142 Documenta Praehistorica XLVIII (2021) Introduction The majority of researchers use instrumental meth- ods of dating to determine the timing of archaeo- logical events. However, the possibilities for apply- ing them are far more comprehensive, and we sug- gest that they should become part of the critique of archaeological evidence and independent expertise for ideas relating to prehistory. Meanwhile, as users of external data, the archaeologists must have confi- dence in their reliability, which must be proven. Many studies are devoted to this problem where re- searchers propose criteria for objective evaluation of radiocarbon age determinations of archaeological events. Since the problem was first raised in 1971 (Waterbolk 1971), researchers have attempted to im- prove the accuracy of such estimations and adapt the criteria for the study of materials of specific regions and periods (Rick 1987; Spriggs 1989; Pettitt 2003; Graf 2009; Seitsonen et al. 2012). However, in Rus- ABSTRACT – The paper is devoted to the critical analysis of the radiocarbon dating results of Meso- lithic, Neolithic and Chalcolithic complexes of the northeastern part of the East European Plain (Re- public of Komi, Arkhangelsk and Vologda Regions and the Nenets Autonomous Area, Russian Fede- ration). The comprehensive evaluation of all available geochronometric data in relation with the studied archaeological events highlighted the following three data sets: reliable, ambiguous and in- valid dates. A new chronological model of Far Northeast of Europe colonization and dispersal of in- novations over the Holocene is proposed based upon reliable radiocarbon dating results. IZVLE∞EK – ∞lanek je posve≠en kriti≠ni analizi rezultatov radiokarbonskega datiranja mezolitskih, neolitskih in halkolitskih kompleksov iz obmo≠ja severovzhodnega dela Vzhodnoevropskega ni∫avja (Republika Komi, regiji Arkhangelsk in Vologda ter avtonomno okro∫je Nenets, Ruska federacija). S celovito oceno vseh razpolo∫ljivih geokronometri≠nih podatkov, v povezavi s preu≠enimi arheolo∏ki- mi dogodki, izpostavljamo naslednje tri podatkovne zbire: zanesljive, dvoumne in neveljavne datu- me. Na podlagi zanesljivih rezultatov radiokarbonskih datumov predlagamo nov kronolo∏ki model kolonizacije raziskovalnega obmo≠ja in razpr∏itve inovacij v holocenu. KEY WORDS – Mesolithic; Neolithic; Chalcolithic; Northeastern Europe; radiocarbon dating KLJU∞NE BESEDE – mezolitik; neolitik; halkolitik; severovzhodna Evropa; radiokarbonsko datiranje Radiokarbonsko datiranje holocenskih arheolo[kih najdi[; na skrajnem severovzhodu Evrope> obseg in omejitve nadregionalne baze podatkov DOI> 10.4312\dp.48.23 Radiocarbon dating of Holocene archaeological sites in the Far Northeast of Europe> scopes and limits of a supraregional database Victor N. Karmanov1, Nataliya E. Zaretskaya2,3 1 Institute of Language, Literature and History of Komi Science Center, Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, RU< vkarman@bk.ru 2 Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, RU 3 Geological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, RU< n_zaretskaya@inbox.ru Radiocarbon dating of Holocene archaeological sites in the Far Northeast of Europe> scopes and limits of a supraregional database 143 ed using other natural sciences?; (iv) how do archa- eologists interpret these dates? Geographical and historical backgrounds The territory under consideration includes the fol- lowing regions of the Russian Federation: the Komi Republic, the eastern part of the Arkhangelsk Re- gion, and the Nenets Autonomous Area. To extend the factual basis of our research, we also use data from the regions adjacent to the territory mentioned above, particularly the northeastern part of the Vo- logda Region (Fig. 1). The approximate area of the region under study is 700 000km2. The FNE is a territory between the Barents and White Seas, the Ural Mountains, the Northern Hills, and the Severnaya Dvina River’s right bank. The north- ernmost part of the region is located in the tundra zone; the southern part is confined to the northern and middle taiga. Geomorphologically, most of the region is located in the northeast of East European Plain, while the foothills of the Ural Mountains rep- resent its eastern edge. The known archaeological assemblages are found exclusively in the taiga zone, occupied predomi- nantly by primary forests (about 60%), bogs (about 14%) and a dense river