Introduction

Reconstruction of the paleoeconomics of carriers of several archaeological cultures of the Amur basin in the late Pleistocene - early Holocene allows us to trace the dynamics of the main economic activity of the ancient population of this region for almost 15 thousand years. The difficulty of solving this problem is related to the lack of a number of very important data for objective reasons. Due to the acidity of the soils of the southern Russian Far East, faunal and floristic remains are very rare at Late Paleolithic and Early Neolithic sites. Therefore, the main source for studying the economic activity of the ancient population of the Amur basin is functional studies of stone tools. The poor factual base, of course, complicates the interpretation of archaeological materials and makes some conclusions, perhaps not convincing enough. A favorable point is that in this territory, cultures developed for a long time without any noticeable external influences. For comparative analysis, stone tools of the Selemdzha, Gromatukha, Osipovskaya, and Malyshevskaya cultures were selected.

Selemdzhinskaya is one of the most studied Late Paleolithic cultures in Northern Asia. Related localities were studied in the Selemdzhi River basin and on the Middle Amur.

Four culture-bearing horizons were identified at the sites in the chronological range 27 (26) - 12 Ka BP (Derevyanko and Zenin, 1995; Derevyanko, Volkov, and Lee Hongjong, 1998). In the Selemdzhi River basin, 10 localities located on basement terraces were studied, where the sedimentation process, regardless of their level (II-IV), began at the end of the Karginsky warming period of 27-25 thousand years ago. The lower kulyu-containing horizon lies on a thin soil layer formed at the end of the Karginsky warming, or directly on the basement of the terraces.

The materials of the Selemdzha culture from all the Kulyur-containing horizons show common traditions in the primary splitting, commonality of the main morphotypes of stone tools and the technique of their design. Naturally, over the course of 15 thousand years, as a result of changing climatic conditions and adaptation strategies at different stages of culture, earlier types of tools were improved and new ones appeared. Functional analysis of stone tools allows us to trace the dynamics of the development of paleoeconomics over a long period of time.

In the lower culture-containing horizon, wedge-shaped nuclei of two variants predominate: on bifaces and blanks decorated on pebbles. Mostly microplates were chipped off from them. Nuclei for removing large plates are represented by single-frontal nuclei designed on large massive pebbles with one impact pad. There are also a small number of double-site ones with a wide chipping front.

This work was supported by the Russian State Science Foundation (projects N 04 - 01 - 00530a, 03 - 01 - 00754a, 04 - 01 - 00048a).

page 2

In the overlying culture-containing horizons, primary cleavage is represented by the same types of nuclei, only narrow wedge-shaped nuclei are replaced by nuclei with a wide microplate removal front, single-site nuclei with two cleavage fronts appear, and in the upper horizon, subprismatic nuclei with three removal fronts and prismatic ones predominate.

The tool kit is characterized by bifaces of various modifications, adze-shaped and scraper-shaped tools, various types of scrapers, incisors, retouched plates and microplates, scrapers on flakes and large plates, notched tools on flakes, chippers, plows, drills, punctures, etc. The percentage ratio of tool types in cultural horizons was not calculated, because, firstly, the total area of excavated horizons on monuments is different; secondly, on multi-layered archaeological sites, one excavated cultural horizon could fall on the most "inhabited" part of the site, and the other - on the "peripheral"one.

Arrowheads and ceramics appear in small numbers in the upper cultural horizon. A date of 12,590 ± 80 BP (AA-20935) was obtained from ceramics. The upper cultural horizon of the Selemdzha culture belongs to the Early Neolithic, and it also corresponds to the initial stage of the Gromatukha culture.

The sites of the Gromatukhin culture are known in the Upper and Middle Amur basin and on the Zee River. The most studied site is located at the mouth of the Gromatukha River at its confluence with the Zeya (Okladnikov and Derevyanko, 1977). Three kulyu-containing horizons are identified here. For the lower one, the following dates were obtained: for coal-11,580 ± 190 BP (COAN-5762), 12340 ± 70 (MTS-05936), 12380 ± 70 (MTS-05937), 12300 ± 70 (MTS-05938); for ceramics - 12830 ± 120 (AZ-20939) and 11500 ± 90 (AZ-20940) bp. The stone tools found at this habitat level correspond to materials from the upper culture-bearing horizon of the Selemdzha culture in terms of primary processing, types of nuclei, and the main tool kit. There is no reason to doubt that the origin of the Gromatukha culture, one of the earliest Neolithic cultures of North, East and Central Asia, is related to the late stage of the Selemdzha culture. Judging by radiocarbon dates, it existed on the middle and upper Amur for about 7 thousand years.

Materials from all three cultural horizons clearly show the evolution of the Gromatukha culture: the further development of primary and secondary processing of stone products, as well as paleoeconomics. For the manufacture of tools, mainly siliceous and volcanic rocks, chalcedony, were used. Primary cleavage is represented by wedge-shaped, end-shaped, subprismatic, and prismatic nuclei. Arrowheads of willow-shaped shapes, punctures, insert blades for compound knives, and end scrapers were made from knife-shaped plates removed from the nuclei. A large number of bilaterally processed weapons are presented: javelin tips, spears, arrows, knives-blades, insert blades. The tips are mostly laurel-leaved. A significant proportion of tools are combined: incisors-knives, incisors-scrapers, knives-scrapers. Incisors are presented in various modifications: median, angular and lateral. Among the massive tools, the majority are bilaterally processed adze-scraper-shaped tools and axes made from flat elongated oval blanks. Many types of tools are similar in shape and processing technique to those of the Selemdzha culture. The Gromatukhins, like the Selemdzhins, were nomadic and semi-nomadic hunters and fishermen. In the culture-containing horizons, pockets and economic pits were discovered, around which the main stone tools were concentrated, i.e. the Gromatukhin people lived in portable chuma-type dwellings.

