ARCTIC VOL. 38, NO. 3 (SEPTEMBER 1985) P. 178-187 A Critical Review of “the Mesolithic” in Relation to Siberian Archaeology ALEXANDER B. DOLITSKY’ ABSTRACT. This paperexplores the potentialof the economic-ecqlogical method basedon the exploitation of fishresources for Mesolithic site iden- tification, as compared to the recently popular yet indecisive technological-typologicalmethod, to predict the existence of “Mesolithic-like” sub- sistence activities in Siberia during the Sartan-Holocene“transition” period. The article is an attempt toestablish, or at least topropose, new criteria that can lead toa higher level of understandingof Mesolithic economies insubarctic and arctic regions. Also, decision-making processes that operate to achieve behavioralgoals based on efficiency of human beingsare suggested. The model, designed with respectto geographical regions identified as interbiotic zones, has the advantage of offering specific alternative hypotheses enabling the definition of both environmental properties and predicted human behavior. Key words: Mesolithic, Siberia, interbiotic zone RÉSUMÉ. L’article &die le potentiel de la méthode économique-écologique fondte sur l’exploitation de poissons en guise de ressources pour l’identification desites mtsolithiques, en comparison avecla mdthode technologique-typologique populaire maisindécise, afin de prddire l’existence d’activitds de subsistencede genre mésolithique en Sibdrie durant la périodede transition Sartan-Holoctne. On tente d’établir ou au moins de pro- poser de nouveaux crittres qui pourraient permettre une meilleure comprdhension des économies mdsolithiques dans les rdgions arctiques et sub- arctiques. De plus, on suggkre des processus de prise de ddcisions qui visent21 établir des buts de comportement fondéssur l’efficacité de I’être hu- main.Conçu par rapport 21 des rdgionsgéographiques nommées zones interbiotiques, le modele a l’avantage d’offrir des choix particuliers d’hypothtses permettant la ddfinition des propridtés environnementales et du comportement humain prévu. Mots cl&: mésolithique, zone interbiotique Traduit pour le journal par Maurice Guibord. INTRODUCTION tions and site morphology, and a new type of social organiza- This paper suggestsan economic-ecological method of tion of early hunting groups. analysis for the identification ofthe Sartan-Holocene arch- This paper criticizes the traditional way of classification of aeological sites in Cis-Baykal. This method is based on the archaeological assemblages, sites or stages often employed by theoretical assumption that adaptive processes, or long-term the comparative technological-typologicalmethod of analysis, changes, are a result of adaptive, short-term strategies of early suggested first over 100 years ago by a brilliant French arch- hunters to obtain and use fishing subsistence resources. Long- aeologist, De Mortillet. In classifying archaeological data, it time adaptive processes can be explained as the movement of seems more appropriate to me to consider first the relationship human activities into “specialized locations depeoding on the of human groups to their subsistence needs, inferring rational availabilityof particular natural . resources” (Bennett, principles ofhuman economic behavior. Artifacts, tech- 1969: 14). Accepting Bennett’s definition of adaptive strategy, nology, dwellings, etc., are the result of human-environment I shall attempt to explain the behavioral mechanism ofhunters interactions and can be very similar even when there are no and gatherers in their habitat, i.e., the relationships between geographical or intellectual contacts between people (broadly human subsistence regimes and environmental quality, and similar archaeological material can befound in western why man chooses a certain location for living. By using Ben- Europe, Africa and North America). Probably material culture nett’s concept of adaptive processes, I would like to suggest a is more similar where the behavioral or adaptive strategies method for identification of a Mesolithic economy in arctic within ecosystems are alike. In this paper, I intend to suggest and subarctic regions. an explanatory-predictive subsistence model, namely the inter- It is possible that the Siberian archaeological traditions of biotic zone, for the identification of Mesolithic sites in north- theLate Pleistocene-Early Holocene periodcan be related em latitudes based on the exploitation of fish resources. This socioeconomically and chronologically to the Eurasian Meso- article proposes new criteria that can lead to a new level of lithic. The Mesolithic in the Old World, just as the Sartan- understanding of Mesolithic economies in subarctic and arctic Holocene “transition” period in Siberia, belongs to the time regions. of dramatic deglaciation, climatic