network of three river ba- sins: the Pechora, the Mezen and the Severnaya Dvi- na with the Vychegda, but very few lakes. The total area of the lakes is 450 000 hectares, which is 0.1% of the entire territory of the region. According to the palaeogeographic data, during both Boreal and Atlantic periods the FNE was a part of the dark-coniferous taiga, and only the boundaries of landscape subzones – middle and southern taiga (Nikiforova 1982.154–162) – shifted, or the vege- tation cover structure changed mainly due to quan- titative redistribution within the coniferous species group (Smirnova 1971). For detailed information on the relationship between FNE Mesolithic coloni- zation and the natural environment (see Volokitin, Gribchenko 2017.75–104). In recent years, an interdisciplinary study has shown that the surfaces occupied by archaeological sites result from the impact of winds in the river valleys (Karmanov et al. 2013). Aeolian ridges and fields cover the alluvial landscape and bedrocks, either flattening them or elevating the relief of floodplain ridges and levees while creating new dunes and de- flation hollows. sian archaeology, noteworthy studies in this direction are poorly represented (i.e. Kuzmin, Tankerslay 1996; Kuzmin, Keates 2005; Kuzmin 2009; 2010; Seitsonen et al. 2012; Zazovskaya 2016), and for some regions and periods are completely absent. Al- though sequences of dates are published regularly, the primary reaction to them is blind faith in the nu- meric values obtained by scientific methods and an unfounded, often emotional conclusion about the cor- respondence or inconsistency of new data with archa- eological concepts: ‘good or bad’, ‘acceptable or unac- ceptable’ dates. The dated material goes through a complicated path with obvious and uncertain influ- ences from prehistoric individuals to the 14C date, so the rationale for the result should be complex, consi- dering all determinable factors (see below for details). In this work, we have turned to identify opportuni- ties and restrictions of radiocarbon dating of Holo- cene materials from the Mesolithic to the Chalcoli- thic in the Far Northeast of Europe (hereafter FNE). Archaeological periods are defined according to Rus- sian (Soviet) research traditions and current regio- nal data. The beginning of the Mesolithic is associat- ed with the formation of modern postglacial land- scapes (around 11.7 ka BP); the Mesolithic/Neolithic boundary is marked by the spread of pottery (early 6th millennium BC), and the Neolithic/Chalcolithic by the appearance of the early copper artefacts and their processing (around the 3rd millennium BC). Our research aims to determine how reliable radio- carbon dating results are for improving the quality of our archaeological evidence and the amount of information it can provide. Such work that can lead to general conclusions is relevant, since it helps ar- range the available data better. Moreover, it indicat- es directions in which we can conduct further stud- ies regarding the use of geochronometric methods in archaeology and the interpretation of their results. The objectives of this research are as follows: a re- view of the history and special features of the use of radiocarbon dating in regional studies; the colle- ction and systematic organization of the available data and their evaluation. In order to determine spe- cific regional variations regarding the use of radio- carbon dating for the Holocene archaeological sites, we have formulated answers to the following ques- tions: (i) which materials are available for dating, and what has been dated?; (ii) what factors affect the reliability and accuracy of the data?; (iii) which results have been obtained, and how far do they correspond to archaeologists’ ideas and data obtain- Victor N. Karmanov, Nataliya E. Zaretskaya 144 The relief was formed in the Late Glacial and Early Holocene (Zaretskaya et al. 2014; Karmanov et al. 2013), but active geomorphological processes – ero- sion and alluvium accumulation – continue in the river valleys. As a result, the aeolian forms composed of loose sands are covered by poorly developed fo- rest litter with reindeer lichen (Cladonia rangiferi- na) or green mosses (indefinite species) and occu- pied by pine forests. The choice of such landscapes as the most comfortable habitats and burial grounds is characteristic for the entire Holocene. Archaeological evidence is confined to modern soil profiles, specifically to Albic Podzols (World Refe- rence Base Soil Resources 2006). Back in the mid- 1970s, soil scientists identified the features of their structure, properties and regimes (temperature, hy- drological, redox, and nutritional) and gave their ge- netic characteristics (Zaboeva 1975). Later, resear- chers identified the mechanisms of the related phy- sical, biochemical, and chemical processes; forma- tion of soil structure; humus substances; organic-mi- neral complexes; mechanisms underlying the varia- bility of soils in time and space (Lapteva et al. 2016. 