Re: Mal'ta decoded

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

Since I don't subscribe to Archaeometry and since I am unlikely to have access to a library in the near future, I would appreciate very much if someone, out there, could provide me (us) with additional details on these new dates from Mal'ta. The reference I was given is: ARchaeometry, 1998, 40(1):227-239.

Thanks in advance,

Jacques Cinq-Mars

[Petya]

The article is: "Radiocarbon Dates From the Oxford AMS System: Archaeometry Datelist 25"
On p. 234 there is a listing of 5 dates from Mal'ta, all on bone (I assume not human bone):
OxA-6189 43,100±2400 1/MA-95/S18
OxA-5760 5760±260 2/MA-95/S20
OxA-6191 21,700±160 3/MA-95/S14-170
OxA-6192 20,340±320 4/MA-95/17-327
OxA-6193 21,340±240 5/MA-95/17-764

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

   Thanks a lot for that. Most useful. If it is not asking too much, are these dates all associated with identifiable cultural remains or assemblages? Presumably, the Full Glacial ones fall within the expected range of the "classic" Mal'ta finds, but what about the others?

Jacques Cinq-Mars

[Petya]

Here is the comment by Nicholas Cauwe who submitted the samples:
Comment (N. C.): for a long time the site of Mal'ta has been attributed to the middle of the Upper Palaeolithic (Schmider 1992, 445-6), an assumption in harmony with the stratigraphic position, within the loess of the Sartan ice-age. The presence of anthropomorphic sculptures corroborates this point of view, if the comparisons with the Gravettian of Central Europe are correct.
A child burial, discovered in 1929, was dated to the 15th millennium BP (GIN-97: 14 750 t 120). This analysis was never confirmed and was rejected by Russian archaeologists (Boriskovsky 1984, 314; Abramova 1989, 197-9). On the contrary, another site in the same region, Buret, excavated by Ogladnikov in 1936 and from which the lithic and artistic products are similar to those at Mal'ta, is assigned to the 22nd millennium BP (21 190 t 100) (Schmider 1992; Vasil'ev 1995).
During the new excavations at Mal'ta, it became clear that this site contains at least three stages of prehistoric occupation. The first excavators, between 1928 and 1958, had distinguished only one of these, probably due to the perturbation of different layers along the border of the fluviatile terrace.
The oldest layer relates to the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition (OxA-6189). The second one, which contains the famous anthropomorphic statuettes, is now clearly dated to the Sartan glaciation (OxA-6190, -6191 and -6193). The archaeological deposits dating to this stadial certainly represent an accumulation of many short human occupations. The last layer, which could be dated in the .future, seems to belong to the end of the Upper Palaeolithic.

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

  Im very grateful to you for passing on  Nicholas Cauwe'comments. The next step will be to wait eagerly for a characterization of the MP/UP transition. If the sample of artefacts they obtained  is large enough for that, it should make for interesting discussions and "revision".

Thanks again,

Jacques Cinq-Mars

[Daryl Habel]

Jacques, Petya, and other interested folk:

Very interesting!  I wish I could do better than the following, but it might be of interest to some, and does provide references for further relevant information.

Reading of this report that strata dated 43,100 BP (OxA-6189)and "relating to the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition" (Cauwe's comment in Archaeometry) has been identified at the site of Mal'ta, Siberia, I recollect from memory (since my copy of  Derev'anko et al (eds) 1998, "The Paleolithic of Siberia", is 1500 miles away in Indiana) that there were a good number of artifacts recovered at Mal'ta during earlier excavations which were originally identified as comparable to artifacts described (Medvedev 1998a,b) and included in a synthetic research concept that the Siberians call "the Makarovo stratum".

The "Makarovo stratum" is not a geological stratum, but rather a synthetic research concept wherein a collection of artifacts gathered from various redeposited or non-primary contexts in the Angara and Lena valley drainages were identified typologically and by degree of weathering (or erosion) by the researchers as comparable to those artifacts found in situ at Makarovo 4.

All the above is from memory, but I've gone to the palanth-l archives to resurrect a portion of a post I made a year or so ago concerning the Makarovo 4 site.  This has the Medvedev references which (I'm sure) contain more information on the "Makarovo stratum" as well as the identification of the artifacts classified as such that were recovered from Mal'ta.

Quoting from my earlier palanth-l post:

"And Makarovo 4, on the Upper Lena River, NW of Lake Baikal in Siberia,
is very early Upper Paleolithic also:

Medvedev, G. (1998a). The Lower Paleolithic of Eastern Siberia. In
Derev'anko, A.P., Shimkin, D.B. & Powers, W.R. (eds.) The Paleolithic
of Siberia: New discoveries and interpretations. University of Illinois
Press. Urbana and Chicago. pp. 27-35.