The Osipovskaya culture is localized mainly on the lower Amur. Previously, it was believed that the origin of the Gromatukhin culture is connected with it [Ibid.]. After the discovery of the Selemdzhinsky culture, it became obvious that it is the basis on which both the Osipovskaya and Gromatukhinskaya cultures were formed, which belonged to ethnically close tribes that inhabited the Amur basin 13-8 thousand years ago.

At least 20 monuments of the Osipov culture are known on the Lower Amur River. Many of them are layered. The most studied localities are located in the area of Sakachi-Alyan village, Khabarovsk city, Khummi village, etc. The Osipovs, like the Gromatukhins, led a nomadic and semi-nomadic way of life, building chuma-type dwellings. The dates obtained for the multi - layered Hummi settlement are: 13260 ± 100 and 10345 ± 110 BP for coal; 11915 ± 80 BP for ceramics.

Tools at the Osipov sites were mainly made of dark gray and dark siltstones, chalcedony, hornstone, and sandstone. For primary processing, wedge-shaped, end, and subprismatic nuclei are most characteristic, mainly for removing microplates and small knife-shaped plates, from which scrapers, incisors, insert blades, and arrowheads were made. A large percentage of the tools were bifacially processed products: arrowheads, javelins, spears, chopping tools, knives-blades. Enough inr-

page 3

There are numerous scrapers of various modifications, knives, incisors, punctures, screwdrivers, scrapers, scrapers, and combined tools. Typologically, many stone tools of the Gromatukhin and Osipov cultures have a large, sometimes twin similarity.

The Malyshevskaya culture, which replaced the Osipovskaya culture on the Lower Amur, belongs to the developed Neolithic. Several dates have been obtained for it in the chronological range from 6900 ± 260 (MSU-410) to 4740 ± 70 (SNUOO-337) BP. Calibration determines the period 7938 - 5080 BP. The formation of the Malyshev culture began in the first half of the VII millennium BC, and it is very likely that its origin is related to the Osipov culture.

Primary splitting in the Malyshev culture is characterized by a lamellar technique. Arrowheads were made from knife-shaped plates, including petiole ones, scrapers, punctures, incisors, insert blades and some other tools. Most of the tools are made on flakes and special blanks: scrapers of various modifications, knives, punctures, scrapers, chopping tools, including fully or partially ground ones. The primary and secondary processing of stone tools, as well as their types, are not much different from those in the Osipov culture. The Malyshev population lived sedentary, in settlements consisting of semi-underground dwellings, sometimes of considerable size. This is how it differs from Osipovsky.

All of the above points to the continuity of the cultures under consideration. Thus, the study of the totality of data on their tools and functional accessories of stone tools allows us to trace, as far as possible, the dynamics of paleoeconomics among the tribes that inhabited the basin of one of the largest rivers in Eurasia for 15 thousand years.

Method

Functional studies of artefacts were based on the methods of experimental tracological analysis by S. A. Semenov and G. F. Korobkova [Semenov, 1957; Semenov and Korobkova, 1983; Korobkowa, 1999; et al.] and analysis of micro-polishing of stone tool wear by L. Keeley [Keeley, 1980]. We also used a synthesized trasological technique adapted for working with materials from archaeological collections of Paleolithic and Neolithic sites in North Asia (Volkov, 1999).

During the general trasological examination of materials, an MBS-10x16 - 56 binocular was used with one-way side illumination of the observed object and with a discrete magnification mode. For detailed functional analysis, the main research tool used was the Olympus BHT-M x100 - 500 microscope specially adapted for microtransology with shadowless illumination through the lens, in addition, specialized microscopes MSPE-1x19 - 95 with a smooth zoom change mode and powerful two-way shadowless illumination.

Materials from the Siberian Reference Collection of Traceological Standards were used for a comparative analysis of wear marks on ancient stone tools.

When describing the function of tools, the terminology developed during experimental technological and traceological studies is used (see: [Ibid.]).

The preservation of artifacts at the sites of the studied cultures is quite good; the absolute majority of the tools used were identified. In the archaeological collection of the Malyshev culture, 129 such tools were identified, 473 of them were found in the Osipovskaya culture, 665 in the Gromatukhinskaya culture, and 425 in the Selemdzhinskaya culture, of which 186 were found. They belong to the third stage of the culture's existence (18-13 thousand years ago) [Derevyanko, Volkov, and Lee Hongjong, 1998], 191 - to the fourth (13-10 thousand years ago), and only 48 specimens. - to the first two (due to their relative small number, they were not taken into account in the statistical analysis). The total number of stone artefacts investigated by the experimental-tracological method, determined as recycled tools and used for statistical analysis in this work, is 1644 copies.

Based on the experience of functional analysis of tools from Neolithic and Upper Paleolithic sites of the Russian Far East (Derevianko and Volkov, 1997), it is proposed to divide the tools of the monument into three categories in accordance with the main branches of the economy of this time: A - hunting, B - fishing, and C - processing of wood, bone, and stone. Category B includes tools that are not directly related to hunting or fishing. As a rule, they relate to domestic fisheries that are not activities for providing food and primary processing of hunting and fishing products (for example, for the primary processing of hides in preparation for cutting or sewing). These are stone-splitting tools, woodworking tools, bone-cutting tools, and horn tools.

Each category, in turn, is divided into groups associated with a particular type of activity. So, in category A (hunting tools and processing of its products), hunting tools (AI), tools for processing hides (AII), meat knives (AIII) are distinguished; B (fishing tools and processing of its products) - fishing tools (BI) and tools

page 4

for processing fish (BII); B (tools for processing wood, bone, stone) - tools for processing organic (BI) and inorganic (BII) materials. Each group includes a set of tools of a specific functional type.