26, 27), and created the Atlas of Soils of the Komi Republic (Atlas pochv Respubliki Komi 2010). There is thus an exhaustive characterization of the initial natural state of deposits. In our case, there are only five exceptions out of 200 sites, namely Vis 1 peat bog, Parch 1 and 2, Vy- lys-Tom 2, and Pezmog 4. Their cultural layers lay at different levels under alluvial deposits. Of course, there could have been more such sites, but the con- stant migration of river channels has left them with little chance of preservation. However, it undoubt- edly affects our perceptions of the choice of habitat and habitation in prehistory. At present, the known Mesolithic, Neolithic and Chal- colithic assemblages are represented mainly by camp- sites and settlements and only three burials (Kar- manov 2020). The most informative sites including those discussed in this article are the remains of hunting campsites and subterranean dwellings, i.e. places where small and disparate population groups lived on a short-term basis (Stokolos 1986; 1997; Volokitin 1997; 1999; 2003; 2004; 2006; Karma- nov 2008; 2012). This means that their impact on the sedimentary strata was insignificant and explains why the earthen structures and their components at such sites were temporary. In addition, the high mo- bility of small groups of people over a wide area gave rise to flexibility in diet and the use of materi- als for different needs. However, on the other hand, the short ‘lifetime’ of the studied sites and dwellings increases the likelihood that the dated materials are Fig. 1. European Far North- east; distribution of sites men- tioned in the text: 1 Cherdyb 1, Cherdyb 2; 2 Parch 1, Parch 2; 3 Podty 1; 4 Ugdym 1A, Ug- dym 1D, Chertas 2; 5 Pezmog 4, 6 En’ty 1A, Vadnyur 1/5; Vadnyur 1/7A; 7 Niremka 1; 8 Vis 1 peatbog, Vis 2; 9 Yovdi- no 2/4; 10 Revyu 1; 11 Pavshi- no 2; 12 Prilulkskaya; 13 Cher- naya Rechka 1; 14 Yumizh 1; 15 Yvron’ga 1; 16 Martyushev- skoe 2/1, Martyushevskoe 8; 17 Dutovo 1; 18 Topyd-nyur 7a; 19 Lasta 8; 20 Lek-Lesa 1; 21 Vylys-Tom 2; 22 Shihovskoe 2/2; 23 Choynovty 2, Choynov- ty 1; 24 Oshchoy 5/3; 25 Much- kas. Based on OpenTopoMap available at https://opentopomap.org Radiocarbon dating of Holocene archaeological sites in the Far Northeast of Europe> scopes and limits of a supraregional database 145 associated with one phase of habitation and are not a mixture of remnants of asynchronous events. The small number and low density of the mobile FNE population hampered the long existence of cul- tural traditions here. In addition, these traditions originated in adjacent territories. This allows us to apply the principle of synchronization of similar phenomena in prehistoric cultures for an approxi- mate determination of their age. However, the re- gions of Northern Eurasia have been studied un- evenly and the chronology of cultures has been de- veloped to different degrees. In this way, 14C dating is useful for verifying archaeological reconstructions. The history of radiocarbon dating in the con- text of archaeological investigations Radiocarbon dating began to be used in the FNE at the end of the 1960s. In particular, it was promoted by the field-research department of the Institute of Archaeology, affiliated with the USSR Academy of Sciences, which assessed a report by Grigoriy M. Bu- rov on excavations carried out in 1961. The Com- mission responsible for field research departments ‘decided to advise’ him to send wooden artefacts found in the Vis 1 peat bog site “for radiocarbon analysis to the laboratory of the Leningrad Branch of the Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences” (Burov 1962). As early as 1972, Burov – together with the Leningrad Branch staff members mentioned above – published a series of radiocarbon dates from the Vis 1 and Marmugino peat bog sites (Burov et al. 1972; Semyontsov et