Late glacial nomadic settlement sites at the upper Yenisei basin (Siberia) and the Paris basin
A comparative study
p. 189-199
Résumés
The paper deals with the comparative study of the spatial organization and structural features of two concentrations of the Late Upper Paleolithic sites located in Northern France and Southern Siberia. Due to the large-scale survey archaeology projects realized during the last decades at the Upper Yenisei we have collected a considerable amount of data on household activities of prehistoric inhabitants of the region. The open-air settlements located in the bottom of river valleys with numerous fireplaces, chipped stone concentrations and remains of domestic units (Maininskaia, Ui II, Kantegir, etc.) are similar to the Magdalenian sites of the Paris Basin (Pincevent, Etiolles, Verberie, Marsangy). A distinctive pattern of habitation is represented by the site of Irba 2, which produced dispersed rounded or oval-shaped concentrations of lithics and bones divided by empty spaces with no traces of charcoal and fireplaces. The spatial distribution at Irba 2 is surprisingly similar to the Final Paleolithic sites of Northern Europe, including well-known Azilian (Federmesser) site of Le Closeau near Paris.
Sites d’habitation de nomades du Tardiglaciaire dans le Bassin du Haut-Ienisseï (Sibérie) et le Bassin parisien : une étude comparative
Cet article présente une étude comparative de l’organisation spatiale et des caractéristiques structurelles de deux concentrations de sites du Paléolithique supérieur tardif dans le nord de la France et en Sibérie méridionale. La majorité des sites sibériens sont regroupés près du village de Maïna, à la frontière des massifs montagneux couverts de forêts et des steppes de la dépression de Minoussinsk. Les caractéristiques géographiques de cette région, située entre deux zones environnementales tout à fait distinctes, offraient un contexte favorable à la subsistance des chasseurs-cueilleurs préhistoriques, ce qui explique la forte densité de sites d’habitats à composantes multiples à proximité du village de Maïna. Suite aux prospections archéologiques à grande échelle menées depuis quelques décennies dans le Haut-Ienisseï, nous avons collecté un nombre considérable de données sur les activités domestiques des habitants préhistoriques de la région. Les sites considérés sont principalement datés du Pléistocène final, d’environ 17 000-16 000 à 10 500 uncal BP. Ils appartiennent tous à la culture Afontova, à l’exception de l’industrie lamellaire de la couche inférieure de Golubaya I.
Les conditions géologiques ont permis une assez bonne conservation des artefacts, y compris ceux façonnés à partir d’ossements. Les niveaux étaient pour l’essentiel peu épais, presque tous les artefacts se répartissant dans des couches clairement distinctes. On peut expliquer les différences de configurations spatiales par la saisonnalité de l’occupation, la vitesse de sédimentation des dépôts, les particularités des pratiques de subsistance et d’habitation, etc. Les perturbations locales des sols d’occupation comme la solifluxion, les coins de glace, l’érosion partielle, les activités fauniques, etc. ont aisément été repérées lors des fouilles. La disposition des sites rappelle celle des sites magdaléniens situés en fond de vallée fluviale. Ainsi, la structure spatiale de Marsangy est conforme à l’organisation générale des sites sibériens, avec leurs rangées de foyers associés à des concentrations de déchets qui se développent le long des berges du fleuve. La plupart des sols d’occupation étaient associés à des dépôts fluviatiles lités provenant des basses terrasses alluviales. Le rythme de sédimentation relativement rapide des sables alluvionnaires et des limons sablonneux a largement favorisé la formation de sites stratifiés à composantes multiples. Dans certaines séquences, de nombreux sols d’occupation ont pu être étudiés. Les sites comportent de minces horizons culturels superposés, comme Pincevent et Étiolles. Pour les sites ayant livré des foyers largement dispersés et une quantité limitée d’artefacts, il fut presque impossible de déterminer s’ils avaient tous été utilisés à la même période. Dans certains cas, une inter-stratification complexe de sédiments a fourni des indices qui ont aidé à différencier les épisodes d’occupation.