An experimental traceological analysis of archaeological collections from Late Paleolithic and Neolithic sites in the region made it possible to determine the purpose of almost all tools that were previously distinguished only by morphological features. The ambiguities that had previously arisen in the functional assessment of tools, the definition of which was previously conditional, were eliminated, and the types of tools unknown earlier were identified, which stimulated the search for distinctive morphological features of the studied artifacts. In other words, the functional differentiation of the material determined the optimal morphological one, which, in turn, made it possible to systematize the data for studying the evolutionary processes in the paleoeconomy of the region.

Composition of the studied tools

The results of studying the functional differentiation of tools are presented graphically. Plotting different types of graphs makes it possible to display the features of the tools of each of the studied cultures.

The distribution of tools of the third stage of the Selemjin culture by category is uneven (Figure 1): hunting-related tools and tools for processing wood, bone, and stone predominate, while less than 10% of tools were used for fishing and processing its products. Among the tools associated with hunting, knives predominate, used mainly for primary processing of meat and in the process of cooking (Fig. 2, a). The micro-knives used for meat consumption were also noted. A much smaller proportion is made up of scraping tools, most of which were intended for working with the skins of large animals. No hunting tools were found. Tools for processing fish predominate in the tools associated with fishing (Fig. 2, b). There are numerous knives that have the shape characteristic of tools used in mass processing of catch (Volkov, 1986a, 1987a). Almost all the artifacts of the fishing gear group are sinkers for nets. Their share in category B is extremely small. In the tools for processing stone, bone and wood, a significant place is occupied by various tools (chippers, retouchers, anvils) used for splitting stone (Fig. 2, c). They are typical of Late Paleolithic localities. Among the tools intended for processing organic materials, tools for working with wood (mainly knives and scrapers) predominate.

The shares of tools of various categories in the tools of the fourth stage of the Selemjin culture are relatively more proportional (Fig. Hunting-related tools still dominate. Fewer tools for working wood, bone, and stone. The share of tools for fishing and fish processing increased by 2 times compared to the third stage. 4, a), as in the collections of the third stage of culture, there are no hunting tools (AI). The share of tools for working with skins has significantly increased. Macroscutters for processing the skins of large animals (adzlovidno-skreblovidnye tools) are widely represented. Various meat knives. Their specialization is noted. According to the features of recycling, which are reflected in the specific form of products, the selection of-

Figure 1. Distribution of tools from the monuments of the third stage of the Selemdzha Late Paleolithic culture by category. A - hunting tools, B-fishing, C-tools for processing wood, bone, stone.

2. Correlation of tool groups in the tools of categories A (a), B (b), and C (c) of the third stage of the Selemdzha Late Paleolithic culture. AII - tools for working with hides, AII-meat knives; BI-fishing tools, BII - tools for processing fish; BI and BII - tools for processing other organic and inorganic materials, respectively.

page 5

3. Distribution of tools from monuments of the fourth stage of the Selemdzha Late Paleolithic culture by category. See Figure 1 for the required volume.

4. Correlation of tool groups in the tools of categories A (a), B (b), and C (c) of the fourth stage of the Selemdzha Late Paleolithic culture.

See Figure 2 for additional information.

Figure 5. Distribution of tools from monuments of the Gromatukha Neolithic culture by category.

b. Correlation of tool groups in the tools of categories A (a), B (b), and C (c) of the Gromatukha Neolithic culture. AI - hunting tools. See Figure 2 for the rest of the service volumes.

knives for cutting and processing meat, as well as those used in the process of its consumption, were found. Tools related to fishing at the final stage of the Selemdzha culture's existence are characterized by a noticeable increase in the share of sinkers for nets (Fig. 4, b). Knives for processing catch acquire a specialized form. All this indirectly indicates the growing role of fishing in the paleoeconomy of the region's population. In category B tools (Figures 4, c), the proportion of tools for processing organic materials, mainly wood, is relatively increasing. The variety of tools increases. The number of macroweights, scrapers, and planer knives is increasing. The functional set of tools for working with stone remains the same, although it is worth noting the relative reduction in the number of rigid chippers, which is probably explained by the increasing use of pressing equipment.

Most tools of the Gromatukhin culture (Volkov, 1986b) are associated with hunting (Fig. 5). Tools for processing its products make up more than 2/3 of the total tools. The shares of products of categories B and C are relatively equal. There is no doubt that the role of hunting in the paleoeconomics of the carriers of the Gromatukhin culture was decisive. Among category A tools, knives predominate, mainly used for primary processing of meat and in the process of cooking (Fig. 6, a). Micro-knives used for meat consumption are rarer in comparison with the Selemdzha collections. A significant share is made up of scraping tools (Volkov, 1987b), among which tools for working with the skins of large animals are dominant. Hunting tools have been identified: arrowheads and javelins (the former are larger). 6, b), specialized knives for mass processing of fish, which have a characteristic, asymmetrical in terms of laurel-leaf shape, predominate [Volkov, 1987a]. The share of sinkers for networks is small. Among category B guns (Fig. 6, c) various tools for working with wood (mainly macrotesla, known as adze-scraper-shaped tools) dominate (Volkov, 1987b). Mean-

page 6

a significant proportion is also made up of tools used for splitting stone. The set of products of this group is typical of Neolithic tools in its diversity and composition.