al. 1972.348). The next attempt to date the Mesolithic was in the 1980s. It was the Chertas 2 site located in the upper part of the Vychegda river valley. Unfortunately, the experiment turned out to be unsuccessful (Tab. 1.7, 8), and the archaeologist Ekaterina S. Loginova lost interest in radiocarbon dating. The initial dates for the Neolithic (Prilukskaya site) were only obtained at the beginning of the 1990s and published later in 1996 (Timofeyev, Zaitseva 1996.52). For Chalcoli- thic contexts, the first dates were obtained from charcoal samples taken from various dwellings at Oshchoy 5, Choinovty 1 (Stokolos 1986.100–101) and Niremka 1 (Kosinskaya 1987) – and not before the mid-1980s. The abovementioned failures of archaeologists in the 14C dating of regional complexes and the lack of contacts with radiocarbon laboratories can partly explain the relatively small number of samples exa- mined in this way, and the lack of research inter- est. In the 1970–1990s, the FNE archaeological com- munity did not appreciate radiocarbon analysis as much as it does today. We pointed out two periods in the history of radiocarbon dating of archaeologi- cal sites in the region under study: 1972–1999 and 2000–2020. The first period is characterized by epi- sodic use of instrumental dating, while the second indicates the systematic use of 14C for solving ar- chaeological problems. Figure 2.a compares the number of radiocarbon determinations for the two periods. The positive dynamics show the increased interest of regional archaeologists in 14C dating as an independent method for determining prehisto- ric events. Data covering such an extensive territory (around 700 000km2) and long time (c. 6 ka) is not yet rep- resentative: 97 radiocarbon dates has been obtain- ed from 46 assemblages of 37 FNE sites. The quan- titative distribution of dated materials is shown in Figure 3. Charcoal samples predominate among them due to their better preservation rate, and thus avai- lability for the liquid scintillation dating, applied with most samples (Fig. 2.b). Other materials – wood and plant remains, food crust – were less often dated because of the scarce archaeological contexts for this kind of sample type (Fig. 3). All the available data are included in Tables 1–3 and Figures 4–6. The calibration of radiocarbon dates was performed using the Calib 8.2 program (Stui- ver et al. 2020; Reimer et al. 2020) and the OxCal v. 3.10 program for the graphic presentation of the dates (Bronk Ramsey 1995; 2000). These dates com- pose the database, which is the subject of the criti- cal analysis in this paper. FNE samples: from the prehistoric project to the chronological framework Christopher Bronk Ramsey proposed radiocarbon dating sequence patterns as the major elements of radiocarbon dating. The ‘history’ of the sample in- cludes everything relating to the sample prior to ‘in- vestigation’. The latter incorporates all of the physi- cal actions carried out on the sample. The final stage of the dating process is ‘interpretation’, which aims to uncover the main elements of the sample’s ‘histo- ry’ (Bronk Ramsey 2008.267, Fig. 2). In our study, we add regional geographic characte- ristics and the impact of unpredictable human beha- viour to the sample history. For example, uncertain- Victor N. Karmanov, Nataliya E. Zaretskaya 146 ties may arise in connection with the use of objects or substances older than the prehistoric events un- der study. These facts are not documented when ar- chaeological assemblages are discovered or archiv- ed in museums. Taphonomy and geomorphological effects These are two related groups of factors that influ- ence the quality of dating. Most sites with dated ma- terials (32 out of 37) are open sites with subterra- nean dwellings. Therefore, we can assume that they were in ‘open access’ for a long time after their aban- donment by ancient people. However, preservation of organic materials (above- and underground parts of dwelling structures, food remains) in the north- ern taiga could not be long term. Many of the sites are located in pine forests growing on sandy fluvial terraces with an aeolian cap. Later forming of noncarbonated Al- bic Podzols (Arkheologiches- kaya karta Respubliki Komi 2014.7–13) modified these sediments. Such soils form in a cold climate with seasonal ground freezing and a leach- ing regime. We can find the archaeological features and remains of structures in elu- vial