Les habitats sibériens de plein air situés en fond de vallée fluviale et présentant de nombreux foyers, des concentrations de pierre taillée et des vestiges d’unités domestiques (Maininskaia, Ui II, Kantegir, etc.) sont similaires aux sites magdaléniens du Bassin parisien (Pincevent, Étiolles, Verberie, Marsangy). Des vestiges de structures d’habitat en lien avec des cercles de pierres ont occasionnellement été mis au jour. On considère communément le cercle de pierres comme le principal critère d’identification des habitations car les pierres devaient être disposées sur tout le périmètre de la structure pour fixer les bords du toit en peau. De telles reconstitutions ont été mises proposées pour les unités domestiques U5 et W11 à Étiolles. La couche 7 d’Ui II a livré une unité domestique complexe constituée de deux structures de ce type et de deux foyers extérieurs. Une bordure discontinue de pierres entourait une première structure ovale de deux mètres sur quatre que l’érosion a en grande partie détruite. Deux foyers à cercle de pierres ont été retrouvés au centre, près de l’emplacement probable de l’entrée.
On a documenté d’autres structures de même ordre, mais sans cercle de pierres. Toutefois, l’absence de matérialisation des bordures extérieures rend cette identification problématique. Dans ces cas-là, les contours de l’abri sont délimités par la distribution spatiale des artefacts ou par l’organisation des amas de déchets autour du foyer. En d’autres termes, quand il existe une différence marquée dans la distribution des artefacts et autres débris (par exemple à Maininskaia, couche A-3), on l’interprète comme une délimitation des niveaux d’occupation, de la position de l’entrée, etc. Dans la couche 2 d’Ui II, une nette concentration d’artefacts et de déchets, de 2 à 2,2 mètres de large, a été mise au jour autour d’un foyer central à cercle de pierre (Unité T26). Une nappe de déchets s’y développait vers le sud-ouest à partir du foyer et au-delà de la lentille charbonneuse. Cette distribution a été interprétée comme matérialisant la possible zone de passage vers l’entrée de l’habitation, impression corroborée par le remontage lithique qui a permis de reconstituer le processus de rejets des pièces, à partir de la concentration autour du foyer vers l’espace extérieur. Dans le même temps, l’absence d’artefacts de l’autre côté de la lentille charbonneuse laisse supposer une zone de couchage. D’autres unités domestiques similaires sans cercle de pierres ont été identifiées à Étiolles (P15 et Q31) et à Pincevent (T125). Ce qui est remarquable sur ces deux sites, c’est le pourcentage élevé de lamelles à dos découverts près des foyers et qui pourrait être un indice pertinent dans l’identification d’unités domestiques sur les sites magdaléniens (Pincevent, Étiolles, Verberie).
Le site d’Irba 2 représente une structure d’habitation distincte. Il se trouve sur une terrasse plus basse que Ui II, à 3,5 ou 4 mètres au-dessus du lit du fleuve. Les dates radiocarbones placent l’occupation au cours du Pléistocène final (environ 13 700 à 11 300 uncal BP). L’assemblage appartient à la culture Afontova. Ce site offre un contraste frappant avec d’autres sites contemporains de la vallée de l’Ienisseï comportant des horizons d’habitation bien visibles, des foyers, des unités domestiques, etc. A contrario, Irba 2 a livré des concentrations lithiques et osseuses dispersées, de forme ronde ou ovale, parfaitement délimitées et séparées par des espaces vides, sans la moindre trace de foyers ni de charbons. La surface des unités sur ce site varie entre 4 à 6 m2 et entre 14 à 16 m2. Il va sans dire que ces traces ne relèvent pas d’une occupation unique mais renvoient à plusieurs épisodes d’habitation distincts, au cours desquels différents groupes préhistoriques ont occupé une étendue plane et sèche près de l’eau. La distribution spatiale d’Irba 2 est étonnamment similaire à celle des sites du Paléolithique final de l’Europe du Nord, y compris le célèbre gisement azilien (Federmesser) du Closeau, près de Paris.