In the materials of the Osipov culture (Volkov, 1988), hunting tools and processing of its products predominate (Fig. 7), although, in comparison with the Gromatukhin collection, they are noticeably smaller. The shares of the other two categories of instruments are almost identical. There are more tools related to fishing here than in the tools of the Gromatukhin culture. Hunting implements (Fig. 8, a) are mainly represented by arrowheads, which are more massive in comparison with the Gromatukhin ones and, quite probably, are intended for hunting a larger animal. Their share in the category A toolkit is relatively large. Most of the tools associated with hunting are scrapers. Among them, macro-scrapers (adzlovidno-scrabovidnye products) for working with the skins of large animals predominate. In fishing-related tools, net weights account for more than a third (Fig. 8, b). Almost all fish knives are specialized for processing mass catches. The share of tools for processing organic materials (Fig. 8, c) increases radically in comparison with the collections of Late Paleolithic monuments and makes up almost 9/10 of the category B tools. About 3/4 of woodworking tools are adzes and chisels. Tools such as planing knives, carvers, and chisels are relatively few in number. For the first time in the chronological sequence of the studied archaeological collections, tools for stone grinding are marked.

The disparity in the composition of the tools of the Malyshev culture (in comparison with the Osipov culture) takes on a different character. The collection is dominated by tools of two equal categories A and B, and the share of tools related to fishing has sharply decreased (Figure 9). Hunting tools are represented in the collection exclusively by arrowheads. Their share is relatively large (Fig. 10, a). Among the tools for processing hides, there are no characteristic macro-scrapers (adze-scraper-like tools). Other scrapers are relatively rare. Knives for working with meat no longer have the characteristic specialized shapes; they are made mainly on

Figure 7. Distribution of tools from monuments of the Osipov Neolithic culture by category.

8. Correlation of tool groups in the tools of categories A (a), B (b), and C (c) of the Osipov Neolithic culture.

See Figures 2 and 6 for the service volume.

Figure 9. Distribution of tools from monuments of the Malyshev Neolithic culture by category.

Figure 10. Correlation of tool groups in the tools of categories A (a), B (b), and C (c) of the Malyshev Neolithic culture.

page 7

flakes with minor design retouching. Tools related to fishing are represented exclusively by tools for processing fish (Fig. 10, b). Fish knives have a specialized form, but their share in the collection is extremely small. Probably, the need for products of this kind was not constant, they were used only during fishing for spawning fish. Among the tools for working with stone, almost half of the products are tools used for grinding. For wood processing, sanded and ground adzes were used from relatively fine-grained stone rocks. The size of these products is small, and they can even be called miniature in comparison with macrotesles of the Gromatukhin and Osipov cultures. No planer knives, axes, carvers or incisors were found. Woodworking tools predominate over stone processing tools (Fig. 10, c).

Changing the composition of the toolkit

To analyze trends in the evolution of the paleoeconomy of the region, additional graphs were constructed that reflect the most expressive changes in the composition of the studied tools in the period from the Late Paleolithic to the time of the Malyshev Neolithic culture.

The share of tools associated with hunting (Figure 11) is stable in the Selemdzha Late Paleolithic culture, but with the development of paleoeconomy from the Paleolithic to the Neolithic, hunting probably occupies an increasingly important position. Dynamics of this kind, which can be clearly traced in the Gromatukhin and Osipov cultures, could be called a characteristic phenomenon, but the Malyshev materials do not continue this trend. The share of tools for hunting and processing its products is significantly reduced here.

The category of gear associated with fishing (Figure 12) shows a different trend. Its share in the chronological interval from the third stage of the Selemdzha culture to the Neolithic Osipovskaya culture inclusive increases, and then in the tools of the Gromatukhinskaya and Malyshevskaya cultures it consistently decreases. It is likely that this, together with the data for category A, reflects a tendency to increase the role of hunting and reduce the importance of fishing in the paleoenvironment as a whole.

The share of tools for processing stone, wood, and bone consistently decreases in the Selemdzha, Osipovskaya, and Gromatukhinskaya cultures, while in the Malyshevskaya one it sharply increases (Fig. 13). As we already know, the tools of this category are dominated by tools for working with wood. To take a closer look at these trends, it is advisable to conduct a comparative analysis at the level of tool groups.

There are no hunting tools in the collections of Selemdzha monuments. On the chronological interval from the Osipovskaya to the Gromatukhinskaya culture, a stable and rapid increase in their specific weight is noted (from 9.3 to 34%). In the Malyshev culture, it decreases noticeably (Fig. 14, a). The share of tools for processing hides in the tool kit consistently increases from the third stage of the Selemdzha Late Paleolithic culture to the time of the existence of the Osipovskaya culture (Fig. In the future, their specific weight steadily decreases. The opposite trend can be traced for the group of meat knives (Fig. 14, c).

Let us now consider the dynamics of these groups in the Category A toolkit (Figure 15). The graph of changes in the share of hunting tools shows a stable increase from the Osipov culture to the Gromatukhin culture, and then a slight decrease; the share of tools for processing hides increases rapidly from the third stage of the Selemdzha culture to the time of the Osipov culture's existence. In the future, the same situation is observed

11. The share of hunting tools and processing of hunting products (category A) in the tools of each of the considered crops ( % ). 1, 2 - the third and fourth stages of the Selemdzha culture, respectively; 3 - Osipovskaya; 4 - Gromatukhinskaya; 5 - Malyshevskaya.

Figure 12. The share of fishing gear and processing of its products (category B) in the tools of each of the considered crops ( % ). See Figure 11.

Figure 13. The share of tools for processing wood, bone, and stone (category B) in the tools of each of the crops under consideration ( % ). See Figure 11.

page 8

14. Dynamics of the specific weight of hunting-related tool groups in the considered cultures ( % ). a - hunting tools (AI); b - tools for working with hides (AII); c - meat knives (AIII). 1-5-see Figure 11.

15. Dynamics of the specific weight of tool groups in the category A tools of the crops under consideration ( % ). a - hunting tools (AI); b - tools for working with hides (AII); c - meat knives (AIII). 1-5 see fig. 11.