horizons at a depth from 0.05 to about 0.5m. Tree roots and periodic forest fires were thus constantly affecting the buried archaeological conte- xts. In addition, fungal decompo- sition develops in the forest soils: fine mycelium fibres pe- netrate the pores of charcoal and cracks in organic materi- als (authors’ observations). These unfavourable factors thus negatively affect the pre- servation of organic matter and contaminate the samples at the macro-level (for exam- ple, mixing of different-age and dissimilar materials) and micro-level (for example, my- celium). Preserved dating materials from such FNE archaeological sites are charcoal, calcinated and charred bones, less often adhesives for repairing pots (bitumen, re- sin or tar), food crust, i.e. substances that have un- dergone significant thermal effects as a kind of con- servation, and wet wood (Tab. 4). The most common material is charcoal, which oc- curs in different states in the cultural layers of all sites. It represents the burnt structures of dwellings and fires and is scattered as small fragments throug- hout the deposits. There are remains of trees burn- ed down during forest fires as a natural admixture in every archaeological context in the taiga. Their post-depositional transformation may produce stru- ctures that can be erroneously interpreted as artifi- cially created. For this reason, when taiga sites are being dated, the origin of the samples can most pro- bably explain the ‘pitfalls’ of radiocarbon dating. However, it should be pointed out that this is not Fig. 3. Overview of culture-bearing deposits in two main geological con- texts and their impacts upon them. Fig. 2. History of investigations in EFN: a comparison of the number of 14C dating for the periods 1972–96 and 2000–19; b distribution of the number of measurements in the 14C laboratories of Soviet Union and modern Russia; c distribution of dated materials. Radiocarbon dating of Holocene archaeological sites in the Far Northeast of Europe> scopes and limits of a supraregional database 147 a problem of the method itself but the excavated archaeological assemblages, sample selection and the interpretation of certain situations by archaeo- logists. In 2004 the authors of this paper conducted an experiment and selected samples from charcoal clusters, including some found among the single pot fragments within the remains of a homogenous dwelling complex of the Middle Neolithic site Pez- mogty 4 (Tab. 2.13–15; Fig. 5.b). All the dates ob- tained turned out to be outside the confines of the most likely age range for the context in question – Fig. 4. Results of radiocarbon dating of Mesolithic assemblages: a reliable data; b ambiguous data. the first half of the 5th millennium BC. This is proved by the sedimentary succession and dating results of similar complexes of the adjacent regions of Euro- pean Russia. This thus meant that certain natural events had been dated, testifying that they had im- pacted the archaeological context. Such situations may include 14C dates, which do not correspond to the archaeological material since it is much younger. These are, for example, charcoal dates within 4250–3330 cal BC from the early Holo- Victor N. Karmanov, Nataliya E. Zaretskaya 148 cene sites of Pezmogty 6 (Tab. 1.9; Fig. 4.b), Yovdi- no II/4 (Tab. 1.19; Fig. 4.b) and Ugdym 1A (Tab. 2.16; Fig. 3.b). Natural adverse impacts are most likely to explain different dates in groups of samples taken from the same archaeological assemblage and analysed in the same laboratory. Examples are the 14C charcoal dates from the contexts of the Topydnyur 7a sites (Tab. 1.20, 21; Fig. 4.b), Prilukskaya (Tab. 2.26, 27; Fig. 5.b) and dwellings Shikhovskoye 2 (Tab. 3.11, 12; Fig. 6.b), Lasta 8 (Tab. 3.13, 14; Fig. 6.b), Choi- novty 1 (Tab. 3.17–20; Fig. 6.b), Yumizh 1 (Tab. 3.28–30; Fig. 6.b) and Pavshino 2/2 (Tab. 3.32, 33; Fig. 6.b). Bones have been found at most of the FNE Holo- cene sites (Tab. 4). They often occur as compact ac- cumulations of a large number (up to 2500) of cal- cinated fragments confined to fireplaces, less often pits. In addition, they contain remains of various types, including species not living in pine forests (for example, beaver). All this points to their con- nection with human activities, and therefore it is a reliable material for dating, but only using the AMS technique, which was unavailable for the local ar- chaeologists, and thus only two