Malgré la distance géographique qui sépare la France de la Sibérie et une affiliation culturelle apparemment très différente, la fin du Paléolithique supérieur dans ces deux régions présente de nombreux points communs en termes de localisation des sites, de différenciation fonctionnelle et de caractérisation structurelle des habitations. Ces ressemblances frappantes s’expliquent peut-être par des régularités générales dans l’organisation des campements de groupes mobiles de chasseurs-cueilleurs à la fin du Pléistocène. Pour mettre en lumière les différentes formes d’adaptation humaine à cette époque, une étude comparative à grande échelle des structures d’habitation préhistorique dans différentes parties de l’Eurasie septentrionale pendant le Tardiglaciaire est nécessaire.
Entrées d’index
Mots-clés : Sibérie, France, Magdalénien, habitations, foyers, unités domestiques
Keywords : Siberia, France, habitats, Magdalenian, hearths, domestic units
Texte intégral
Introduction
1Since the 1960s due to the very active field research a number of the Upper Paleolithic residential sites has been explored in large horizontal exposures at the Upper and Middle Yenisei basin in Central South Siberia (Vasil’ev 1995, 1996). It resulted in the discovery of a rich series of domestic structures. In spite of the great distance (figure 9.1), an astonishing similarity between Siberian and French Magdalenian open-air Tardiglacial habitations has been highlighted (Abramova 1992, 1993; Vasil’ev 1994a). In this paper, I dwell on the data obtained during the realization of large-scale survey archaeology projects at the Upper Yenisei area.
2The long-term reciprocal influences between the French and Russian prehistoric schools are worthwhile to mention. It is generally admitted that the spatial approach to the study of Paleolithic living floors and habitat structures has been introduced by André Leroi-Gourhan (Leroi-Gourhan & Brézillon 1966, 1972) under the influence of the works of 1930s Russian prehistorians. From the 1970s onwards, influence begun to flow the other way. The interesting works on the spatial distribution of stone and bone remains by the Russian scholars are ample evidence to the considerable impact of Leroi-Gourhan’s approach on Russian prehistory. This approach is currently followed by researchers in different regions of our country, especially in Southern Siberia (cf. Vasil’ev 2004).
3Location of the sites at the Upper Yenisei, based on GoogleMaps: https://www.google.com/maps/@53.690354,91.3009545,8z.
Habitations on lower riverside terraces: fireplaces and domestic units
4The sites at the Upper Yenisei were targets of excavations carried out during salvage archaeology campaigns held in the areas to be flooded by the reservoirs of the Sayano-Shushenskaia and Maininskaia hydroelectric power stations. Explorations were directed by S.N. Astakhov at Kantegir and Golubaia I during the 1970s, and later by the author at Maininskaia, Ui I and II in 1980-1991.
5The sites are located in the northernmost portion of the Sayan Canyon of the Yenisei River, a picturesque gorge bounding one of the world’s largest northern flowing rivers as it flows through the Sayan range. The majority of the sites are clustered near the Maina village not far from the boundary between mountain ranges covered by forest and the Minusinsk lowland with steppes. The geographic features of this area, lying directly on the frontier between two markedly different environmental zones, provided favorable conditions for the subsistence of prehistoric hunter-gatherers, thus explaining the large density of multicomponent habitation sites near Maina (Vasil’ev 1990). Apart from the slightly older assemblage, the lower layer of Ui I (Beyries et al. 2001), the sites under consideration are mostly dated by the Final Pleistocene, from c. 17,000-16,000 to 10,500 uncalBP.
