研究背景、方法与材料

对无水火山玻璃，也就是黑曜岩材质的人工制品进行科技手段的产源研究始于20世纪60年代的地中海区域（Cann and Renfrew 1964），而后迅速传播到美洲、欧洲、东非、大洋洲、东亚及东南亚。黑曜岩在打片时会形成锋利的边缘，而且其均质的特性便于人们生产出所需要的形状和尺寸的岩器，所以是一种高品质的原材料。众所周知，史前人类经常从很远的地方获取黑曜岩资源。因此，研究确定黑曜岩制品的原产地，对于理解史前人类的交流非常重要。全球科学界越来越认识到加强黑曜岩产源研究的必要性，近期在利帕里岛（Lipari Island，2016年）（位于意大利西西里岛附近的第勒尼安海）和匈牙利东部（2019年）举办了两次国际黑曜岩会议。利帕里岛作为西地中海地区最重要的黑曜岩来源之一而闻名于世。

事实证明，几乎每一处黑曜岩的矿源都有独特的“地球化学特征（指标）”，（如，不同化学元素的含量），并且可用多种分析方法测定。这就是为什么黑曜岩产源研究能够提供人类使用特定矿源的明确证据，而这又进一步为史前交换/贸易的规模和方向提供了一手信息。

一些发现了古代黑曜岩制品的地方，直到20世纪90年代才开始进行比较深入的产源研究，包括俄罗斯的远东和东北部，即滨海省（Primorye Province）、阿穆尔河（黑龙江）盆地（the Amur River basin）、库页岛（Sakhalin Island）、千岛群岛（the Kurile Islands）、堪察加半岛（Kamchatka Peninsula）、科累马河（the basins of the Kolyma）和印地吉尔卡河流域（Indigirka rivers）、楚科奇地区（the Chukotka region ）和高纬度北极地区（the High Arctic）。我们的研究小组于1992年开始在这些地区进行研究，与美国、日本和韩国的学者展开了密切合作，最近英国学者也参与进来。

对考古材料中黑曜岩制品的产源研究是通过比较考古遗物和矿源地黑曜岩料中的地球化学组成（主要是多种微量元素）来判定的。采用统一的分析方法和标准来获取和解释地球化学数据非常重要。在我们的研究中，对俄罗斯东部和东北部黑曜岩的所有测量都是在（美国密苏里州哥伦比亚市）密苏里大学核反应研究中心进行的，使用的是相同的设备和检测方法。这使我们能够直接比较从黑曜岩矿源地和人工制品上采集到的样品的检测结果。

自1992年以来，俄美联合团队对俄罗斯东部黑曜岩的地球化学分析主要采用了两种分析技术：1）中子活化分析（NAA）；2）X射线荧光光谱（XRF）。我们最初在1992年，使用XRF和NAA技术对来自滨海省和阿穆尔河（黑龙江）盆地的几十件黑曜岩人工制品进行了地球化学组成的测定。随后，又用NAA对这些地区所有主要的黑曜岩产地进行了检测，高精度地测定了28种元素的含量（精确到百万分之一，即10- 4%）。2005年起，该项工作在勘察加半岛继续进行。2009年之后，又在西伯利亚东北部用同样的方法开展。除了对矿源地进行检测之外，本课题组还利用XRF和简化NAA的方法测定了从这些地区采集到的约1300件人工制品的地球化学组成。当前，通过NAA和XRF技术，俄罗斯东部所有的主要黑曜岩产地的地球化学特征已经建立起来。其他研究小组则使用了不同的分析方法，比如质子激发X射线荧光分析法（PIXE）和质子激发伽马射线荧光分析法（PIGME）；便携式XRF；激光剥蚀电感耦合等离子体质谱仪（LA-ICP-MS）等。

在收到地球化学数据后，我们使用统计方法识别出了具有共性的矿源地样品与考古样品（见Glascock et al. 1998）。因此，我们能够比较肯定的判断古代人类从何处获取黑曜岩资源。截止到2019下半年，我们又分析了来自俄罗斯远东和东北部，以及东北亚周邻地区（朝鲜半岛和中国东北）的约3100个黑曜岩样品。这个数据库是我们阐释整个东北亚地区黑曜岩产源研究的基础。

