Yedoma Ledger: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox | {{Infobox | ||
| name = Yenoma Ledger | | name = Yenoma Ledger | ||
| image = Yenoma Ledger.jpg | | image = Yenoma Ledger.jpg | ||
| caption = Plaque with incised geometric registers | | caption = Plaque with incised geometric registers | ||
| 1 Material = Mammoth ivory (''Mammuthus primigenius'') | | 1 Material = [[Ivory|Mammoth ivory]] (''[[Woolly mammoth|Mammuthus primigenius]]'') | ||
| 2 Writing = Geometric incisions | | 2 Writing = Geometric incisions | ||
| 3 Created = Substrate plausibly Last Interglacial (~125 ka); age of carving undetermined | | 3 Created = Substrate plausibly Last Interglacial (~125 ka); age of carving undetermined | ||
| 4 Discovered_place = Lower Indigirka basin, northeast Siberia (Russia) | | 4 Discovered_place = Lower [[Indigirka River|Indigirka]] basin, northeast [[Siberia]] (Russia) | ||
| 5 Discovered_date = Late August (year per preliminary report) | | 5 Discovered_date = Late August (year per preliminary report) | ||
| 6 Present_location = Regional heritage authority | | 6 Present_location = Regional heritage authority | ||
| 7 Dimensions = ~216 × 54 × 39 mm; ~486 g | | 7 Dimensions = ~216 × 54 × 39 mm; ~486 g | ||
}} | }} | ||
The '''Yenoma Ledger''' is a worked plaque of mammoth ivory reportedly recovered from | The '''Yenoma Ledger''' is a worked plaque of mammoth ivory reportedly recovered from [[permafrost]] in the lower Indigirka region of northeast Siberia. The object was discovered and handled in the field by a small team led by [[J. Levi Schültke]] during a rapid-impact survey of thaw gullies commissioned to document erosion threats to organic artefacts; Schültke’s group was engaged for its prior experience with cold-chain recovery and identification of proboscidean ivory.<ref name="Schueltke2021">J. Levi Schültke, ''A Mammoth-Ivory Plaque with Geometric Incisions from Northeast Siberia: Discovery, Context, and Materials Analysis'' (preliminary field and materials report, Seminar für Archäologie der Periglazialzonen, 2021).</ref> Its carved surface shows parallel bands of straight and oblique incisions, including chevrons and cross-hatching. The preliminary report describes controlled cold-chain recovery and non-destructive documentation but does not advance a cultural attribution or secure the age of the carving itself.<ref name="Schueltke2021" /> | ||
== Discovery and context == | == Discovery and context == | ||
According to the report, the plaque was noticed in a thaw gully within ice-rich loess ( | According to the report, the plaque was noticed by the team in a thaw gully within ice-rich loess ([[Yedoma]]) and recovered with surrounding sediment using bagged blocks and refrigerated transport overseen by the regional heritage authority.<ref name="Schueltke2021" /> Yedoma sequences in Siberia are known to preserve Late Pleistocene faunal remains and organic materials that can be reworked by [[thermokarst]] processes, complicating archaeological context.<ref name="Schirrmeister2022">Lutz Schirrmeister, “Yedoma Permafrost Landscapes as Past Archives and Future Change Hotspots,” ''Frontiers in Earth Science'' 10 (2022): 929873, [https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2022.929873](https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2022.929873).</ref> | ||
.</ref> | |||
== Description == | == Description == | ||
The object follows the natural camber of tusk ivory and presents a prepared, flatter face with multiple incised registers bounded by guide lines. Identification as mammoth ivory is supported by observation of Schreger | The object follows the natural camber of tusk ivory and presents a prepared, flatter face with multiple incised registers bounded by guide lines. Identification as mammoth ivory is supported by observation of [[Schreger lines]], a standard criterion in proboscidean ivory analysis.<ref name="CITES2020">“Identification Guide for Ivory and Ivory Substitutes,” CITES (2020), [https://cites.org/sites/default/files/ID_Manuals/Identification_Guide_for_Ivory_and_Ivory_Substitutes_ENGLISH.pdf](https://cites.org/sites/default/files/ID_Manuals/Identification_Guide_for_Ivory_and_Ivory_Substitutes_ENGLISH.pdf).</ref> | ||
.</ref> | |||
== Dating == | == Dating == | ||
Screening methods reported include FTIR for collagen/mineral preservation, amino | Screening methods reported include FTIR for collagen/mineral preservation, [[amino acid racemization]] (AAR) on a detached lamella, and [[optically stimulated luminescence]] (OSL) on associated sediment. These results are consistent with an ancient Pleistocene substrate but do not directly date the carving. Open-system behavior in bones and dentine limits the reliability of some radiometric approaches; targeted dating of incision surfaces has not yet been published.<ref name="Schueltke2021" /><ref name="Penkman2022">K. Penkman, “Dating the Paleolithic: trapped charge and amino acid geochronology,” ''Evolutionary Anthropology'' 31, no. 5 (2022): 203–222, [https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.21958](https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.21958).</ref><ref name="Lian2006">O. B. Lian, “Dating the Quaternary: progress in luminescence dating,” ''Quaternary Science Reviews'' 25, nos. 19–20 (2006): 2449–2468, [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2005.11.013](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2005.11.013).</ref> | ||
.</ref><ref name="Lian2006">O. B. Lian, “Dating the Quaternary: progress in luminescence dating,” ''Quaternary Science Reviews'' 25, nos. 19–20 (2006): 2449–2468, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2005.11.013 | |||
.</ref> | |||
== Interpretation == | == Interpretation == | ||
| Line 31: | Line 27: | ||
== Significance == | == Significance == | ||
