Originally published in Russian in 2010, this timely translation adds to a growing collection of major sources on the archaeology of the Siberian Arctic and sub-Arctic that are now available in English (e.g. Mochanov Reference Mochanov and Bland2009; Pitul'ko Reference Pitul'ko2013). The collaborating authors represent a productive tandem: V.V. Pitul'ko (aka Pitulko) is a prehistoric archaeologist and E. Yu. Pavlova is a geomorphologist and Quaternary geologist. In this volume, their principal topics are, firstly, the study and critical evaluation of data on the geomorphology, stratigraphy, natural environment and archaeology of the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites in North-east Asia (the Lena River basin, and the vast region to the east of it, known as western Beringia); and, secondly, the critical analysis of radiocarbon chronologies for these cultural complexes. The book consists of an introduction and six chapters, plus appendices including a list of radiocarbon dates from archaeological sites in North-east Asia and a brief summary on the geomorphology of the radiocarbon-dated late Pleistocene and early Holocene sites. The book is richly illustrated with maps, photographs and profiles of sites, geomorphological, stratigraphic and chronological schemes, and artefact drawings.

The Introduction presents a short history of archaeological research in the Siberian Arctic, beginning in 1787. The pre-Upper Palaeolithic complexes, mainly the controversial (presumably Lower Palaeolithic) site of Diring-Yuryakh, are briefly mentioned. About 90 per cent of the known prehistoric sites in North-east Asia are surface finds, and this limits the potential for further research. The core dataset is formed by approximately 400 radiocarbon dates from secure contexts at 108 sites. Chapter 1 contains a short description of existing stratigraphic and chronological problems for the Stone Age complexes.

Chapters 2–5 analyse the geoarchaeology and radiocarbon chronology of the key sites in North-east Asia. The earliest well-documented evidence comes from the Yana RHS site, dated to c. 28500–27000 BP (based on 20 radiocarbon values run on bones and hearth charcoal). This represents the oldest Upper Palaeolithic complex in the region, with a flake-based stone assemblage and a large number of bone tools, adornments and eye needles (see Pitulko et al. Reference Pitulko, Pavlova, Nikolskiy and Ivanova2012). There are several much older radiocarbon values obtained on wood from the cultural layer—from c. 44000 BP to >47000 BP—that testify to the presence of allochthonous material surviving in the permafrost and re-deposited from older sediments.

The chronology of the Dyuktai Culture (late Upper Palaeolithic) has been a subject of heated debate for several decades. Mochanov (Reference Mochanov and Bland2009) concluded that this complex dates to c. 35000–10000 BP; several scholars (including myself) have disagreed and suggested that its lower limit could be at c. 26000 BP or even later, c. 17000–16000 BP. Critical evaluation of existing data allows Pitul'ko and Pavlova to propose the age of the Dyuktai Culture in the Aldan River basin as c. 17000/18000–10000/11000 BP, and possibly older, beginning at c. 22000/23000 BP. The two earliest sites, Ust’-Mil’ II and Ikhine II, could represent the pre-Dyuktai assemblages related to the Yana RHS complex.

The site of Berelekh, once considered as the oldest Palaeolithic complex in the high Arctic (e.g. Mochanov Reference Mochanov and Bland2009), has been visited and re-examined by the two authors who now date it to c. 11450 BP based on radiocarbon-dating of the Pleistocene hare bones, collected on the surface of talus deposits but originating from an in situ context. The earlier radiocarbon dates of c. 12200–11800 BP, obtained on samples collected from frozen talus, represent re-deposited material. The site is younger than the famous ‘mammoth cemetery’ of the same name (c. 13700–12000 BP). Archaeologically, Berelekh could be related to the Yana RHS site and not, contra Mochanov (Reference Mochanov and Bland2009), to the Dyuktai Culture.

As for the extreme north-eastern part of the region, Kamchatka, the Kolyma River Basin and Chukotka, one of the most debated issues is the age of the lowest stratum (VII) of the Ushki cluster. N.N. Dikov dated it to c. 14300–13600 BP, while T. Goebel and colleagues suggested a younger interval of c. 11300–10700 BP. Here, the authors state that it is quite possible that both views are valid because different parts of this large site cluster were sampled for radiocarbon dating. The Mesolithic (i.e. pre-pottery Holocene) sites—Podgornaya, Naivan, Kheta, Uptar, Kongo and Siberdik—are dated to c. 9800–8300 BP.

The timing for the Dyuktai complex in the north-easternmost territories of North-east Asia has been extended up to c. 8000 BP. The Mesolithic Sumnagin complex (including the northernmost early Holocene archaeological site in the world at Zhokhov Island; see Pitul'ko Reference Pitul'ko2013) is now placed at c. 9500–5000 BP, substantially later than was concluded by Mochanov (Reference Mochanov and Bland2009). The authors argue that both complexes co-existed. The same feature is observed for the Neolithic (i.e. pottery-using) cultures: Syalakh (c. 6800–4200 BP), Bel'kachi (c. 5200–3500 BP) and Ymyyakhtakh (c. 5000–1500 BP).

Chapter 6 summarises the research results and discusses a range of multidisciplinary issues. Some of the complications of radiocarbon dating in North-east Asia include the complex history of site formation and modification in a permafrost environment, and the diachronous nature of material introduced to sediments, such as wood and plant remains. All these factors must be taken into account when using radiocarbon dates from this region; as the authors state: “getting unexpected results is a reason to consider the causes of the results rather than a reason to assume that the results are wrong” (p. 156). The origin of microblade technology in North-east Asia, used to produce insets for grooved tools, is related to the disappearance of mammoth ivory as a raw material for making points and spears, and to the necessity of effective slotted hunting weapons. The authors conclude that influences from the southern parts of Siberia were the main mechanism of cultural changes: “Ideas about the autochthony of cultural complexes within Northeast Asia do not withstand the test of time” (p. 160).

This volume presents solid research and is recommended to students and professionals who study the Pleistocene archaeology of Asia, Beringia and the Americas. R.L. Bland, a veteran translator of Russian archaeological literature, is also acknowledged for making this volume available to the international community.