Stone Industry of Layer 2 at Ust’-Kutarey Site (North Angara Region)

Purpose . There are many archaeological sites located in the North Angara region. Although this territory has been investigated since 18^th century, most intensive work was done during rescue archaeological works on Boguchany hydroelectric power station in 2008-2011. One of the valuable sources of artifacts is the Kutarey site. Our work contains a brief analysis of stone industries of the Kutarey River Mouth site. The main goal of this work is to apply technical and typological analysis to mark the specificity of the stone industries of layer 2 of the Kutarey River Mouth site in comparison with the results that had been previously published on layer 3 in the context of new data of this region in terms of ceramics complexes. We introduce a previously unpublished collection of stone artifacts of layer 2 of the Kutarey River Mouth site, which significantly extends the source base of the Neolithic and Bronze Age in this region. Results . The Kutarey River Mouth site is located on the left bank of the Angara River, 15 km down from the Kezhma village, on the right bank of the Kutarey River. The location was found in 1974 by N. I. Drozdov and his squad. The site was further investigated in 2008 and in 2010 by an IAE SB RAS squad (guided by A. N. Savin). Firstly, the site was determined as a Neolithic location, but as result of 2010 excavations three Neolithic-Middle Age cultural horizons were discovered. In the context of the difficulties connected with conducting investigations in this region, namely an open location, a low stratigraphy situation, a high extend of technogenic interruption, the materials of layer 3 are most perspective due to a high grade of saturation of the artifacts and minimal technogenic interruptions. These materials belong to the Neolithic and Paleometal Era. In order to clarify cultural and chronological specificity of this complex, it is necessary to analyze materials from layer 2. The stone industry of layer 2 is represented by retouching microblades, bladelets, tools for blades, flakes, scrapers including one microscraper, bifaces, several adzes, axes, and one piercing tool. Of special interest are blade points and trihedral and tetrahedral points. Conclusion . Our technical and typological analyses show that in comparison to layer 3, layer 2 is characterized by a small number of massive axes and adzes, no flints, few double scrapers, and only volume splitting tools aimed mainly at obtaining a small blade. Also, despite the fact that the core of the collection is the product of the hornstones of local origin, we observe a significant increase in the percentage of artifacts made of flint (13 %), which may indicate some new commodity strategies. The most interesting analogy can be traced with the dedicated Upper Kolyma Early Holocene complex, which contained blade points widely distributed in Northeast Asia and was present directly or indirectly in the materials from Chukotka (Verkhnetirsky IV and Nizhnechutinsky IV), Yakutia (Olbinski burial ground, Jubilee), Kamchatka (the Ushki I-IV layer, Avacha 1,9). This complex is believed to belong to specific Volbinsky traditions, which formed in the first half of the Holocene, about 8800-6000 years ago. It is also worth comparing these materials with other Kutarey sites - Sen’kin (Siniy) Kamen’, Ruchei Povarny, Gora Kutarey and adjacent territories.

North Angara region, Neolithic, Metal Age, stone tools, layers with «compression» character, rescue archaeological excavations

1. Бердников И. М. Актуальные проблемы неолитоведения юга Средней Сибири: источниковая база и геоархеологический аспект // Изв. Иркут. гос. ун-та. Серия «Геоархеология. Этнология. Антропология». 2016. Т. 18. С. 133-156

2. Воробей И. Е. Раннеголоценовые индустрии Крайнего Северо-Востока Азии // Археология, палеоэкология и этнология Сибири и Дальнего Востока. Иркутск: Изд-во Иркут. гос. ун-та, 1996. С. 56-58

3. Гришин А. Е., Гаркуша Ю. Н., Марченко Ж. В. К проблеме выделения культур в Северном Приангарье // Тр. III (XIX) Всероссийского археологического съезда. СПб.; М.; Великий Новгород: Изд-во ИИМК РАН, 2011. Т. 1. С. 127-129

4. Гиря Е. Ю., Лозовский В. М. Сравнительный морфологический анализ полноты технологических контекстов каменных индустрий // Каменный век от Атлантики до Пацифики: Замятнинский сборник. СПб.: Лема, 2014. Вып. 3. С. 52-84

5. Диков Н. Н. Древние культуры Северо-Восточной Азии. М.: Наука, 1979. 352 с

6. Кашин В. А. Неолит Средней Колымы: Сб. тр. Новосибирск: Наука, 2013. 224 с

7. Кирьяк (Дикова) М. А. Каменный век Чукотки. Магадан: Кордис, 2005. 254 с

8. Мочанов Ю. А. Древнейшие этапы заселения человеком Северо-Восточной Азии. Новосибирск: Наука, 1977. 264 с

9. Питулько В. В. Голоценовый каменный век Северо-Восточной Азии // Естественная история Российской ВосточнойАрктикивплейстоцене и голоцене. М.: Геос, 2003. С. 99-145

10. Пташинский А. В. К вопросу о неолите Камчатки // Неолит и палеометалл Севера Дальнего Востока. Магадан: СВ КНИИ ДВО РАН, 2006. С. 78-86

11. Слободин С. Б. Уолбинская традиция пластинчатых наконечников (северо-восток России) // Изв. Северо-Восточного научного центраДВО РАН. 2014. № 2. С. 110-119

12. Чеха А. Н. Керамический комплекс слоя 3 стоянки Устье Реки Кутарей в Северном Приангарье // Вестник НГУ. Серия: История, филология. 2017. Т. 16, № 7: Археология и этнография. С. 84-89. DOI 10.25205/1818-7919-2017-16-7-84-89