结论：俄罗斯东部及周邻地区的主要黑曜岩产地

在俄罗斯远东大陆地区的最南端（滨海省），黑曜岩的主要矿源地是什科托沃高原（the Shkotovo [Basaltic] Plateau，Basaltic意为玄武岩）。高质量的火山玻璃在这里与基岩（玄武岩和安山岩–玄武岩）伴生。在熔融的玄武岩喷发的过程中，滚烫的玄武岩岩浆与相对较冷的地表（可能是固体沉积物也可能是水）接触后形成枕状熔岩。熔岩的快速冷却形成了直径1-5米的球形（“枕头状”）物体，枕头熔岩的表层就由火山玻璃构成。什科托沃高原上的黑曜岩以玻质碎屑岩的形式存在，这种物质是在枕状熔岩的玻璃状外层碎裂时形成的。在阿穆尔河（黑龙江）盆地，滨海省的北方，火山玻璃的主要来源是厄布拉齐高原，类似于什科托沃高原，也是包含在玄武岩碎屑岩中。

俄罗斯远东大陆地区北部的堪察加半岛是世界上为数不多的黑曜岩资源高度集中的地区之一，其他地区还包括日本群岛和中美洲。所有这些地方黑曜岩的形成都与板块俯冲带的火山活动有关。堪察加半岛上的黑曜岩通常是由熔岩流、喷出物（嵌在其他岩石中）和火山碎屑形成的。由于在堪察加半岛进行实地调查存在后勤困难（缺乏道路和居住点），迄今为止，在30-40个已知的黑曜岩矿源地中只研究了16个。

在俄罗斯东部最北端，也被称为西伯利亚东北部，黑曜岩的唯一来源是楚科奇地区，位于阿纳德尔河谷（the Anadyr River valley）内的克拉斯诺湖（Lake Krasnoe）岸边。在这里，黑曜岩见于火山岩带流纹岩之中，以砾岩和小卵岩的形态存在于湖的东岸；也许，矿源地现在已经淹没在水下，不潜水是无法到达的。

在日本北海道，目前已知的黑曜岩矿源地约有17个，均位于火山弧地质区（板块俯冲带），存在有约17–20种地球化学组成。研究小组分析了两处主要的黑曜岩产源—白瀧（Shirataki）和置戸（Oketo）；还有另外两个地点—赤井川（Akaigawa）和十胜–三俣（Tokachi-Mitsumata）。

在朝鲜半岛，含有碱性成分的黑曜岩矿源位于白头山（Paektusan Volcano）周围地区。在很长一段时间里，我们的知识完全建立在考古材料的基础上，只有少数“地质”样本（采集具体位置还不确切）。所有这些数据都支持这里存在一种单一的地球化学组成，反映出单个矿源的“指示特征”。在其具体地点得到确认之前，我们暂时将其称为“白头山组”。

讨论：东北亚地区史前黑曜岩的交换网络

目前，俄罗斯远东及周邻地区和西伯利亚东北部已经建立起了几个大规模的（以黑曜岩为商品的）交换网络。这些地区的黑曜岩大多集中开采利用于石器时代，包括旧石器时代晚期（约3.8万至1.2万年前）和新石器时代（约1.2万至3000年前）。在青铜时代和早期铁器时代（约3000-1500年前），除堪察加半岛和东西伯利亚的北极地区以外，黑曜岩已经失去了作为原料的价值。

在俄罗斯远东地区南部的大陆部分和周邻地区，研究人员重建了三个黑曜岩交换网络，分别以什科托沃高原、厄布拉齐高原和白头山的矿源为中心。虽然来自什科托沃高原和白头山的黑曜岩广泛分布在包括滨海省、朝鲜半岛、中国东北和阿穆尔河盆地的范围内，但是厄布拉齐高原的黑曜岩只供应阿穆尔河盆地。从矿源到滨海省和阿穆尔河盆地的产品消费地点的直线距离从几公里到660-700公里不等。白头山黑曜岩交换网络覆盖更广，从矿源到遗址的距离可达800公里。我们可以很有把握地说，来自日本群岛的黑曜岩，除了阿穆尔河下游和朝鲜半岛的最南端以外，几乎从未到达过东北亚大陆。在俄罗斯远东地区本土北部的堪察加半岛，现在也可以重建起几个黑曜岩交换网络，从矿源到使用地点的直线距离可达600-650公里。