6All, except the bladelet industry of the lower layer of Golubaia I, belonged to the Afontova culture. This culture was widespread in the Middle and Upper Yenisei basin and even beyond during the Late Pleistocene and persisted till the Early Holocene (brief general outline of the regional Upper Paleolithic culture history cf. Vasil’ev 1992). The Afontova stone industry is based primarily on a flake technology. The main sources of raw material were local river beaches. Heavy single- and double-platform cores predominate, along with discoidal, flat Levallois, three-platform, chopper-like and pyramidal cores. The microblade technology was highly developed and was based on various wedge-shaped, prismatic, celt‑like, and double microcores. The tools consist mostly of sidescrapers, endscrapers and splintered pieces. Many retouched flakes, choppers, notched and denticulated pieces occur; while retouched blades, backed bladelets, borers, becs, small points, Mousterian-like points, discoidal pieces, bifacial foliates, and burins are rare. Hammerstones, retouchers, and anvils are also found. The sites have rich antler and bone industries (points with or without lateral grooves, smoothers, awls, fasteners, needles, rods, antler hammers and hafts and so on). Ornaments are represented by beads and pendants.
7The living floors were mostly associated with fluvial bedded deposits of the low‑lying river terraces. A relatively rapid tempo of sedimentation of the alluvial sands and sandy loams provided excellent possibilities for the formation of multicomponent stratified sites. In some sequences, numerous living floors were investigated. The sites lying embedded into the matrices of laminated alluvial deposits consist of a series of superimposed layers. When hearths were found widely dispersed and with limited amount of artifacts, it is hardly possible to make a judgement whether all of the hearths were used at the same time or not. In some cases a complex interstratification of sediments could give us clues for the differentiation of the occupation episodes. At Kantegir and Maininskaia the superimposed hearths are used for differentiation of occupation surfaces separated by thin (1 to 2 cm thickness) sterile bands (Astakhov 1986; Vasil’ev 1990).
8The geological conditions have led to a relatively good preservation of the cultural items including bone. The cultural horizons were mostly thin with practically all artifacts in clearly distinguishable layers. The differences in spatial configurations can be explained in the terms of seasonality of occupation, rates of the sedimentation of deposits, specifics of subsistence and settlement patterns, etc. Local disturbances of the living floors such as solifluction, frozen-ground wedges, partial erosion, animal activities, etc. were easily discerned during fieldwork. General pattern of site setting is similar to the Magdalenian sites located in the bottom of river valleys (Taborin 1994). The similarities could be seen in the location of habitation sites nearby rivers, especially near mouths of small tributaries. The sites comprise thin superimposed cultural horizons like Pincevent and Étiolles (Julien & Karlin 2014; Pigeot 2004). General spatial pattern of the Siberian sites with rows of hearths and associated concentrations of debris oriented along the river bank is similar to the spatial structure of Marsangy (Schmider 1992).
9When large area of alluvial sites lying in river terrace is exposed horizontally, it can be seen that prehistoric occupational floors were made of randomly dispersed separate hearths and concentration of lithics. Occasionally, remains of slab-lined dwelling structures, stone pavements, and caches of lithic tools were unearthed. The sites are characterized by small amounts of artifacts that most often clustered upon the charcoal lenses found around the hearths. Structure of hearth varied so that there can be proposed a typology of hearth, including those varieties as slab-lined structures of different types. There were also found numerous workshops with large clusters of chipped stones. It is widely considered that slab lining is the most important feature to identify ancient huts since slabs should have been put around the perimeter of the dwelling structure to fix edges of skin roof. These reconstructions have been put forward for the domestic units U5 and W11 at Étiolles (Pigeot 1987).
10Layer 7 of Ui II yielded complex dwelling unit comprising of two slab-lined structures and two outside fireplaces. A discontinuous line of stones surrounds the first, oval-shaped in plain view structure measuring 2 to 4 m, heavily destroyed by erosion. Here, two slab-lined hearths were found in the centre of the structure and near the probable entrance. Inside the stone line, there can be seen a rather clear difference in spatial organisation of debris. Charcoal, chipped stone and bones densely cover area around the central hearth and near the entrance (findings of bone needles and beads are to be mentioned). Lithic refits indicate intensive exchange between central hearth and presumed entrance area. The innermost, southwestern part lacks artifacts (figure 9.2 and figure 9.3).