16. Dynamics of the specific weight of fishing gear in the considered crops ( % ). a - fishing gear (BI); b - fish knives (BII). 1-5-cm. Figure 11.

Figure 1-7. Dynamics of the specific weight of tool groups in category B tools in the considered crops ( % ). a - fishing tools (BI); b - fish knives (BII). 1-5-see Figure 11.

its rapid fall. The share of meat knives, on the contrary, steadily decreases from the third stage of the Selemdzha culture to the time of the existence of the Osipov culture, and increases in the later period.

Fishing implements accounted for the largest share in the tools of the fourth stage of the Selemdzha culture (Fig. 16, a). The general trend from the Late Paleolithic to the Neolithic in the region is a decrease in their specific weight. Probably, this was not due to the gradual oblivion of fishing, but to a change in the methods of fishing. Tools for processing catch during the period from the third stage of the Selemdzha culture to the time of the existence of the Gromatukhinskaya culture occupy an increasingly important place, but in the future they become less (Fig. 16, b). We can assume a general decrease in the role of fishing in the paleoenergy of the region. However, the dynamics of these groups in the category B toolkit (Figure 17) shows different trends. If the changes in the share of fishing implements here are similar to those discussed above, then the dynamics of the specific weight of tools for processing catch shows a clear increase in their significance over the entire chronological period from the fourth stage of the Selemdzha culture to the time of the existence of the Malyshevskaya culture

page 9

Figure 18. Dynamics of the specific weight of tools for working with organic (a) and inorganic (b) materials (groups VI and BII) in the considered crops ( % ). 1 - 5 - see Figure 11.

19. Dynamics of the specific weight of tools for working with organic (a) and inorganic (b) materials in the tools of category B of the considered cultures. 1-5-see Figure 11.

The share of fish processing tools is a very important indicator. It most clearly reflects the importance of the industry in paleoeconomics. The decrease in the specific weight of fishing gear is obviously due to the fact that net fishing is being replaced by seasonal production during the spawning period.

The share of tools for working with organic materials steadily decreases in the chronological interval from the third stage of the Selemdzha culture to the time of the existence of the Gromatukha culture, but in the future it increases rapidly, exceeding all earlier indicators for the region under consideration (Fig.

The specific weight of tools for stone processing consistently decreases up to the time of the Osipov culture, and in the subsequent period it steadily increases (Fig. 18, b). The graphs in Fig. 19 show that the overall changes in the composition of tools of category B are determined by the" weight " of stone-processing tools, since the share of tools for processing organic materials (wood, bone, horn) in the instrumentation of this category is relatively constant. It is also important to note that the share of stone-working tools in the Neolithic period does not reach the high rates of Late Paleolithic collections.

When considering trends in the evolution of the paleoeconomy of the region, it is also productive to trace the changes in the economic activity of the population that occurred during the transition from the Late Paleolithic to the Neolithic. Below are graphs showing changes in the toolkit at the category level, where data on the Selemdzha Late Paleolithic culture are compared with the combined data on the Gromatukha, Osipovskaya, and Malyshevskaya Neolithic cultures. These trends reflect the most significant changes in the paleoeconomy of the region at the turn of the late Pleistocene-Holocene.

The proportion of hunting-related tools increases (Figure 20). Hunting that probably played a dominant role

20. The share of hunting-related tools (Category A) in the Late Paleolithic (1) and Neolithic (2) tools of the region.

21. Changes in the composition of category A tools ( % ). 1-Late Paleolithic materials. 2 - Neolithic.

Figure 22. Proportion of fishing-related tools (Category B) in the Late Paleolithic (1) and Neolithic (2) tools of the region.

page 10

the role in the extraction of high-calorie food in the Late Paleolithic, at the next stage, becomes even more important, as we can see. To form an idea of the nature of the observed evolution, we will consider changes in the composition of the tools of this category (Figure 21). Hunting tools (AI), which are absent in Late Paleolithic collections, make up 31.6% in Neolithic ones.The share of tools for processing hides (AII) is increasing, while meat knives (AIII) are sharply decreasing. As we can see, the general trend towards increasing the importance of category A tools is determined by the specific weight of hunting tools and tools for processing extracted hides.

The proportion of gear associated with fishing is decreasing (Figure 22), although only slightly. It is characteristic that this decrease is primarily due to a sharp reduction in the share of fishing gear in this category of tools (Figure 23). While the specific weight of tools for processing fish is noticeably increasing. It is possible that fishing turns from a regular, year-round occupation, as noted earlier, into a seasonal one, mainly during the spawning period of fish. It is quite possible to define the observed trend as a characteristic feature of the Neolithic paleoeconomy of the region.

The share of tools for processing wood, bone and stone is significantly reduced (Figure 24) due to a noticeable decrease in the share of tools for processing stone in the tools of this category (Figure 25). This trend was also noted earlier and is probably due to the change of the Late Paleolithic stone splitting technology to the Neolithic one, where the use of stone-working tools made of organic materials is more widely practiced.

The vastness of the region and the undoubtedly existing climatic differences in the habitats of the carriers of the studied cultures make it necessary to conduct another gradation of data in the comparative analysis of the material. In the western part of the region, there are monuments of the Selemdzha Late Paleolithic and Gromatukha Early Neolithic cultures, in the eastern part - of the Neolithic Osipovskaya and Malyshevskaya cultures. It is interesting to compare the data for these two groups. The proportion of hunting-related tools in the Selemdzha and Gromatukha cultures is higher than in the Osipovskaya and Malyshevskaya cultures (Fig. 26, a), which gives us grounds to speak about a more significant role of hunting in the western part of the region. The shares of tools for fishing and processing of its products in the considered groups are relatively close (Figure 26, b). The share of tools for processing wood, bone, horn and stone in the eastern group is higher than in the western group (Figure 26, c), which is primarily due to the large share of woodworking tools in the tools of Malyshev culture.