LSC dates were ob- tained (Tab. 2.22, 25; Fig. 5.a). Wood and plant remains as available dating materi- als were found in the floodplains and paleochannel Fig. 5. Results of radiocarbon dating of Neolithic assemblages: a reliable data; b ambiguous data; c un- reliable data. Radiocarbon dating of Holocene archaeological sites in the Far Northeast of Europe> scopes and limits of a supraregional database 149 Fig. 6. Results of radiocarbon dating of Chalcolithic assemblages: a reliable data; b ambiguous data; c un- reliable data. Victor N. Karmanov, Nataliya E. Zaretskaya 150 infills at wetland sites. However, geoarchaeological archives of that kind are very few in the FNE and derive from following sites: Vis 1 peat bog site, Mar- mugino peat bog (Burov 1967; 1969), Parch 2 (Vo- lokitin 2006), Vylys-Tom 2 (Volokitin et al. 2013) and Pezmog 4 sites (Karmanov et al. 2014). These localities have specific and different geomorpholo- gical features. The main negative factors are the transport and deposition of multitemporal hetero- geneous materials and the activity of subterranean animals. The examples of Parch 2 and Vylys-Tom 2 (Mesoli- thic) show that radiocarbon dating contexts enclosed within alluvial deposits can be ambiguous. The first example is the Parch 2 site (Volokitin, Gribchenko 2017.97–101). Here, the remains of eight dwellings were studied at a depth of 1.5m. Charcoals from three fireplaces of three dwellings have been dated (Volokitin 2006.23–38). Unfortunately, the obtained measurements have a large standard deviation range (Tab. 1.3–5; Fig. 4.b). Two dates are statistically close to each other, and the third is much younger. Such differences in occupation date among dwellings might be feasible if the site was located on the up- per part of a fluvial terrace, but are implausible for the floodplain of Vychegda, one of the most active rivers in Europe. The most obvious explanation in this case is that the three dwellings might all date to 9000–8000 cal BC but bulk samples may include different amo- unts of younger carbon (due to e.g., some local bioturbation) which would be difficult to remove during the pre-treatment stage. Another example is the Vylys-Tom 2 multilayer site (Volokitin et al. 2013; 2014; Budzanivskiy, Volokitin 2014), where two Mesolithic cultural hori- zons no. 3 and 4 (humified loam/ sandy loam) were discovered at a depth of more than 2m separated by archaeologically sterile sandy bed of 0.1m thick (Fig. 7). In both horizons the remains of fireplaces were found above each other. The investigation of these has provided samples for a series of dates obtained in different laboratories. Three of the five pub- lished dates form a compact group (Tab. 1.26–28; Fig. 4), while the other two are far outside the group’s boun- daries (Tab. 1.24, 25; Fig. 4). However, geomorpho- logical and paleochannel studies at the site and in its vicinity make it possible to state that the cultu- ral horizons were separated by an interlayer of al- luvial sand accumulated over a brief period, most probably 10–20 years (Volokitin, Volokitina 2019. 396). This shows that when seeking to establish the age of a site, it is essential to rely on stratigraphy and archaeological data, revealing that the materials in the two horizons are identical. Therefore, it is ap- propriate to link together the three similar dates from the two layers, acknowledging that the gap be- tween the periods of Mesolithic habitation was tiny. Several publications have been devoted to describ- ing and analysing the Vis 1 peat bog site, both since it was first investigated in the 1960s (Burov 1967; 1990) and more recently (Burov 2012; Zaretskaya et al. 2014; Volokitin, Gribchenko 2017.93–96). Bu- rov based his conclusions on the dating of wooden artefacts from the site (Tab. 1.10–14), analysis of the small number of stone tools, and palaeographic re- constructions carried out in the 1960s by Sergey N. Tyuremnov. In 2005–2014, new radiocarbon dates were obtained on deposits from Vis peat bogs 1, 2 and 3 and on the palaeogeography of ancient river Fig. 7. Vylys-Tom 2: stratigraphy and radiocarbon dating results (after Budzanivskiy, Volokitin 2014.Fig. 2). 1–4 cultural horizons. Radiocarbon dating of Holocene archaeological sites in the Far Northeast of Europe> scopes and limits of a supraregional database 151 channels (Karmanov et al. 2013). However, analy- sis of the results showed an inversion of the dates obtained from wood samples: this can be explained by the specific features of oxbow lake development, in which redeposition of formerly buried material can take place due to periodic renewal of watercour- ses along paleochannels (Zaretskaya et al. 2014. 