在俄罗斯远东南部岛屿区域—库页岛和千岛群岛上，黑曜岩的主要来源是北海道的白瀧和置戸。来自白瀧的黑曜岩在大陆本土（阿穆尔河下游）也有发现，早在约8000年前就已到达那里。从北海道矿源地到消费地点的直线距离在某些实例中超过1000公里。 而在千岛群岛上，已经可以确认使用了来自堪察加半岛几处矿源的黑曜岩，最远距离可达1400-1500公里。

在西伯利亚东北部（楚科奇和周邻地区），来自克拉斯诺湖的黑曜岩传播到了楚科奇地区以外的地方，一直延伸到科里亚克高地、科累马河和印地吉尔卡河流域、西伯利亚高纬度北极地区和阿拉斯加。在某些情况下，从矿源到消费地点的直线距离超过1000公里。 从该地区获得的最新数据采集自高纬度北极地区（北纬76度）的若霍夫遗址（Zhokhov site），该遗址属于中石器时代，年代约距今8800前。 对14件文物进行的产源研究表明，所有这些人工制品的原料均来自克拉斯诺湖（Pitulko et al. 2019）。 矿源和遗址之间的直线距离约为1500公里； 考虑到人类活动时期北冰洋的海岸线位置，距离可能在2000公里左右。

在世界范围内，关于考古发现中黑曜岩获取和利用的研究中，最重要的课题之一便是人们如何从遥远地方获取原材料。在俄罗斯远东地区南部，经由河流运输，黑曜岩卵岩最远可达距矿源30-50公里的下游。今天我们能够认识到史前人类对黑曜岩的长距离移动已经大大超出了自然力量的输送范围，这在俄罗斯东部和东北部地区都有证据。因此关于这种优质原材料的交换问题十分重要。20世纪60年代在地中海和近东进行的研究（Renfrew 1975）创造了史前贸易/交换的概念。这一概念的核心内涵包括：1）供应区，以使用地点为中心，半径最大可达300公里，原材料中黑曜岩的比例可达80%；2）供应区以外的接触区，由于距离较远，接触区的居民不易从产源获取黑曜岩，而是与供给区居民进行交换（交易），黑曜岩的占比在30-40%到0.1%之间。

在俄罗斯东部和东北亚周邻地区的很多实例中，考古所见黑曜岩与产源地之间的直线距离均在约 300公里以上，远远超出了接触区的范围。这证明发达的交易/贸易网络必定存在，尤其是在西伯利亚东北部，来自克拉斯诺河的黑曜岩分布广泛，最远距离可达约2000–2250公里。如果没有原始贸易和/或交换，是不可能维持从如此遥远的地区获取黑曜岩资源的。

以若霍夫遗址为例，黑曜岩被用来制造细石叶。尽管在遗址似乎发现有细石叶的加工行为，但并未发现石核。 因此，黑曜岩是以半成品形式（石核和石叶）出现在若霍夫遗址的。在科累马河流域也观察到了类似的模式，那里几乎所有的黑曜岩制品都是石叶、石叶碎片和石片。 因为对于这两个地区而言，黑曜岩都是一种从很远的地方（到传播最后一站的直线距离至少超过约800公里）带来的“外来”原料，所以它们的交换是以预制石核和工具的形式，而不是未加工的形态来进行的。

千岛群岛的黑曜岩交换网络证明了超远距离运输原材料的可能，这有赖于东北亚部分地区在约1万年前就开始的海路运输才得以实现。在东北亚的其他地区，我们已知借助海路运输黑曜岩的行为可到更早：在距今约3.8年的日本本州岛，以及距今约2.8–3万年的韩国最南部。前者，矿源位于距本州岛中部海岸50公里的小津岛上。而后者，矿源则是九州岛北部的腰岳（Koshidake）。

对若霍夫遗址，以及西伯利亚东北部，尤其是科累马河流域的其他考古遗址黑曜岩的产源研究，进一步证明了原材料的超远距离运输的存在。这也证明了在西伯利亚北极地区中石器时代，人类的活动半径是非常大的，可以覆盖约4百万平方公里的广大地域。

结论

在过去的25-30年中，俄罗斯东部的黑曜岩产源研究取得了重大进展。重建了俄罗斯远东地区南部和周邻地区（日本群岛，朝鲜半岛和中国东北）黑曜岩的史前交换/贸易的主要网络。俄罗斯远东地区北部（堪察加半岛）和西伯利亚东北部还需进一步的工作。