11To the south from this structure was found another structural feature of round stone alignment measuring 1.2 m in diameter. A small semi-circular slab lining (0.4 m in diameter) and a large, flat hearth lie next to this structure. There were no findings except a bone fragment and an endscraper cached below one of the stones. This structure could be interpreted as a light shelter with an external fireplace, served presumably for skin processing.
12There are more reports of similar structures but without slab lining. Their identification is problematic due to the lack of physically marked outer borders. In such cases, boundaries of shelter are defined either by spatial extent in distribution of artifacts or patterning in organization of debris around hearth. In other words, when there is a marked difference in distribution of artifacts and other debris (e.g. Maininskaia, Layer A-3), it is taken as an indication of boundary of living floors or the position of entrance, etc. However, one can pose a question —what degree of ‘clearness’ is enough to argue the existence of an artificial barrier? It seems to be difficult if not impossible to give simple recommendations for the identification of dwelling units (Vasil’ev 2003). Several presumably enclosed structures without slab linings have been identified at the Magdalenian sites. The Units P15 and Q31 at Étiolles (Olive 1988; Pigeot 2004), and T125 at Pincevent (Bodu et al. 2006) are the best examples.
13In some cases, the supposed border of an enclosed space is seen along the concentric band of rarefied debris separating the inner concentration around a central hearth and outer concentration (Layer 3 of Golubaia I; Astakhov 1986). However, this bias could be interpreted as a place of sitting men between forward and backward toss zones, thus indicating an open-air fireplace. This model seems to be relevant both for Magdalenian and Siberian habitation sites (Audouze 1987).
14In other cases, a bipartite division of debris in the charcoal lens around a central fireplace could be discerned. In Layer 2 of Ui II a clear-cut concentration of artifacts and debris, measuring 2 to 2.2 m around a slab-lined hearth in the centre was found (unit T26). A debris band was found lying in southwestern direction, stretching from the hearth beyond charcoal lens layer. The distribution seems to reflect an effect of an entrance, which is corroborated by the lithic refitting, allowing to reconstruct the discard of pieces from the concentration around the hearth to outer space. In the same time an opposite side of the charcoal lens is devoid in artifacts, thus a location of a sleeping place could be deduced. It is worthwhile to mention those beautiful specimens of finished lithic tools (sidescrapers, and a splintered piece) and a core were discovered laying directly on the stones near the hearth (figure 9.4; Vasil’ev 1993, 1994a, 1994b). Among other tools sidescrapers prevailed; there were some splintered pieces, endscrapers, denticulates, etc. The majority of lithic refits indicate the effect of enclosed space, apparently slightly larger than the charcoal lens. Near the northwestern side of the hearth a place for processing of microblade cores and fabrication of backed bladelets has been identified. The remarkable fact consists of elevated percentage of backed bladelets occurred within the concentration. Increased frequencies of backed bladelets nearby the fireplaces could be relevant to the identification of domestic units in the Magdalenian sites (Pincevent, Étiolles, Verberie; Leroi-Gourhan & Brézillon 1966, 1972; Pigeot 1987, 2004; Audouze 2010).
15It is obvious that we need more detailed spatial studies of distributions of the Yenisei sites. Unfortunately, in the majority of cases, the available data leaves much to be desired and the documents in our disposal are far from the standards of modern excavation techniques. Detailed micro‑stratigraphic observation with an aid of frequent profiles in combination with individual piece‑plotting of artifacts and refitting data would be useful in identification of the occupational episodes. It should be added that the sites were explored in large horizontal exposures during the salvage archaeology campaigns held in the 1970-early 1990s, where the artifacts were plotted by a grid system. Thus, it is hardly possible to apply quantitative techniques for the delineation of enclosed space, and there are only few attempts to develop spatial analysis of artifact distributions with the refitting studies.