Due to the fact that the results of archaeological research indicate a direct genetic link between the Selemdzha Late Paleolithic and Gromatukha Neolithic cultures, it is interesting to trace successive changes in the composition of the tools of the studied cultures along two "lines": the Selemdzha - Gromatukha and Osipovskaya - Malyshevskaya cultures. The observed trends, in our opinion, should reflect the most general, characteristic indicators of the evolution of paleoeconomics, which are less dependent on the microclimatic specifics of the studied territories. At the chronological stage "Selemdzha-Gromatukha", we can state a clear increase in the proportion of tools associated with hunting, and at the stage" Osipovka-Malyshevo", on the contrary, a decrease (Fig. 27, a). Of course, this is not evidence of a decline in the role of hunting, and it is confirmed by the dynamics of the specific weight of tools for fishing and fish processing (Fig. 27, b). In selemd-

23. Changes in the composition of category B tools ( % ). 1-Late Paleolithic materials. 2 - Neolithic.

24. The share of tools for processing wood, bone, and stone (category B) in the Late Paleolithic (1) and Neolithic (2) tools of the region.

25. Changes in the composition of category B tools ( % ). 1-Late Paleolithic materials. 2 - Neolithic.

page 11

26. The share of tools of categories A (a), B (b), and C (c) in the tools of western (1) and eastern (2) monuments of the region (%).

27. Changes in the proportion of tools of categories A (a), B (b), and C (c) in the composition of tools of western (Selemdzha and Gromatukha cultures) and eastern (Osipovskaya and Malyshevskaya cultures) monuments of the region (%).

28. Dynamics of the specific weight of tool groups in the toolkit of categories A (a), B (b), and C (c) of western (Selemdzha and Gromatukha cultures) and eastern (Osipovskaya and Malyshevskaya cultures) monuments of the region (%).

In the Zhinskaya and Gromatukhinskaya cultures, it remains almost stable, while in the Osipovskaya and Malyshevskaya cultures it decreases markedly. This is probably due to the general increase in the share of tools for processing wood, bone, horn, and stone (not directly related to hunting or fishing), the share of tools in this category decreases at the "Selemdzha-Gromatukha" chronological stage and increases almost 2-fold at the "Osipovka-Malyshevo" stage (Fig. 27, c). This growth is mainly due to a sharp increase in the share of tools for working with wood (primarily a variety of adzes). Woodworking is becoming an increasingly common activity of the inhabitants of the eastern part of the region.

Let us now consider the data on changes in tool groups in the tools of the main categories (Figure 28). Hunting tools (AI) are absent in the Selemdzha culture, while in the Gromatukha culture their share in the tools of category A is quite significant (Fig. The proportion of tools for processing animal skins (AII) at the chronological stage from the Late Paleolithic to the Neolithic in the western part of the region is almost stable, and meat knives (AII) - sharply decreases. It is obvious that the general trend towards WHO-

page 12

It is the group of hunting implements that determines the growing share of category A tools. In the eastern part of the region, the picture is different. The share of hunting tools here also increases, but the share of scraping tools decreases sharply. The most striking difference is a significant increase in the share of meat knives. This trend is the opposite of that observed in the western group. The overall reduction in the proportion of category A tools as a whole is therefore determined by a sharp decrease in the proportion of scraper tools (AII).

There are general trends in the evolution of category B tools in the west and east of the region (Fig. 28, b): the share of the group of fishing tools is decreasing, and the share of tools for processing catch is increasing. This is more clearly expressed in the tools of eastern monuments, which can be considered a manifestation of the increase in the efficiency of fishing in the east of the region as a whole. The opposite direction of changes in the eastern and western groups can be seen in the tools of category B (Figs. 28, c). If at the chronological stage "Selemdzha-Gromatukha" the share of tools for working with stone decreases, then at the stage "Osipovka-Malyshevo", on the contrary, increases. The dynamics of the specific weight of tools for processing organic materials shows the opposite trend: growth - in the east of the region and decline-in the west.

Discussion of the analysis results

It should be remembered, of course, that the percentage ratio of tools of different categories is not the numerical equivalent of the ratio of industries in paleoeconomics. Changes in the tools indirectly reflect the evolution of the economy of the population of the studied territory. At the same time, they are inextricably and directly related to the real dynamics, pace of development, growth or decline of a particular industry. The inability to obtain information about paleoeconomics from any other sources makes this information particularly important for determining the nature and characteristics of the economy of the region's population during the Late Paleolithic-Neolithic period. Analysis of data on the composition of the toolkit allows us to trace trends in its change, which is an important key to understanding the history, living conditions, and household and economic activities of people in the past.

When summarizing the results of the study, you should not single out any separate numerical indicators of changes in the tools. For the characterization of paleoeconomics and its evolution, the entire set of data is important. Correlation comparisons should take into account all the many aspects and versatility of the parameters used. Only in this case can the characterization of paleoeconomics be sufficiently correct.

Data on the effectiveness of certain tools or the size of their share in the toolkit can reflect the specifics of economic activity or tell us the reasons for the changes that have occurred. For example, the gradual reduction in the number of cutting tools in the studied archaeological cultures can be explained by a noticeable improvement in their quality. The farm could no longer require a large number of tools of this type. A better tool could have been used for a longer period of time. But the effectiveness of scraper tools, as shown by experimental studies, practically did not change. Optimal tools for processing hides were developed and manufactured in large numbers in this region at the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic. Their quantitative growth is quite understandable - at the same time, the number of hunting tools increased; undoubtedly, the amount of material received for processing also increased.