在此之前，我们缺乏科学的方法来探究古代人类的迁徙和交流。而今，我们已经掌握了东北亚史前人类互动的规模和周期。到目前为止，所有的数据都证实远古时代交换网络的存在可以早到旧石器时代晚期（约距今3.8-2.5万年）。这些信息对于近期把北美最早的先民和日本岛联系起来这一仍有争议的尝试也具有重要意义（见Davis et al. 2019）。

还应强调的是，只有对黑曜岩原料的地质考古学研究才能提供史前东北亚人类大规模互动和迁徙的确凿证据。基于石器和陶器类型学的考古学方法，不能为我们提供有关这些问题的明确信息。因此，在俄罗斯东部及其周边地区进行的黑曜岩产源研究是对所谓“成功故事”的良好实践（参见Williams-Thorpe1995）。

个人履历：

雅罗斯拉夫·库兹明(1991年获得博士学位；2007年获得科学博士学位)是俄罗斯科学院西伯利亚分院索博列夫地质与矿物学研究所的首席研究员；还供职于托木斯克州立大学中生代和新生代大陆生态系统研究室。自1979年以来，他的主要研究领域是地质考古学，即自然科学（地质学、地理学、生物学等)在考古学中的应用。俄罗斯远东地区、西伯利亚东北部、和东北亚的周邻地区(日本,韩国,和中国东北)的黑曜石产源研究是他近25年主要活跃的研究领域之一，与来自俄罗斯、美国、日本、韩国和英国的同事进行了密切的合作。他曾在北美、亚洲和欧洲的多所大学授课，在亚利桑那大学和密苏里大学哥伦比亚分校(均在美国)工作过较长的时间。他获得过多个机构的研究奖金，包括富布莱特奖学金项目、全球民用研究发展基金会（CRDF）和国际研究与交流委员会（IREX）(美国)；日本国际交流基金会、日本科学促进会(日本)；和韩国国际交流财团(韩国)等。雅罗斯拉夫·库兹明和其他学者一同编纂过3部书、14卷、及其他杂志特刊；他还在国际专业期刊上发表过超过200多篇论文。他是剑桥大学出版社《放射性碳》杂志的副主编。他还在2015年获得了俄罗斯斯高帕斯奖，以表彰其在俄罗斯地球科学领域的最佳出版物记录（2010-2014）。

Background, Methods, and Materials

Science-based research on the provenance of artefacts made of waterless volcanic glass, called obsidian, began in the Mediterranean region in the 1960s (CANN AND RENFREW 1964), and quickly spread to the Americas, Europe, East Africa, Oceania, and East and Southeast Asia. Obsidian was a highly desirable lithic raw material because of the sharpness of its edges when chipped from rock; and its homogeneous texture allowed producing tools of the needed shape and size. It is well known that prehistoric people often acquired obsidian from faraway sources. Therefore, the establishment of primary localities for obsidian artefacts is very important for understanding the patterns of ancient interactions and contacts. There is a growing understanding in the global scientific community of the need to intensify obsidian provenance research, and two international obsidian conferences were recently organised on Lipari Island (Tyrrhenian Sea off Sicily, Italy) (2016) and in eastern Hungary (2019). Lipari Island is well known because one of the most important obsidian sources in the western Mediterranean region is located here.

As it turned out, almost every source of obsidian has a unique “geochemical portrait (signature)” (i.e., the content of several chemical elements) which can be determined using a variety of analytical methods. This is why obsidian source studies are very successful by providing unequivocal evidence for the use of specific lithic resources, and this in turn gives first-hand information about the scale and directions of prehistoric exchange / trade.

Some parts of the world, where ancient obsidian artefacts are found, were not well studied for provenance purposes until the 1990s. Such regions include the far eastern and northeastern parts of modern Russia, namely Primorye (Maritime) Province, the Amur River basin, Sakhalin Island, the Kurile Islands, Kamchatka Peninsula, the basins of the Kolyma and Indigirka rivers, the Chukotka region and the High Arctic. Our research group began studies in these territories in 1992, in close collaboration with scholars from USA, Japan, and South Korea, and recently from the UK.

The identification of obsidian sources for archaeological materials has been conducted by comparison of the geochemical composition of obsidians (mainly using the numerous trace elements with very low content) between the primary sources and archaeological assemblages. It is extremely important to obtain and interpret geochemical data with the help of uniform analytical methods and standards. In our case, all measurements for eastern and northeastern Russian obsidians were performed at the Research Reactor Center of the University of Missouri (Columbia, MO, USA), using the same equipment and methodology. This makes it possible to carry out a direct comparison of the results obtained for both primary (“geological”) locales of obsidian and artefacts.