Irba 2, other pattern of the final Pleistocene habitat
16A distinctive pattern of habitation is represented by the site of Irba 2. The site was a target of large-scale excavations realized within a framework of the long-term survey archaeology project connected with the construction of the railway from Kyzyl to Kuragino (the Krasnoyarsk Region). The exploration was carried out by the Sayan archaeological expedition in 2012 and 2015. The configuration of the excavated area was shaped by the direction of the future railroad. Totally, more than 7,000 square meters have been excavated (Vasil’ev et al. 2019). The site is located in the southeastern part of the Minusinsk Depression, at the right bank of the Irba River, a tributary of Tuba, the right tributary of Yenisei. It sits on lower riverside terrace 3.5 to 4.0 m above the water.
17During the exploration of the multicomponent habitation site below the Holocene cultural strata, Pleistocene remains have been discovered. These include bones of bison (Bison priscus), reindeer (Rangifer tarandus), red deer (Cervus elaphus), giant deer (cf. Megaloceros giganteus), wild horse (Equus ferus), brown bear (Ursus arctos) and hare (Lepus tanaiticus), lithic artifacts and pieces of worked antler. The remains were embedded into compact loess-like sandy loam with traces of cryoturbation. The sediments are presumable of Aeolian origin.
18Radiocarbon dates indicate the Final Pleistocene age (c. 13,700 to 11,300 uncalBP). The assemblage belongs to the Afontova culture widespread in the upper reaches of Yenisei during the Tardiglacial (Late Upper Paleolithic). A unique engraved oval-shaped flat pebble of white marble, is worth to mention. It has 37 lateral grooves, cross-shaped engravings in the central parts of both lateral surfaces and traces of unfinished hollows. The nearest analogs are agalmatolithic discs from the sites of Afontova Gora II and III located at Krasnoyarsk. These findings are rare in the Paleolithic and have been interpreted as amulets (Polïakov et al. 2019).
19From the viewpoint of spatial distribution of cultural debris Irba 2 is sharply different from the sites located at the Yenisei above mentioned. One can see an uneven spatial distribution of Paleolithic remains (figure 9.5). The northern band of excavations carried out in 2012 produced only scatted isolated pieces.
20The band of excavation areas unearthed in 2015 and located southwards yielded concentrations of chipped stone and bones. The westernmost portion of the excavated area is devoid in Paleolithic remains; here there were large underground dwelling structures of the Early Iron Age (Scythian epoch). Further to East, at the Excavation no. 79 and adjacent portions of Excavations nos. 114, 137 and 141 a huge concentration of large bones (reindeer antlers, bison ribs, mandibles, vertebrae in anatomic connection, etc.) accompanied by few lithics, has been unearthed. Eastwards a clear spatial interval in the distribution of the Paleolithic remains has been detected. A gleyic horizon at the level of the cultural layer was clearly visible at profiles and it seems that this was the place of the location of ancient backwater.
21A number of excavations (nos. 96, 97, 98, 110, 124 and 125; in the last case two concentrations have been unearthed) produced rounded or oval-shaped in plain view concentrations of cultural debris represented by bones and pieces of chipped stone, and lacking traces of charcoal (figure 9.6). The concentrations were separated by empty spaces. The square of units varies from 4-6 to 14-16 square meters. Excavation area no. 98 yielded a concentration consisted of 24 small marble-like limestone pebbles, which could serve as rough-out for pendant manufacture. Seven other small pebbles have been discovered dispersed in the cultural layer beyond the concentration.
22Excavation no. 100 yielded a cracked pebble of hematite, a source for ocher fabrication. The same area produced a concentration of chipped stone and bones, partly unearthed at the adjacent Excavation no. 150. Some concentrations included cracked pebbles; meanwhile there were no traces of burning of sediments and charcoal.