change and extensive ap- pearance ofnew subsistence resources characterized by medium- and small-size, fast-running animals and rich fresh- CLASSIFICATION OF THE MESOLITHIC water resources. The interaction of early hunters withnew There is disagreement among archaeologists concerning the subsistence resources probably directly affected their adaptive temporal placement and definition of the Mesolithic period. strategy, resulting in a new socioeconomic level that included Some archaeologists (Childe, 1957; Rogachevand Oklad- a new lithic technology, geographical variability of site loca- nikov, 1966, cited in Matyushin, 1976)have suggested the ‘Department of Russian,Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania 19010, U.S.A. Mailing address: 2301Woodward St., Apt. 1-7, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 191 15, U.S.A. “THE MESOLITHIC” AND SIBERIAN ARCHAEOLOGY 179 term “Epipaleolithic” or “Paleolithic of Holocene” instead conditions, sedentary mode of life, population growth, domes- of the term “Mesolithic.” They also have suggested combin- ticationof middle-sized grasslandanimals) had arisen that ing the Mesolithic and Paleolithic periods into a single were necessary for the introduction of the food-producing era. cultural-historical unit, arguing that there isno significant G. Clark (1952, 1972) proposed a different approach to the technological difference between these periods. Others strong- classification of the Mesolithic in a number of hispublications. ly oppose the joining of the two periods, suggesting that the He suggested distinguishing the Mesolithic from other stages Mesolithicis better termed as “preceramicNeolithic” and by treating it chronologically. According to Clark, the thus should be included with the Neolithic stage. A last group Mesolithic began in the Holocene period (about 8000 - 8300 of archaeologists (Efimenko, 1953; Martynov, 1981; Matyu- years B.P.) in Europe and continued for almost 3000 years, shin, 1976; and Chernysh, 1975) consider the Mesolithic to be until the climate in Europe and Asia finally stabilized. Clark’s a separate period, representing the transition of Paleolithic classification seems reliable. However, some archaeologists forms of subsistence to the Neolithic ones. They argue that do not agree with him. Kozlowski (1973) suggests the Mesoli- such a transition came about because socioeconomic precondi- thic be considered from a economic-ecologicalpoint of view. tions for the transition of food-gathering tofood-producing ac- Although he agrees that the Mesolithic began in Europe during tivities were established during the Mesolithic period. the Early Holocene, he also believes that a Mesolithic type of The significance of the Mesolithic is that it was a crucial economy could develop in different geographical regions and period during which the mode of productionchanged and chronological periods. He sees its development as a result of people began to play a major role in their relationships to the the tundra hunter’s adaptation to a woodland ecosystem, environment (Dolukhanovand Khotinsky, 1974). Underthe established during the early Holocene in the European low- term “mode of production” Soviet researchers usually mean lands. Thus, Kozlowski (also see Bader, 1974) identifies the the entity of four interrelated processes: technical (transmis- Mesolithic only where tundrahabitats were replaced by wood- sionand transformation of energyfrom one form into land ones. To me, the economic-ecological approachto Meso- another); technological (transformation ofraw material into lithic classification seems more useful than the chronological accomplished products); organizational (spatial and temporal one. However, it must not be claimed that the development of coordination ofall elements of production); and economic Mesolithic traditions was limited to Eurasian woodland zones (coordination of interests of a subject of production and of alone. economy forming a whole) (Semenov and Korobkova, 1983). Recently, Price (1983) suggested a provocative definition of Most archaeologists find it productive to define the Mesolithic the term Mesolithic. To Price (1983:762) “the Mesolithic is as the transitional period. During the Mesolithic, socio- not associated exclusively with the utilization of microlithic economic conditions developed that effected the transition tools, nor with the exploitation of forests and coasts, nor with from the Paleolithic food-gathering stage to the Neolithic the domestication of the dog,” but it is the “period of the food-producing stage. Simultaneously withthis change the Postglacial prior to the introduction of agriculture.” Thus, it new subsistence technology developed. One of the significant follows that Price’s definition of the term Mesolithic