The two main analytical techniques employed for the geochemical analysis of obsidian in eastern Russia by our Russian–US group since 1992 are: 1) Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA); and 2) X-ray Fluorescence (XRF). We initially identified the geochemical groups for a few dozen obsidian artefacts from Primorye Province and the Amur River basin in 1992, using XRF and NAA. Afterwards, all major primary sources of obsidian in these regions were examined by NAA, determining the content of 28 elements with high precision (one part-per-million, or 10-4 %). The works continued on Kamchatka Peninsula since 2005, and in Northeastern Siberia since 2009, using the same approach. Along with source samples, the geochemical composition of ca. 1300 artefacts from all these regions was determined by our group using both XRF and abridged NAA. Today, the geochemical characteristics of all major primary sources of obsidian in eastern Russia are securely established by NAA and XRF techniques. Different analytical methods ¾ Proton-Induced X-ray Emission (PIXE) and Proton-Induced Gamma-ray Emission (PIGME), portable XRF, and a laser ablation version of the Inductively Coupled Plasma – Mass Spectrometry (LA–ICP–MS) ¾ were used by other research groups.

Upon receiving the geochemical data, common groups for sources and archaeological samples were identified using statistical methods (see GLASCOCK ET AL. 1998). This made it possible to determine with a high degree of reliability from where the ancient people acquired obsidian. As of late 2019, about 3100 obsidian samples from far eastern and northeastern Russia, as well as from adjacent parts of Northeast Asia (Korean Peninsula and Northeast China), were analysed by several researchers. This dataset is the basis for our interpretation of obsidian provenance in the entire region of Northeast Asia.

Results: Major Obsidian Sources in Eastern Russia and Adjacent Regions

In the southernmost part of mainland Russian Far East (Primorye Province), the main primary source of obsidian is the Shkotovo (Basaltic) Plateau. High quality volcanic glass is associated here with basic rocks (basalts and andesite-basalts). During the eruption of molten basalt, pillow lavas were formed at the contact of the hot basalt mass and relatively cold land surface represented by either solid sediments or water. Due to the rapid cooling of the lava, spherical (“pillow-shaped”) bodies with a diameter of 1–5 m were created, and the surface layer of pillow lava consists of volcanic glass. Obsidian on the Shkotovo Plateau is present in the form of hyaloclastites, a material formed during the fragmentation of the glassy outer part of pillow lava blocks. In the Amur River basin, located north of Primorye Province, the primary source of volcanic glass is known from the Obluchie Plateau where it is confined to basaltic hyaloclastites, similar to the Shkotovo Plateau.

The Kamchatka Peninsula in the northern part of mainland Russian Far East is one of the few regions in the world with a high concentration of obsidian sources, along with the Japanese Islands and Mesoamerica. In all these parts of the globe, obsidian is genetically related to the volcanism of the subduction zones. Obsidian sources on Kamchatka are usually lava flows, extrusive (embedded in other rocks) bodies and pyroclastic flows. Due to the logistical difficulties of carrying out fieldwork on Kamchatka (lack of roads and settlements), only 16 primary obsidian sources out of 30 to 40 known locales have been studied so far.

In the northernmost part of eastern Russia, also called Northeastern Siberia, the only source of obsidian is known in the Chukotka region, on the bank of Lake Krasnoe in the Anadyr River valley. Here obsidian is a part of the rhyolites of the volcanic belt, and it exists as pebbles and small boulders on the eastern shore of the lake; perhaps, the primary source is currently located under water and is not accessible without scuba diving.

On Hokkaido Island of Japan, around 17 primary obsidian sources consisting of 17–20 geochemical groups are currently known, and all of them are situated in a volcanic arc setting (subduction zone). Our group conducted analyses of two major obsidian sources, Shirataki and Oketo; and also two other locales, Akaigawa and Tokachi-Mitsumata. On the Korean Peninsula, the primary obsidian source of alkaline composition is situated in the region around the modern Paektusan Volcano. For a long time, our knowledge was based exclusively on archaeological materials, and only a handful of “geological” samples (with unknown exact location) were available to us. All these data testify in favour of a single geochemical group, which reflects the “signature” of one primary source. We are tentatively calling it “Paektusan”, before its exact localisation is securely established.