The find highlights both the potential and the difficulties of researching artefacts emerging from rapidly changing permafrost landscapes. It has been noted in discussions of best practice for recovery, minimal-intervention conservation (e.g. reversible consolidants), and multi-modal imaging | The find highlights both the potential and the difficulties of researching artefacts emerging from rapidly changing permafrost landscapes. It has been noted in discussions of best practice for recovery, minimal-intervention conservation (e.g. reversible consolidants), and multi-modal imaging such as [[reflectance transformation imaging]] in Arctic and sub-Arctic contexts.<ref name="Schueltke2021" /><ref name="HE2016">Historic England, ''Multi-Light Imaging for Heritage Applications (incl. H-RTI)'' (2016), [https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/multi-light-imaging-heritage-applications/](https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/multi-light-imaging-heritage-applications/).</ref> | ||
.</ref> | |||
== See also == | == See also == | ||
* [[Yedoma]] | * [[Yedoma]] | ||
* [[ | * [[Woolly mammoth]] | ||
* [[Pleistocene archaeology]] | * [[Pleistocene archaeology]] | ||
* [[Reflectance transformation imaging]] | * [[Reflectance transformation imaging]] | ||
| Line 43: | Line 38: | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
[[Category:Klema]] | |||
Latest revision as of 13:58, 24 October 2025
| Yenoma Ledger | |
|---|---|
 Plaque with incised geometric registers | |
| Material | Mammoth ivory (Mammuthus primigenius) |
| Writing | Geometric incisions |
| Created | Substrate plausibly Last Interglacial (~125 ka); age of carving undetermined |
| Discovered place | Lower Indigirka basin, northeast Siberia (Russia) |
| Discovered date | Late August (year per preliminary report) |
| Present location | Regional heritage authority |
| Dimensions | ~216 × 54 × 39 mm; ~486 g |
The Yenoma Ledger is a worked plaque of mammoth ivory reportedly recovered from permafrost in the lower Indigirka region of northeast Siberia. The object was discovered and handled in the field by a small team led by J. Levi Schültke during a rapid-impact survey of thaw gullies commissioned to document erosion threats to organic artefacts; Schültke’s group was engaged for its prior experience with cold-chain recovery and identification of proboscidean ivory.[1] Its carved surface shows parallel bands of straight and oblique incisions, including chevrons and cross-hatching. The preliminary report describes controlled cold-chain recovery and non-destructive documentation but does not advance a cultural attribution or secure the age of the carving itself.[1]
Discovery and context
According to the report, the plaque was noticed by the team in a thaw gully within ice-rich loess (Yedoma) and recovered with surrounding sediment using bagged blocks and refrigerated transport overseen by the regional heritage authority.[1] Yedoma sequences in Siberia are known to preserve Late Pleistocene faunal remains and organic materials that can be reworked by thermokarst processes, complicating archaeological context.[2]
Description
The object follows the natural camber of tusk ivory and presents a prepared, flatter face with multiple incised registers bounded by guide lines. Identification as mammoth ivory is supported by observation of Schreger lines, a standard criterion in proboscidean ivory analysis.[3]
Dating
Screening methods reported include FTIR for collagen/mineral preservation, amino acid racemization (AAR) on a detached lamella, and optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) on associated sediment. These results are consistent with an ancient Pleistocene substrate but do not directly date the carving. Open-system behavior in bones and dentine limits the reliability of some radiometric approaches; targeted dating of incision surfaces has not yet been published.[1][4][5]
Interpretation
Published descriptions remain neutral and descriptive; no consensus interpretation (notation, decoration, or other function) has been advanced. Pending secure dating and replication studies, the Yenoma Ledger is cited as a candidate example of worked ivory from permafrost context rather than as evidence for a particular symbolic system.[1]
Significance
The find highlights both the potential and the difficulties of researching artefacts emerging from rapidly changing permafrost landscapes. It has been noted in discussions of best practice for recovery, minimal-intervention conservation (e.g. reversible consolidants), and multi-modal imaging such as reflectance transformation imaging in Arctic and sub-Arctic contexts.[1][6]
See also
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 J. Levi Schültke, A Mammoth-Ivory Plaque with Geometric Incisions from Northeast Siberia: Discovery, Context, and Materials Analysis (preliminary field and materials report, Seminar für Archäologie der Periglazialzonen, 2021).
- ↑ Lutz Schirrmeister, “Yedoma Permafrost Landscapes as Past Archives and Future Change Hotspots,” Frontiers in Earth Science 10 (2022): 929873, [1](https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2022.929873).
- ↑ “Identification Guide for Ivory and Ivory Substitutes,” CITES (2020), [2](https://cites.org/sites/default/files/ID_Manuals/Identification_Guide_for_Ivory_and_Ivory_Substitutes_ENGLISH.pdf).
- ↑ K. Penkman, “Dating the Paleolithic: trapped charge and amino acid geochronology,” Evolutionary Anthropology 31, no. 5 (2022): 203–222, [3](https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.21958).
- ↑ O. B. Lian, “Dating the Quaternary: progress in luminescence dating,” Quaternary Science Reviews 25, nos. 19–20 (2006): 2449–2468, [4](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2005.11.013).
- ↑ Historic England, Multi-Light Imaging for Heritage Applications (incl. H-RTI) (2016), [5](https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/multi-light-imaging-heritage-applications/).