We know what did the animal damage in our assemblages, but who were the human butchers? This question arises because there are almost no Paleolithic human remains in Siberia. The senior author was the first worker to describe the dental morphology of Siberian Paleolithic human teeth (Mal’ta, Denisova, and Okladnikov Caves). The examination of the few teeth found in the two cave sites was carried out in 1987 under hurried and minimally acceptable examination conditions (no chance to re-examine the teeth, only 30 minutes allowed, poor lighting, and no comparative teeth at hand except the ASU-DAS standard reference plaques). Later, the cave teeth were re-studied under better conditions and at her leisure by Moscow State University biology student E. G. Shpakova (Shpakova and Derevianko 2000, Shpakova 2001), for the most part using a system developed by A. A. Zoubov (1977). In her later discussion of Siberian Pleistocene teeth (Shpakova 2005:421), she acknowledges that both Turner (1990c) and Valery Alexeev (1998) thought the teeth to have: “distinctly archaic characteristics.” She also proposed that the Denisova teeth were perhaps more archaic than those fTom Okladnikov Cave. Despite this interpretation of archaism, she goes on to conclude that both Denisova and Okladnikov cave teeth have “anatomically modern affinities” (Shpakova 2005:422) without any reference as to what are the characteristics and variation of modern human teeth (e. g., Turner 1991, Scott and Turner 1997).
Despite our having sorted through >1 000 000 whole and fragments of bone and loose teeth, we found not a single example of human bone or teeth in the faunal collections. The few bits of human remains had been recognized either in the field or later in the lab, when Ovodov was making his preliminary species identifications over the years prior to our project. These were curated separately from the non-human materials. Hence, the following discussion about the people is based on separate earlier examinations by the senior author in the 1980s. These examinations strikingly revealed two facts: first, there is very, very little in the way of late Pleistocene Siberian human remains, and what does exist is extremely fragmentary and incomplete; second, most of the human remains had belonged to children, so osteological comparisons are not possible within or outside late Pleistocene Siberia because of incomplete growth. Only the morphology of unerupted or erupted permanent teeth can provide suggestions about evolutionary grade (modern, archaic) and racial affiliation (European, East Asian). Of the late Pleistocene Eurasian teeth the senior author has examined, few showed the characterizing size differences that exist between modern human groups; for example, European upper lateral incisors tend to be small, whereas those of East Asians tend to be large. The point here is that Shpakova really does not know much about modern dental variation, let alone Middle Paleolithic variation. Her criticism of Turner is unwarranted, even at the novice level of tooth identification (Table A1.32).
The most famous Paleolithic Siberians are the two sets of fragmentary remains of Upper Paleolithic (ca. 15 000 BP) children found by Gerasimov at Mal’ta, south of Irkutsk. He believed them to have been pathological, so no study was conducted. The senior author found that the unerupted permanent incisors and molar teeth of the three-year-old child belonged to a dentally modern human. Moreover, the Mal’ta teeth were more like those of modern Europeans than like modern East Asians (Turner 1990a, Haeussler 1996, Haeussler and Turner 2000). Because of its very young age (9-12 months), the second child had not developed enough permanent crown to be useful for description or comparison. Deciduous teeth are not used in the Arizona State University dental anthropology system (Turner etal. 1991), mainly because of very few inter-group differences.
Less well known are the fragmentary remains of two anatomically modern individuals discovered at Afontova Gora, the multi-component site within the city limits of Krasnoyarsk (Gryaznov 1932). Much has been made of a sub-adult frontal bone recovered in Afontova Gora because of the attached flat nasal bones, which suggested to Alexeev that the individual was Mongoloid (Alexeev 1998, Alexeev and Gokhman 1983, Turner 1983a). This single fTontal bone became the basis for Alexeev’s belief that Siberia was occupied only by Mongoloids until Europeans arrived in Neolithic times. However, all infants and young children have about the same degree of flatness to their nasal bones, regardless of race, so the racial affinity of the Afontova Gora child is ambiguous. A better case for Asian affiliation is present in a mandibular first molar of an anatomically modern child found by N. I. Drozdov at Listvenka (15 000-16 000 BP), a site located up-river fTom Krasnoyarsk and down-river fTom the Krasnoyarsk hydroelectric dam. This fragment of a mandible had an unerupted first molar, the morphology of which is much more often found in Northeast Asians than in Europeans (Haeussler 1996, Haeussler and Turner 2000).
The Mal’ta and Listvenka Upper Paleolithic teeth have no hint of archaic morphology, but some teeth from two Altai Middle to late Paleolithic sites do have less modern and more Neanderthal-like characteristics. A handful of sub-adult bones and four teeth were found in Okladnikov Cave. Two teeth of comparable antiquity were found in Denisova Cave. The senior author reported on these few teeth from both caves in 1990 as having more of an overall Neanderthal morphology than that of the European Cro-Magnons or East Asian Sinodonts, teeth of three groups he had personally studied. Shpakova and Derevianko (2000) disagreed, despite neither having ever actually examined Neanderthal,
Cro-Magnon, or Pleistocene East Asian teeth. The senior author disregards their opinion on the grounds of inexperience. Antiquity-uncertain Siberian human remains include a very Eskimo-like old adult male skull found at a site called Kordyupov, Yakutia, who is thought to date to the late Paleolithic. Very little is known about the provenience of this skull. Its relatively good preservation casts doubt on its Paleolithic antiquity. Whatever its antiquity, dentally it was a modern Northeast Asian-American Sinodont. A site called Kirkalinskaya Cave had some human bone whose antiquity may be late Pleistocene. Again, antiquity is uncertain. We have recognized Neanderthal or Neanderthal-like teeth from Denisova and Okladnikov caves with hyena digestive polishing and erosion (Figs. 3.24, 3.25, 3.133). We can recognize this damage with certainty based on our examinations of scores of nonhuman stomach bones and teeth.
World History