Discussion: Prehistoric Obsidian Exchange Networks in Northeast Asia

Currently, the existence of several large-scale exchange systems has been established (using obsidian as a commodity) for the Russian Far East and adjacent regions, and for Northeastern Siberia. Obsidian in these regions was most intensively exploited in the Stone Age, the Upper Palaeolithic (ca. 38,000–12,000 years ago) and the Neolithic (ca. 12,000–3000 years ago). In the Bronze and Early Iron ages (ca. 3000–1500 years ago), the value of obsidian as a raw material almost vanished except for Kamchatka and the eastern Siberian Arctic.

In the mainland part of the southern Russian Far East and in adjacent regions, three obsidian exchange networks have been reconstructed, centered around the sources of the Shkotovo and Obluchie plateaus, and the Paektusan Volcano. While obsidian from the Shkotovo Plateau and the Paektusan sources is widely distributed in the region, including Primorye Province, the Korean Peninsula, Northeast China, and the Amur River basin, the Obluchie Plateau supplied only the Amur River basin. The distances from the sources to the utlisation sites in Primorye and the Amur River basin ranges from a few kilometres to 660–700 km in a straight line. The Paektusan obsidian network is even larger, with distances up to 800 km from source to sites. One can now confidently say that obsidian from sources in the Japanese Islands almost never reached the mainland of Northeast Asia, except the lower Amur River basin and the southernmost part of the Korean Peninsula. In the Kamchatka Peninsula of the northern mainland Russian Far East, it is now possible to reconstruct several obsidian exchange networks, with distances from sources to utilisation sites of up to 600–650 km in a straight line.

In insular southern Russian Far East ¾ Sakhalin Island and the Kurile Islands ¾ the main obsidian sources were the Shirataki and Oketo locales on Hokkaido Island. Obsidian from the Shirataki source was also detected in the mainland (lower reaches of the Amur River), and it was brought there ca. 8000 years ago. The distance from the Hokkaido sources to the utilisation sites in some cases exceeds 1000 km in a straight line. For the Kurile Islands, the use of obsidian from several Kamchatkan sources has been established, with distances of up to 1400–1500 km as the crow flies.

In Northeastern Siberia (Chukotka and adjacent areas), obsidian from the Lake Krasnoe source spread far beyond Chukotka – to the Koryak Upland, the basins of the Kolyma and Indigirka rivers, the Siberian High Arctic and Alaska. The distance from the source to the utilisation sites in some cases exceeds 1000 km in a straight line. The latest data from this region were obtained for the Zhokhov site in the High Arctic (76° N latitude), which belongs to the Mesolithic, dated to ca. 8800 years ago. Provenance study of 14 artefacts shows that the raw material of all of them originated from the Lake Krasnoe source (PITULKO ET AL. 2019). The straight distance between site and the source is ca. 1500 km; considering the coastline of the Arctic Ocean at the time of human occupation, it would be ca. 2000 km.

In studies of the acquisition and use of archaeological obsidian worldwide, one the most important topics is the mechanism for acquiring raw material from remote sources. In the southern Russian Far East, the travel distance of obsidian pebbles transported by rivers is up to 30–50 km downstream from the source. Because today the presence of the long-distance movement of obsidian by prehistoric people, which greatly exceeds the range of obsidian transport by natural agents, is well established for eastern and northeastern Russia, the issues related to exchange of this high-quality raw material are of great significance. Studies done in the Mediterranean and the Near East in the 1960s (RENFREW 1975) allowed the creation of the concept of prehistoric trade / exchange. The main components of this concept are: 1) a supply zone, with a radius of up to 300 km from the centre where the utilisation site is located, with the share of obsidian in the composition of the raw materials up to 80%; and 2) a contact zone beyond the supply zone, inhabitants of which could not easily visit the sources of obsidian due to the large distance, and they exchanged (traded) obsidian with people of the supply zone; the share of obsidian ranges from 30–40% to 0.1%.

In many cases for eastern Russia and neighbouring regions of Northeast Asia, the archaeological obsidians are separated from the primary sources by distances greater than ca. 300 km, well beyond the contact zone. This is evidence of well-developed exchange / trade networks, especially in Northeastern Siberia where the raw material from an obsidian source of Lake Krasnoe was spread over an enormously large area, with distances between end points of up to ca. 2000–2250 km. It would be impossible to maintain the acquisition of obsidian from so remote a source without primitive trade and/or exchange.