23At the easternmost part of the excavated area, there were some portions of cultural layer redeposited at the terrace slope. Small-scale concentrations have been explored at Excavations nos. 128 (two units), 142, 143, 144 (a small concentration of five pebble tools) and at the boundary between Excavations 145 and 146.
24The habitation site under consideration sharply differs from the contemporaneous sites located at the Yenisei River valley with clearly visible habitation horizons, fireplaces, domestic units, etc. The spatial distribution at Irba 2 is surprisingly similar to the Final Paleolithic sites of Northern Europe, including well-known Azilian (Federmesser) site of Le Closeau near Paris (Bodu 2010). It goes without saying that these sites do not represent traces of single occupations. It seems that we are dealing with remains of numerous separated habitation episodes, where different prehistoric groups used suitable dry flat surface near the water.
25We are in the very beginning of the study of this important site and could present only few preliminary results. The core area of the large site should be excavated in the future if the construction of the railroad would be renewed. It should add that during the fieldwork all artifacts have been plotted with individual numbers using the EDM, which allows us to put forward the detailed spatial analysis.
Conclusion
26In spite of great geographical distance between France and Siberia and apparent difference in culture affiliation, the end of the Upper Paleolithic of both areas share a lot of features in common in site location, functional differentiation of settlements, and structural features. The striking similarity could be explained by general regularities in organization of settlement of mobile hunter-gatherer groups in the end of the Pleistocene. It seems premature with an evidence at hand to put forward explanatory models. The generalizations can only be considered preliminary starting points in the understanding of human adaptations in the end of the Pleistocene. The large-scale comparative analysis of prehistoric settlement patterns in different portions of Northern Eurasia during the Tardiglacial is called for.
Acknowledgements
27First, I wish to express my deep gratitude and appreciation to Claudine Karlin with the warmest recollections of our meetings in France, St. Petersburg and Siberia. I owe a great deal to Aline Averbouh, Nejma Goutas and Sophie Méry, the volume editors, for their kind invitation to contribute and for the correction of the text. I am in debt to the French colleagues for friendly discussions and information exchange. I would like to thank Françoise Audouze, Michèle Julien, Francine David, Pierre Bodu, Boris Valentin, Yvette Taborin, Monique Olive, Nicole Pigeot, Marianne Christensen, Béatrice Schmider, Sylvie Beyries and many others. I also thank anonymous reviewers who provided useful comments. Last but not least, my thanks go to Andrey Poliakov, the director of the Sayan archaeological expedition. This work was carried out within the framework of the Program of Fundamental Scientific Research of the Russian State Academies of Sciences, State Assignment No. 0184-2018-0012.
Auteur
Archaeologist, Scientific Director and Head of the Paleolithic Department - Institute for the Material Culture History, Russian Academy of Sciences, 18 Dvortsovaia emb., 191186 St. Petersburg (Russie)
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Not Just a Corridor
Human occupation of the Nile Valley and neighbouring regions between 75,000 and 15,000 years ago
Alice Leplongeon, Mae Goder-Goldberger et David Pleurdeau (dir.)
2020
La langue des bois
l’appropriation de la nature entre remords et mauvaise foi
Sergio Dalla Bernardina
2020
Living and working with giants
a multispecies ethnography of the Khamtis and elephants in Northeast India
Nicolas Lainé
2020
Nomad lives
From Prehistoric Times to the Present Day
Aline Averbouh, Nejma Goutas et Sophie Méry (dir.)
2021
L’art des ghostnets
Approche anthropologique et esthétique des filets-fantômes
Géraldine Le Roux
2022
Elusive Partners
Contemporary Anthropological Perspectives on Marine Species
Alix Levain, Hélène Artaud, Émilie Mariat-Roy et al.
2023
Des voies de l’ombre
Quand les chauves-souris sèment le trouble
Frédéric Laugrand et Antoine Laugrand
2023