The time of existence of the studied crops " is associated with a favorable and warm climatic environment of the final Pleistocene-the beginning of the early Holocene. In the south of the Far Eastern region, the end of the ice age was not accompanied by sharp climatic changes" (Lapshina, 1999, p. 107). According to palynological studies, changes in climate were related only to humidity. During this period, on the territory of the settlement of carriers of the Osipov and Malyshev cultures, there was a slow replacement of "dry-loving, cold-resistant steppe animals with water-and heat-loving fauna, which, in turn, gave way to modern animals" [Ibid., pp. 107-108]. The Selemdzha monuments area and the Gromatukha settlement as a whole are characterized by the same trend in climate change. However, there probably were no significant changes in the composition of the fauna typical of the taiga zone. Human habitation conditions have become somewhat more severe. All available estimates of the paleoclimate of the region, as we can see, are still general in nature. The specific nature of the soils of the territory under consideration makes it extremely difficult to collect the necessary data. It is hoped that the improvement of methods and the continuation of research in this area will provide us with an additional source for interpreting the evolutionary processes in the economic activity of the population.

Conclusion

At the stage of transition to the Neolithic, especially in the western part of the studied region, an increasing importance in the Paleo-

page 13

the economy is beginning to acquire hunting and processing of its products. It is probably this industry that is gradually replacing gathering - presumably the main source of food for people at an earlier stage of history. The production of tools related to hunting is becoming widespread. Products are becoming more standardized, technologically advanced in production, and efficient in operation. For example, the processing of skins is provided with almost perfect tools. There is a narrowing of the specialization of tools needed to perform various types of work. New forms of tools are being developed, and the optimal selection of raw materials for their manufacture is being carried out. With confidence, we can talk about an increase in the efficiency of hunting and related "home production". However, a comparative study of the archaeological collections of the region shows that the most significant qualitative changes in the Neolithic period occurred in the tools associated with fishing.

In the west of the region (Selemdzha and Gromatukha cultures), the role of fishing is gradually decreasing, it begins to acquire secondary importance compared to hunting. It is possible to assume changes in the choice of fishing sites. Carriers of the Late Paleolithic culture caught fish mainly in large reservoirs of the Selemdzhi River delta, apparently using fishing nets extensively. There are even peshniks in the toolkit-evidence of winter fishing. Carriers of the Gromatukhin (Neolithic) culture preferred the mouths of relatively small rivers. There is much less evidence of net fishing here.

At the same time, the cumulative productivity growth of such industries as hunting and fishing at the stage of the Gromatukhin culture undoubtedly led to the stability of the economy. However, at this time, there was still a need for regular migrations -a farm focused primarily on hunting inevitably involves the constant movement of the population following the main sources of food. Only traces of seasonal dwellings were found on the settlement of Gromatukha.

The influence of fishing development is particularly evident in changes in the composition of tools from the monuments of the eastern part of the region (Osipovskaya and Malyshevskaya cultures). At a later stage, fishing here gradually turns from probably a year-round occupation to a very efficient but seasonal one. The spawning season of fish in these areas is very intense now and, quite probably, was such in the past. Seasonal fishing has become an abundant and, most importantly, reliable source of high-calorie food.

Fishing in the east of the region developed very rapidly. Evidence of this can be found in the rapid growth of the total and relative number of fish processing tools in the toolkit. The development of fishing in the east of the region, as well as hunting in the west, gives stability to the paleoeconomy of the Neolithic.

The emergence of a productive economy is now proposed to be considered the main feature of the Neolithic era [Adovasio et al., 2001, p. 62]. This is true for many areas of the ecumene. However, where the development of any "productive economy" is still difficult due to relatively difficult climatic conditions, it is reasonable to mark the beginning of the Neolithic period with the appearance of signs of settlement of the population.

Long-term settlements for the Neolithic period of the region in question are generally rare. In the west of the territory, in the places of settlement of carriers of the Gromatukhin culture, traces of only short-term, probably seasonal, sites were found. Human habitations at this time were relatively small and were simple ground structures such as modern plagues. The nomadic way of life determined by hunting did not contribute to the "consolidation" of people in any, even very prosperous, lands. At the stage of the Gromatukhin culture, hunting became the leading branch of the economy, and fishing became an auxiliary occupation; people preferred to settle in places that were more convenient for hunting than for fishing.

A completely different way of life was determined by the development of fishing in the east of the region. Fish production did not require people to constantly move after the objects of fishing. The regular spawning course of fish made it possible to carry out mass harvesting. Efficient work for several weeks provided high-calorie food for a whole year. The advantages of fishing over hunting in this part of the region are still obvious. The population, quite naturally, "fixed" in places convenient for the production of spawning fish. This is especially evident in the materials of Malyshev culture. The appearance and arrangement of settlements of that time is changing. Here people already lived in long-term, large, relatively comfortable dwellings all year round [Volkov and Medvedev, 2004a, b]. The structures of residential structures were deepened into the ground, obviously had a strong frame and a insulated floor. The area of medium-sized dwellings was about 70 m2. They were universal in nature, i.e. they could be a place of overnight stay, day rest, or industrial territory, depending on the needs. The internal area of large long-term structures sometimes reached 170 m2. In dwellings of this type, there was a hearth (or even several). Specialized work areas stand out well on both sides of the entrance. Probably, the living space was divided into" male "and" female " parts. Raspo recreation areas-

page 14

we stayed in the zone farthest from the entrance. The distinction between work areas and recreation areas is clear. Settlements with these types of dwellings are strikingly different from those with temporary structures in the western part of the region under study.

As we can see, two types of farming - hunting in the west and fishing in the east - determine different ways of developing the paleoeconomy of the region's population. The specialization of the economy in seasonal production of spawning fish becomes an incentive for the transition to sedentarism, which can be considered a characteristic form of changing the way of life of people at the initial stage of the Neolithic.