Using the Zhokhov site as a case study, one can conclude that obsidian was used for making microblades. No obsidian cores were found, although it seems that microblade manufacture occurred at the site. Therefore, obsidian appeared at the Zhokhov site in a semi-ready form (cores and blades); a similar pattern is observed in the Kolyma River basin where almost all obsidian artefacts are blades, blade fragments and flakes. Because for both regions obsidian as an “exotic” raw material was brought from far away (at least ca. 800 km in a straight line on the last leg of travel), the exchange of it was carried out as ready cores and tools rather than un-worked pieces.

The obsidian exchange networks of the Kurile Islands testify to the super-long transport of raw materials, and the existence of them would be impossible without the use of watercraft in this part of Northeast Asia from ca. 10,000 years ago onwards. In other regions of Northeast Asia, the movement of obsidian from primary sources with the help of some kind of seagoing transport is now known even earlier: at ca. 38,000 years ago on Honshu Island of Japan, and at ca. 28,000–30,000 years ago in southernmost Korea. As for the former, the source is situated on the small islet of Kozu-jima ca. 50 km off the shore of central part of Honshu Island. As for the latter, the main supplier was the Koshidake source in northern Kyushu Island.

The provenance of obsidian from the Zhokhov site along with some other archaeological localities in Northeastern Siberia, especially in the Kolyma River basin, is further evidence of super-long-distance transport of raw material. It also shows that the size of the human interaction sphere in the Mesolithic of the Siberian Arctic was very large, up to ca. 4,000,000 km2.

Conclusions

Over the course of the last 25–30 years, significant progress has been achieved in obsidian provenance research in eastern Russia. The main networks of prehistoric exchange / trade of obsidian were reconstructed in both continental and insular parts of the southern Russian Far East and neighbouring regions – Japanese Islands, Korean Peninsula, and Northeast China. More work is underway in the northern part of the Russian Far East (Kamchatka Peninsula) and in Northeastern Siberia.

Today, we have secure information about the size and timing of prehistoric human interactions in Northeast Asia; this kind of knowledge did not exist previously because of the absence of science-based methods to investigate movements and contact of ancient populations. All available data so far provide evidence about the existence of exchange networks in deep antiquity, since the Upper Palaeolithic (ca. 38,000–25,000 years ago). This information is also important in the light of a recent controversial attempt to connect the origin of the earliest inhabitants of North America to the Japanese Islands (see DAVIS ET AL. 2019).

It should be highlighted that only geoarchaeological studies of obsidian raw material are able to provide solid evidence of large-scale interaction and movements of people in prehistoric Northeast Asia. Archaeological approaches, based primarily on the typology of lithic artefacts and pottery, cannot give us unequivocal information about these issues. Therefore, obsidian provenance research in eastern Russia and around it is a good example of a “success story” (sensu WILLIAMS-THORPE 1995).

Biographic Sketch

Yaroslav V. Kuzmin (Ph.D. 1991; D.Sc. 2007) is a Leading Researcher at the Sobolev Institute of Geology and Mineralogy, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk (Russia); he is also affiliated with the Laboratory of Mesozoic and Cenozoic Continental Ecosystems, at Tomsk State University, Tomsk (Russia). His major research field since 1979 is geoarchaeology – the application of the natural sciences (geology, geography, biology, etc.) to archaeology. Provenance studies of archaeological obsidian in the Russian Far East, Northeastern Siberia and the neighbouring regions of Northeast Asia (Japan, Korea, and Northeast China) has been one of his main activities for more than 25 years, conducted in close cooperation with colleagues from Russia, USA, Japan, South Korea, and UK. He has lectured at several universities in North America, Asia and Europe, with longer stays at the University of Arizona and the University of Missouri – Columbia (both in the USA). He has received several research fellowships from different agencies, including Fulbright Program, CRDF and IREX (USA); The Japan Foundation, Japan Society for Promotion of Science (Japan); and Korea Foundation (South Korea). Yaroslav V. Kuzmin is the author of three books and 14 volumes and special issues of journals edited by him along with other scholars; he has also published more than 200 papers in international peer-reviewed journals. He is an Associate Editor of the journal Radiocarbon (currently published by Cambridge University Press). He received the Scopus Award 2015 Russia for the best record of publications in the field of Earth sciences in Russia (2010–2014).