Medvedev, G. (1998b). Upper Paleolithic sites in South-Central Siberia.
In Derev'anko, A.P., Shimkin, D.B. & Powers, W.R. (eds.) The
Paleolithic of Siberia: New discoveries and interpretations. University
of Illinois Press. Urbana and Chicago. pp. 122-132.

Medvedev (1998a:34) says the lithic inventory of Makarovo 4 has some
Middle Paleolithic components but is essentially an Upper Paleolithic
industry (containing prismatic reduction, blade technology and fine
pressure retouch).
The site has three Arizona AMS dates for the culture-bearing layer
stratum 3, two of which are >38ka and another >39 ka, essentially
infinite and therefore minimum. From the geology, the stratum
3/stratum 4 interface appears to be the OIS4/OIS 3 boundary, and the
researchers feel that the living floor is at least 50,000 years old,
some think it older."

End of my former quote, but more comment below:

If I remember correctly (and don't bet the farm on it), these "Makarovo stratum" artifacts, which were recovered from the early Mal'ta excavations, were originally interpreted (because of the "Makarovo stratum"  typology and the difference in weathering from the "fresh" 22 kyr-old Mal'ta lithics) as lithic material which the Mid-Upper Paleolithic inhabitants (of c. 22 kyr BP) had surface collected from the surrounding area and then brought to Mal'ta as manuports to be re-worked as new tools. Or something to that effect.

Despite my (faulty?) memory, I'm sure that the Medvedev references given above would provide interesting reading with the "facts" on this issue and it seems reasonable that this might have some bearing on the "new" strata with 43 kyr BP dating at Mal'ta.

This begs the question: "Are the Makarovo stratum lithics from Mal'ta manuports as previously identified, or can they now be associated with the 43 kyr BP strata recently identified?

Sorry I can't give better now, but I'm re-reading Medvedev (1998a,b) as soon as I reaquaint myself with my copy of "The Paleolithic of Siberia"

Dar

[Daryl Habel]

I ran a google search and came up with additional information from the following:

http://www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/Annrep/1998-9/events.htm#Dr%20Nicolas%20Cauwe

which I've cut and pasted below:

Dr Nicolas Cauwe

To complete the account of conferences and seminars held at the McDonald Institute in 1998–99 we must mention the visit in May 1999 of Dr Nicolas Cauwe of the Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire at Brussels. Dr Cauwe delivered two lectures on aspects of his research, one on his excavations at the famous Palaeolithic site of Mal’ta in Siberia, the other on Mesolithic burials in Belgium.

The Upper Palaeolithic site of Mal’ta (Irkutsk District, Siberia) was excavated between 1928 and 1958 by Professor Gerasimov, from the University of Moscow. These explorations were largely unpublished, however, and the opportunity to participate in new fieldwork was welcomed by Dr Cauwe and his team. Their three seasons (1995–97) at Mal’ta, in collaboration with Irkutsk State University, showed that all the archaeological levels were affected by glacial phenomena. It is therefore impossible any longer to believe in the ethnographical interpretations proposed by Gerasimov in the middle of this century, since in no case does the distribution of artefacts reflect the state of the site at the moment of its abandonment by the Palaeolithic inhabitants. Seven new radiocarbon dates, on bone material collected in 1995, indicate repeated occupations between 25,000 and 21,000 bp. The only comparable site which is currently known is Buret (some kilometres away from Mal’ta). The Mal’ta–Buret Group appears to be an isolated phenomenon, proper to the basin of the Angara river, without known antecedents or descendents. The lithic industries, however, suggest links with the Ienissei basin, Transbaikalia, Mongolia and the Ordos plateau in China, and form the basis for a new understanding of a distinctively central Asian Upper Palaeolithic.

Dar

[Jois]

If you are innocent of information re: Mal'ta (as I am) here is amap and short story:

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/malt/hd_malt.htm

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

If you are innocent of information re: Mal'ta (as I am) here is amap and short story:

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/malt/hd_malt.htm

Thanks for passing this on, but you certainly realize, on the basis of what has been discussed in the previous posts, that this short Metropolitan Museum of Art blurb on Malta (or Mal'ta) -- which, no doubt, is derived, in part, from the Hermitage's own page -- is in need of some important revisions.

Jacques Cinq-Mars

[Daryl Habel]

If you are innocent of information re: Mal'ta (as I am) here is amap and short story:

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/malt/hd_malt.htm

Thanks for passing this on, but you certainly realize, on the basis of what has been discussed in the previous posts, that this short Metropolitan Museum of Art blurb on Malta (or Mal'ta) -- which, no doubt, is derived, in part, from the Hermitage's own page -- is in need of some important revisions.

Jacques Cinq-Mars

That's certainly true, beginning with the statement "The earliest human occupation in this region probably began sometime around 40,000 years ago."  I don't think anyone now doubts that the earliest human occupation of southern Siberia in the regions of the upper Ob (Altai) and Yenisei rivers occurred _at least_  as early as OIS 5e.   Most local (Siberian) researchers would say much earlier, although the best that can be said for sure is  _sometime_ in the Middle Pleistocene.  Derev'anko thinks about 500-400 kyr ago. I'd accept at least OIS 7 (and let us also not forget the Diring site, controversial, but dated c. 270 kyr BP)

Of course, Mal'ta (on the Belaya River) is in the upper Angara River watershed, and this region has (apparently) not been as intensively investigated, or at least reported to us who read only Western publications, for earlier human settlement as are other regions such as the Altai and the Yenisei sites (of which Afontova Gora is but one of many).  Nevertheless, there are in "The Paleolithic of Siberia" (Derev'anko et al., eds. 1998),  many sites described in the Angara drainage that are also at least OIS 5e in age.  Jiri Chlachula has also published a series of recent papers on the colonization of Siberia mentioning earlier sites for which the evidence seems acceptable,  but my references for this are not presently at hand.

Quoting from the Metropolitan Museum webpage again: "By about 20,000 B.C., two principal cultural traditions had developed in Siberia and northeastern Asia: the Mal'ta and the Afontova Gora-Oshurkovo."  I don't think this is a very accurate statement, first because the Mal'ta/Buret sites appear to date to shortly before the Last Glacial Maximum, while Afontova Gora is dated shortly after the LGM, and secondly because after the LGM there are a few more than "two principal cultural traditions" in Siberia and NE Asia.

Also mentioned on the Metropolitan Museum page: "The Mal'ta tradition is known from a vast area spanning west of Lake Baikal and the Yenisey River," is also probably an error as, IMHO, the only other site in Siberia comparable to Mal'ta is the site of Buret, which is only a few miles distant on the Angara.

These are just a few thoughts from memory,  but it's obvious that Jacques is correct in pointing out that the Metropolitan Museum webpage is in serious need of revision.  I'll be home in Indiana with better sources in about two weeks, and will update my previous post concerning Mal'ta and the "Makarovo stratum", as well as furnish the above-mentioned Chlachula references shortly after my arrival.

Regards to all,
Dar

[Daryl Habel]

These are just a few thoughts from memory,  but it's obvious that Jacques is correct in pointing out that the Metropolitan Museum webpage is in serious need of revision.  I'll be home in Indiana with better sources in about two weeks, and will update my previous post concerning Mal'ta and the "Makarovo stratum", as well as furnish the above-mentioned Chlachula references shortly after my arrival.

Regards to all,
Dar

All,

What I posted earlier with references to Medvedev (1998) about the "Makarovo stratum" seems pretty much as it reads in my notes.
A quote here from Medvedev (1998:27): "The 'Makarovo' stratum, as well as the 'Tarakhay' and 'Olon' strata, are synthetic units which are classificatory categories used to describe archaeological unities in a research model."

"The Tarakhay-Olon stratum unifies similar materials from plateau localities......" (Medvedev 1998:30)

"....the oldest unabraded materials come from Sartan or Kargin deposits dating to between 21,000 and 33,000 to 40,000 years ago (Laukhin, Drozdov, et al. 1980); Medvedev 1982a;Bazarov, Konstantinov & Imetkhenov 1982; Mochanov, Fedoseeva, Alekseev, et al. 1983).  The age of 40,000 years appears reliable, and it is likely that it does not limit the presence of fresh Upper Paleolithic.  The abraded materials predated 40,000 BP" (Medvedev 1998:29).

"The Makarovo stratum contains materials from over 50 localities.  Contextual data relating to: (1) naturally stratified in situ materials; (2) culturally stratified materials, those older pieces reworked by later human groups; and (3) state of exposure, that is, isolated finds on different surfaces - allows their division into three artifact groups..." (Medvedev 1998:32-33).

The Malta site falls in category 2 and contains "the most representative inventory" [of that category] "with 48 pieces".  Category 2 contains "manuports' found in the Upper Paleolithic inventories.  Derev'anko et al. (eds.) 1998 has some illustrated examples of artifacts collected at Malta which bear older, abraded scars of removal (>40 ka "Makarovo stratum"), but which also bear scars of more recent (22 ka) retouching of the edges.

A fascinating research model, but I'm not sure how well-accepted it is.  They do seem to have researched this to some extent, judging by the references (mostly in Russian) given by Medvedev.

Also, the Chlachula references are:

Chlachula, J. (2001a) Pleistocene climate change, natural environments and palaeolithic occupation of the Angara-Baikal area, east central Siberia. Quaternary International 80-81: 69-92.

Chlachula, J. (2001b)  Pleistocene climate change, natural environments and palaeolithic occupation of the upper Yenisei area, south-central Siberia. Quaternary International 80-81: 101-130.

Chlachula, J. (2001c) Pleistocene climate change, natural environments and palaeolithic occupation of the Altai area, west-central Siberia. Quaternary International 80-81: 131-167.

Cheers,
Dar