So, it is the evolution of fishing, the development of appropriate tools and, most importantly, specialization in the production of spawning fish that lead to radical changes in the lifestyle of people of the studied time. The most important and characteristic consequence of the development of paleoeconomics in the eastern part of the region is the settlement of the population, which marks the beginning of the Neolithic era.

The application of functional and statistical analysis of ancient tools can be fruitful when studying not only archaeological cultures, but also individual monuments. This type of research can contribute to a more reasoned determination of the cultural identity of an archaeological site. Functional and statistical analysis will allow identifying typical and atypical tool sets for each specific location. The features of a particular monument will become more obvious. Over the past decade, a huge amount of empirical material on the archaeological cultures of the region has been introduced into scientific circulation. The use of this method in continuing the research we have begun can significantly expand our understanding of paleoeconomics and form the basis for comparative and general characteristics of the economy of the ancient population not only in the Russian Far East, but also in China, Korea, and Japan.

List of literature

Adovazio, J. M., Soffer, O., Hiland, D. S., Illingvord, J. S., Klima, B., Svoboda, I. Production of products made of short-lived materials in Dolni Vestonitsa I: A New look at the nature and origin of gravetta / / Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2001. - N 2 (6). - p. 48-65.

Volkov P. V. Nozhi v kollektsii gromatukhinskoy kul'tury [Knives in the collection of the Gromatukhin culture]. Novosibirsk: IIFiF SB of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1986a, pp. 169-184.

Volkov P. V. Farm gramoteinskaya culture of the middle Amur // Historical experience of the development of Siberia from ancient times to 1917: proc. Dokl. Vsesoyuz. Scientific conference "Historical experience in the study and development of Siberia". Novosibirsk, October 14-16, 1986-Novosibirsk, 19866. - pp. 18-21.

Volkov P. V. Laurel-leaved blades from the collection of the settlement of Gromatukha // North Asia in the Stone Age. Novosibirsk: IIFiF SB AS USSR, 1987a, pp. 177-181.

Volkov P. V. Teslovidno-skreblovidnye orudoviya gromatukhinskoy kul'tury [Adze-shaped tools of the Gromatukhin culture]. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 19876, pp. 82-85.

Volkov P. V. Micro scrapers and scrapers of the Gromatukhin culture // North Asia in the Stone Age. Novosibirsk: IIFiF SB AS USSR, 1987v. - p. 152-161.

P. V. Volkov. Farm osipovsky Mesolithic culture // Historiography and sources for the study of the historical experience of the development of Siberia: proc. Dokl. and msgs. Vsesoyuz. Scientific conference [November 15-17, 1988]. Novosibirsk: IAEg SB RAS Publishing House, 1988. 1: Pre-Soviet Period, pp. 22-23.

P. V. Volkov. Technical studies in the archaeology of Northern Asia. Novosibirsk, IAEt SB RAS Publ., 1999, 192 p. (in Russian)

Medvedev, V. E. and Volkov, P. V., Planigraphic analysis of finds in the Early Neolithic settlement of Suchu (dwelling 26), in Archeology and Paleoecology of Eurasia: Collection of articles, Novosibirsk: Publishing House of IAEt SB RAS, 2004a, pp. 300-313.

Medvedev V. E. Volkov P. V., Kratkiei itogi funktsionalno-planigraficheskogo analiza zhilishcha malyshevskoy kul'tury na ostrov Suchu [Brief results of functional and planigraphic analysis of the Malyshev culture dwelling on the island of Suchu]. Problemy arkheologii, etnografii i antropologii Sibiri i sopredel'nykh territorii: (Materials of the Annual Session of the Institute of Archeology and Ethnography SB RAS 2004), Novosibirsk: Izd.IAEt SB RAS, 20046. - Vol. 10, part 1. - p. 53-56.

Derevyanko A. P., Volkov P. V., Lee Hongjong. Selemdzha Late Paleolithic culture. Novosibirsk, IAEt SB RAS Publ., 1998, 336 p. (in Russian)

Derevyanko A. P., Zenin V. N. Paleolith of Selemdzhi. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of IAEt SB RAS, 1995, 160 p. (in Russian)

Derevyanko A. P., Medvedev V. E. To the thirty-year anniversary of the beginning of stationary research on Suchu Island (some results) / / Istoriya i kul'tura Vostoka Azii: Mat-ly Mezhdunar. nauch. konf. Novosibirsk, December 9-11, 2002: To the 70th anniversary of V. E. Larichev. Novosibirsk, 2002, vol. 2, pp. 53-72.

Lapshina Z. S. Antiquities of Lake Hummi. - Khabarovsk: Amur region. geogr. ob-vo, 1999. -206 p.

Okladnikov A. P., Derevyanko A. P. Gromatukhinskaya kul'tura [Gromatukhinskaya culture]. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1977, 288 p. (in Russian)

Semenov S. A. Pervobytnaya tekhnika [Primitive technology], Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1957, 240 p. (MIA; N 54).

Semenov S. A., Korobkova G. F. Tekhnologiya drevneyshikh proizvodstvov [Technology of ancient productions], Nauka Publ., 1983, 453 p.

Derevianko A.P., Volkov P.V. The evolution of the palaeoeconomy of the ancient population of the Amur region (from upper palaeolithic to neolithic) // Suyanggae and Her Neighbors. -Chungju: [SI], 1997. -P. 35 -44.

Keeley L.H. Experimental determination of stone tool uses: A microwear analysis. - Chicago; L.: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1980. -212 p.

Korobkowa G.E. Narzedzia w pradziejach. - Torun: Universytet Mikolaja Kopernika, 1999. - 168 p.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 13.02.06.

page 15

Permanent link to this publication: