoretical and analytical advances in archaeology. However, I would like to demonstrate that, even if his assumptions are accepted, his recon- struction of economic change employs a number of techniques that do not pass careful scrutiny regardless of the theoretical position underlying such an examination. Only one example will be presented. One of the most persuasive cases for the decline of large game hunting and the increase of fishing toward the end of the Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age era was provided by the analysis of arrowheads (Okladnikov 1955:61-77). Ok- ladnikov observed that the length of arrowheads decreased with time and that the general small size of the Kitoi and Glazkovo points coincided with the disappearance of the Serovo composite bone-and-wood bow. This meant to him that this smaller and less powerful weapon (the superior prowess of the composite bow was more assumed than demonstrated) was used rather for small game and bird hunting than for larger ungulates such as moose, red deer, or roe deer (the last, in fact, is not so large). Okladnikov recorded the lengths of 758 arrowheads representing all relevant cultures of the region, including also the Bronze Age Shivera culture. He concluded that the data show a definite trend from large arrowheads in the Isakovo culture to small ones in the Shivera culture (Bronze Age), with Serovo and Kitoi points occupying transitional positions. The two critical analytical flaws both refer to the units of comparison used by Okladnikov in his argument. Okladnikov identified nine types of arrowheads in the Glazkovo culture alone (Oklad- nikov 1955:62), of which only three are also common in the Serovo and Kitoi cultures. In his analysis, all these types are lumped together without a typological breakdown (Okladnikov 1955: Table 5, 6, 7, Fig. 20). If the typological boundaries had been stated, the results of this examination could have been more meaningful and probably quite different.

The use of cultural units to compare the



Conclusion


length of arrowheads is also puzzling and mis- leading. The data base and analysis are presented in three tables and one diagram (Okladnikov 1955: Table 5, 6, 7, Fig. 20). In the first two tables, the data are presented within the same six cultural units: the Isakovo, Late Isakovo/Early Se- rovo, Serovo, Kitoi, Glazkovo, and Shivera stages. In the third table, the data are reduced, without any explanation, to three units: the Isakovo with Early Serovo, the Serovo, and the Glazkovo with Shivera, while the Kitoi culture was omitted entirely. And on the diagram (Okladnikov 1955: Fig. 20), which shows neatly the desired trend, we find four separate plots: one for Isakovo together with Early Serovo, separate one for Serovo, then for Kitoi combined with Glazkovo, and finally for Shivera. Ultimately, the problem was further compounded by the insufficient sample size of Kitoi and Shivera arrowheads, represented by 22 and 13 specimens, respectively, with a large majority of points coming from only one grave (13 and 11 points, respectively). This factor contrib- uted to the skewed results for these two cultures because of the preponderance of small points in both of these burials (Okladnikov 1955: Table 5).

The works of Khlobystin (1972) and Khloby- stina (1990) not only follow closely the tradition established by Okladnikov but also fail to make a significant contribution and as such do not require a detailed evaluation. A few comments, however, on the latter paper will be helpful in our understanding of the current state of research. The paper displays a number of analytical shortcomings. Material for analysis was selected on the basis of unknown criteria. In fact, the number of child graves is quite high - children in various cemeteries account for 13% to 35% of the total interments (Mamonova 1983). To name just a few major stumbling blocks in this short article, this evidence was analyzed out of context, unsubstan- tiated assumptions were made regarding relationships between buried men and children (sons, daughters, wives, or offerings), new radiocarbon dating was not taken into consideration, and the evidence for possible violent deaths of some of these individuals was not subjected to a thorough osteological examination.

The Okladnikov model for the Baikal Neolithic has persisted basically unchanged for the past half- century. Since a considerable amount of new archaeological fieldwork has been carried out in the region, and most other models in archaeology have had shorter life spans by far, a legitimate question arises: Why? It seems that a combination of various circumstances resulted in the unprecedented longevity of this synthesis. First and most impor-

tantly, the synthesis, regardless of its theoretical and analytical shortcomings, was a significant step forward. It classified, analyzed, and explained the variation in archaeological material accumulated through the first 50 years of archaeological explo- ration of the region. When compared with more recent works on Lake Baikal prehistory and with other Soviet research on social aspects of prehistoric societies in general (e.g., Efimenko 1953; Gur- ina 1956; Belanovskaia 1967; Pershits et al. 1968; Masson 1976; Boriskovskii 1977), it is apparent that the model owes most of its long-lasting appeal to rather stagnant research. Other factors, however, may have played their own roles as well. The synthesis fit well with the intellectual environment of Soviet archaeology of the first half of the century. It closely followed the path of Efimenko (1926), Tret'iakov (1935), and Ravdonikas (1939, 1940, 1947).

Delivering the model as his Ph.D. dissertation and his first major work in 1938 at the age of 30, Okladnikov made a powerful political statement that was probably a necessity, considering his potential vulnerability because of his past relationship with Petri. This statement carried him safely through the troubled late 1930s and 1940s (during World War II, Okladnikov carried out extensive fieldwork in the Lena River Valley [Bor- iskovskii 1982]). Later, it allowed him to become the most successful Siberian archaeologist in the post-war era. Also, the contrary views presented by contemporary and subsequent researchers (mainly regarding chronology) were typically based on fewer lines of investigation (e.g., anthro- pometric features, pottery styles, etc.). None of their studies approached the scale of Oklad- nikov's comprehensive synthesis of a wide range of archaeological and ethnographic evidence. Thus, all these alternative views had the appearance of being less thoroughly substantiated, if not sometimes entirely speculative. And finally, various archaeologists, many of them being Oklad- nikov's own students, probably for their own personal reasons deliberately chose not to revisit the issue. A disagreement with the social aspects of the model might have meant a political statement of a quite different nature. On the other hand, a reanalysis of some aspects of the model using the same approach was bound to produce superfluous results (e.g., Khlobystina 1990).

In summary, I have tried to demonstrate that since the Okladnikov synthesis, there has been a considerable stasis in research on social aspects of Lake Baikal foragers. No new theoretical ap- proaches were developed, no new analytical techniques were employed, and no new models were presented. And even very recently, when extensive series of radiocarbon dates clearly under- mined the original sequence (Fig. 3), there have




been no visible signs in Russian archaeology that the entire model, including social aspects, should be revised (Mamonova and Sulerzhitskii 1986, 1989; Khlobystina 1990). There are some signs, however, that the impetus towards new research may be growing. The summary description of the Lake Baikal Neolithic and Early Bronze Age presented in this paper illustrates an enormous wealth of information on the social aspects of these cultures. After a long period of waiting, the entire body of burial evidence used by Oklad- nikov in his synthesis, updated through the 1950s and 1960s, has been published in four volumes (Okladnikov 1974, 1975, 1976, 1978). This data base was substantially enlarged during the last 20 years after extensive fieldwork on Lake Baikal [e.g., Khotoruk, Khuzhir, and Sarminskii mys), in the Angara River valley (e.g., Lokomotiv, Shum- ilikha, Ust'-Belaia, and Ust'-Ida), and on the Upper Lena (e.g., Borki and Obkhoi). This fieldwork also revealed that the variation in Neolithic and Bronze Age mortuary practices was far greater than ex- pected (e.g., Savel'ev et al. 1981; Konopatskii 1982; Okladnikov and Konopatskii 1984; Georgievskaia 1989; Baziliiskii 1990). Abundant osteological evidence was extensively analyzed and produced a number of interesting observations regarding biological characteristics of different cultural and ter- ritorial groups (e.g., Kazantsev 1961; Mamonova 1973, 1980, 1983; Alekseev and Mamonova 1979; Mamonova and Baziliiskii 1991). Hopefully, growing political and socioeconomic changes in the new Russia will provide an additional rejuvenating stimulus for new and ingenious research.

Acknowledgments. This project is part of a long- term research program on "Diet, subsistence, social structure, and burial practices of Holocene foragers in the Lake Baikal region" funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Additional support was granted by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Can- ada and the Central Research Fund of the Univer- sity of Alberta. N. E. Berdnikova, A. K. Kono- patskii, N. A. SaveFev, and V. I. Baziliiskii were all of invaluable help while conducting research in Irkutsk and Novosibirsk. I am very grateful for their cooperation. Also, I would like to thank all four reviewers for their valuable comments and David Link for his editorial assistance. Darryl Be- reziuk prepared Figures 1 and 2.

References Alekseev, V. P., and Natalia N. Mamonova 1979 K paleoantropologii epokhi neolita ver-

khov'ev Leny [On the Paleoanthropology of the Upper Lena Neolithic], Sovetskaia et- nografiia 5:49-63.

Baziliiskii, Vladimir I. 1990 Otchet o nauchnoissledovatel'skoi rabote:

mogiVnik "Lokomotiv". Istoriia issledovanii, sovremennoe sostoianie issledovanii. Pred- lozheniia po okhrannym meropriiatiiam i muzeefikatsii [Research Report: Lokomotiv Cemetery. History and Current State of Re- search. Proposal for Site Conservation]. IGU, Irkutsk.

Belanovskaia, T. D. 1967 Istoriia pervobytnogo obshchestva i osnovy

etnografii [History of Early Society and Prin- ciples of Ethnography]. Nauka, Leningrad.

Boriskovskii, P. I. 1977 Vozniknovenie chelovecheskogo obshchestva

[The Origin of Human Society]. In: Paleolit mira. AN SSSR, Leningrad.

1982 Aleksei Pavlovich Okladnikov. Sovetskaia arkheologiia 3:291-296.

Chard, Chester S. 1974 Northeast Asia in Prehistory. The University

of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

Efimenko, P. P. 1926 Riazanskie mogiFniki. Opyt kul'turno-strati-

graficheskogo analiza mogil'nikov massovogo tipa [The Riazan' Cemeteries. An Attempt at Cultural-Stratigraphic Analysis of Mass Burials], Materiialy po etnografii 3(1). AN SSSR, Leningrad.

1953 Pervobytnoe obshchestvo [Early Society], AN SSSR, Kiev.

Engels, Fredrick 1972 The Origins of the Family, Private Property

and the State. International Publishers, New York.

Georgievskaia, G. M. 1989 Kitoiskaia kul'tura PribaikaVia [The Kitoi

Culture of the Cis-Baikal]. Nauka, Novo- sibirsk.

Gerasimov, M. M. 1955 Osnovy vosstanovleniia litsa po cherepu [The

Principles of Facial Reconstructions], Novaia seriia No. 27. Institute of Ethnography, USSR Academy of Science, Moscow.

Gerasimov, M. M., and E. N. Chernykh 1975 Raskopki Fofonovskogo mogiFnika v 1959 g.

[Excavations of the Fofonovo Cemetery in 1959]. In: Pervobytnaia arkheologiia Sibiri, pp. 23-48. Nauka, Leningrad.

Gurina, Nina N. 1956 Oleneostrovskii mogil'nik [The Oleneo-

strovskii Cemetery]. MIA 47.

Griffin, James B. 1960 Some Prehistoric Connections Between Si-

beria and America. Science 131:801-813.



1 4 Arctic An thropology 31 :2

Kazantsev, A. I. 1961 Antropologicheskie dannye o skeletakh iz

neoliticheskikh pogrebenii Priangar'ia [An- thropological Data on Skeletons from Neo- lithic Burials of the Angara Valley]. In: Voprosy istorii Sibiri i Dal'nego Vostoka, pp. 373-375. AN SSSR, Novosibirsk.

Khlobystin, L. P. 1965 Drevneishie pamiatniki Baikala [The Earliest

Sites in the Baikal Region]. MIA 131:252- 296.

1972 Problemy sotsiologii neolita Severnoi Evrazii [Sociological Problems of the Neolithic of Northern Eurasia]. In: Okhotniki, sobirateli, rybolovy. Problemy sociaVno-ekonomich- eskikh otnoshenii v dozemledel'cheskom ob- shchestve, pp. 26-42. Nauka, Leningrad.

1978 Vozrast i sootnoshenie neoliticheskikh kul'tur Vostochnoi Sibiri [The Age and Rela- tionship of the Neolithic Cultures of Eastern Siberia]. KSIA 153:93-99.

Khlobystina, M. D. 1990 Pogrebeniia muzhchin i detei v drevnikh mo-

gil'nikakh Pribaikal'ia [Burials of Men and Children in Early Cemeteries of Cis -Baikal]. KSIA 199:61-67.

Konopatskii, Aleksandr K. 1982 Drevnie kul'tury Baikala (o. Ol'khon) [The

Early Cultures of Baikal (Ol'khon Island)]. Nauka, Novosibirsk.

Lubbock, John 1865 Pre-historic Times as Illustrated by Ancient

Remains, and the Manners and Customs of Modern Savages. Williams and Norgate.

Mamonova, Natalia N. 1973 K voprosu o mezhgrupovykh razlichiakh v

neolite PribaikaFia [On Interpopulational Dif- ferences During the Neolithic of the Cis- Baikal]. Voprosy antropologii 1:88-103.

1980 Drevnee naselenie Angary i Leny v serovskoe vremia po dannym antropologii [The Early Populations of the Angara and Lena Regions During the Serovo Period from an Anthro- pological Perspective]. In: Paleoantropologiia Sibiri, pp. 64-88. Nauka, Moscow.

1983 K voprosu o drevnem naselenii Priangar'ia po paleoantropologicheskim dannym [The Early Population of the Angara Valley on the Basis of Paleoanthropological Data]. In: Prob- lemy arkheologii Urala i Sibiri, pp. 18-28. Nauka, Moscow.

Mamonova, Natalia N., and Vladimir I. Baziliiskii 1991 Mogil'nik "Lokomotiv." Nekotorye biolog-

icheskie i demograficheskie osobennosti naseleniia kitoiskoi kul'tury (po materialam

raskopok 1980-1984 godov) [The "Lokomo- tiv" Cemetery. Some Biological and Demo- graphic Characteristics of the Kitoi Culture (According to Materials from Excavations between 1980 and 1984)]. In: Paleontologiche- skie issledovaniia na iuge srednei Sibiri, edited by German I. Medvedev, pp. 93-109. IGU, Irkutsk.

Mamonova, Natalia N., and L. D. Sulerzhitskii, 1986 Vozrast nekotorykh neoliticheskikh i eneo-

liticheskikh pogrebenii Pribaikal'ia po radio- uglerodnym dannym [The Age of Some Neo- lithic and Eneolithic Graves of the Cis -Baikal on the Basis of Radiocarbon Evidence]. In: Arkheologicheskie i etnograficheskie issledovaniia v Vostochnoi Sibiri, pp. 15-20. IGU, Irkutsk.

1989 Opyt datirovaniia po C14 pogrebenii Pri- baikal'ia epokhi golotsena [An Attempt to Date Some Holocene Burials in the Baikal Region According to C-14]. Sovetskaia arkheologiia 2:19-32.

Masson, V. M. 1976 Ekonomika i sotsiaVnyi stroi drevnikh ob-

shchestv [Economy and Social Organization of Early Societies]. Nauka, Leningrad.

McGuire, Randall H. 1992 A Marxist Archaeology. Academic Press, San

Diego.

Michael, Henry N. 1958 The Neolithic Age in Eastern Siberia. Trans-

actions of the American Philosophical Soci- ety [new series) 482.

1992 The Neolithic Cultures of Siberia and the So- viet Far East. In: Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, part 1 and 2, edited by Robert W. Ehrich, pp. 416-429 and 405-418. Chi- cago University Press, Chicago.

Miller, Michail O. 1956 Archaeology in the U.S.S.R. Atlantic Press,

London.

Okladnikov, Aleksei P. 1938 Arkheologicheskie dannye o drevneishei is-

torii Pribaikal'ia [The Archaeological Evi- dence of the Early History of the Cis -Baikal]. Vestnik drevnei istorii 1/2.

1950 Neolit i bronzovyi vek Pribaikal'ia, chast' I i II. [The Neolithic and Bronze Age of the Cis- Baikal, part I and II]. MIA 18.

1955 Neolit i bronzovyi vek Pribaikal'ia, chast' III [The Neolithic and Bronze Age of the Cis- Baikal, part III]. MIA 43.

1959 Ancient Populations of Siberia and Its Cul- tures. Russian Translations of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Har- vard University, Cambridge.




1964 Ancient Populations of Siberia and Its Cul- ture. In: The Peoples of Siberia, edited by M. G. Levin and L. P. Potapov, pp. 13-98. Chicago University Press, Chicago.

1970 Neolit Sibiri i Dal'nego Vostoka [The Neo- lithic of Siberia and the Far East]. MIA 166:172-193.

1974 Neoliticheskie pamiatniki Angary (ot Shch- ukino do Bureti) [Neolithic Sites of the An- gara River (between Shchukino and Buret')]. Nauka, Novosibirsk.

1975 Neoliticheskie pamiatniki Srednei Angary (ot ust'ia r. Beloi do Ust'-Udy) [Neolithic Sites of the Middle Angara (between Ust'-Belaia and Ust'-Uda)]. Nauka, Novosibirsk.

1976 Neoliticheskie pamiatniki Nizhnei Angary (ot Serovo do Bratska) [Neolithic Sites of the Lower Angara (between Serovo and Bratsk]. Nauka, Novosibirsk.

1978 Verkholenskii mogiVnik - pamiatnik drevnei kuVtury narodov Sibiri [The Verkholensk Cemetery - A Site of the Early Culture of Siberian Peoples]. Nauka, Novosibirsk.

Okladnikov, Aleksei P., and Aleksandr K. Konopatskii 1984 Pogrebenia epoki neolita i rannei bronzy na

Angare po materialam raskopok 1977 g. [The Neolithic and Bronze Age Graves on the An- gara (According to Material from the Excava- tion in 1977]. In: Arkheologiia iuga Sibiri i Dal'nego Vostoka, edited by G. I. Medvedev, pp. 18-35. Nauka, Novosibirsk.

Pershits, A. I., A. L. Mongait, and V. P. Alekseev 1968 Istoriia pervobytnogo obshchestva [History of

Early Society]. AN SSSR, Moscow.

Ravdonikas, V. I. 1939 Istoriia pervobytnogo obshchestva [History of

Early Society], vol. I. AN SSSR, Leningrad.

1940 Neoliticheskii mogiFnik na Onezhskom ozere [The Neolithic Cemetery on Lake Onega], Sovetskaia arkheologiia 6:46-63

1947 Istoriia pervobytnogo obshchestva [History of Early Society], vol. II. AN SSSR, Leningrad.

Reid, C. S. 1988 Some Ideas Concerning the Formulation of

Research Designs and Excavation Method- ologies on Boreal Forest Habitation Sites. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 13(2):187-221.

Savel'ev, Nikolai A. 1991 Vklad B. E. Petri v izuchenie sibirskogo neo-

lita [The Contribution of B. E. Petri to the Study of the Siberian Neolithic]. In: Paleon- tologicheskie issledovaniia na iuge srednei Sibiri, edited by German I. Medvedev, pp. 75-93. IGU, Irkutsk.

Savel' ev, Nikolai A., G. N. Mikhniuk, I. L. Lezh- nenko, O. I. Goriunova, N. A. Petrova, and G. I. Pan- kovskaia 1981 Bronzovyi vek Priangar'ia. MogiVnik Shum-

ilikha [The Bronze Age of the Angara Valley. The Shumilikha Cemetery]. Nauka, Irkutsk.

Soffer, Olga 1983 Politics of the Paleolithic in the USSR: A

Case of Paradigms Lost. In: The Socio-Pol- itics of Archaeology Research Report 23. De- partment of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Svinin, V. V. 1974 Osnovnye etapy drevnei istorii naseleniia

poberezh'ia oz. Baikal [The History of Early Settlement on the Coast of Lake Baikal]. Drevniaia istoriia narodov iuga Vostochnoi Sibiri, pp. 7-24. IGU, Irkutsk.

1976 Periodizatsia arkheologicheskikh pamiat- nikov Baikala [Periodization of Archaeologi- cal Monuments on Lake Baikal]. Izvestia VSORGO 69:167-179.

Tolstoi, Paul 1958 The Archaeology of the Lena Basin and Its

New World Relationships. American Antiq- uity 23:397-418.

Tret'iakov, P. N. 1935 K istorii doklassovogo obshchestva Ver-

khnego Povolzh'ia [The History of Pre-class Society in the Upper Volga Basin]. Izvestiia GAIMK, vol. 106.

Trigger, Bruce G. 1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cam-

bridge University Press, Cambridge.

Vasil'evskii, Ruslan S. 1981 Kratkii ocherk nauchnoi, pedagogicheskoi i

nauchno-organizatsionnoi deiaternosti [An Outline of Research, Teaching, and Organiza- tional Activities. In: Aleksei Pavlovich Oklad- nikov, pp. 9-34. Nauka, Moscow.



social evolution among neolithic and early bronze age foragers in the lake baikal region: new light...

Documents