94). Moreover, neither bones nor pottery with food crust were preserved. A successful example of dating archaeological con- text related to paleochannel infill is the Pezmog 4 site study (Tab. 2.1,2,5–10; Figs. 5.a, 8). Dating the food crust on the inner pot surface, culture-bearing deposits (silty peat), and charcoals from them coin- cided with the results. The subsequent age determi- nation of the overlying deposits also demonstrated the reliability of the archaeological context and the absence of date inversions (Tab. 2.1,2,5–10). So far, this is the only example of dating food crust in the region using the LSC method. At the same time, a se- ries of dates (Tab. 2.2, 5, 8) obtained from other materials shows that there is no significant fresh- water reservoir effect. Sampling during the excavations At this stage of 14C sample history, two main groups of problems can be identified in the regional aspect. The first is related to the historical background and geomorphological effects (see above). Due to the short duration of the habitation of small forager groups, there are few artefacts and ecofacts in the collections. Unfavourable conditions for preserving organic materials further reduce the informative value of contexts. The primary available material is charcoal (Fig. 3). For this reason, during excavations there is always the need to distinguish between wood deliberately burnt by prehistoric individuals and charcoal of natural origin – for example, in the wake of a forest fire. Nor is a guarantee of identify- ing prominent components of structures – firepla- ces, for instance, in which there might have been admixtures of natural charcoals (see above). Some- times archaeologists take every opportunity for in- strumental dating and sample, for example, charcoal dispersed in the cultural layer. Such samples are highly unreliable subject for dating, as they may contain remains of diachronous forest fires (Tabs. 1.7,8; 2.13–16; 3.26,27,33). This is a problem not only of the studied region, but of other forest zone archaeological sites of boreal forests, e.g., Karelian (Seitsonen et al. 2012.104). Erroneous conclusions from excavations can also lead to the archaeological perspective’s production of ‘inappropriate’ data. For example, at the Mesoli- thic site Chertas 2 charcoal and enclosing sand were selected from the considerable depth of 1m. How- ever, the two dates obtained did not correspond to the early Holocene (Tab. 1.7,8). This was not sur- prising because the spatial relationship between the artefacts and the studied structure makes us doubt its ancient age and the correctness of its in- terpretation as a prehistoric dwelling. A ditch of re- gular shape made in loose sand at such depth could not have been preserved from the Mesolithic under the constant effect of tree roots and ground processes. As the author of excavations testified, it is also appropriate to consider modern destruc- tion (Loginova 1985.19–22, Fig. 4b). Probably in the 19th to early-20th centuries, a char- coal-burning pit had been dug up within the area of that site located on an aeolian dune. During the creation and usage of the pit, the Mesolithic cul- tural layer was distorted and re-deposited, and the charred timber of different age would have been moved together with soil and the artefacts en- closed in it. Later human im- pact on the site would even- tually have destroyed it. Fig. 8. Pezmog 4: outcrop of 1st terrace and floodplain (view from the ri- ver); stratigraphy and results of radiocarbon dating (after Karmanov et al. 2013.Fig. 3). 1 turf; 2 sand (result of flood); 3 buried soil; 4 sandy silt; 5 clay silt; 6 peat; 7 peaty silt; 8 clay; 9 silty peat with sand (culture-bear- ing deposits); 10 potsherds; 11 fragments of charcoal. Victor N. Karmanov, Nataliya E. Zaretskaya 152 Some sampling strategies are not successful. For example, from the area of the Pavshino 2 settle- ment, fragments of charcoal were selected from Albic Podzol outside the archaeological context (Tab. 3.31) and the local remains of a damaged structure (lair?) in a depression (Tab. 3.37). The second exam- ple is the data from the Prilukskaya site. There, the radiocarbon age was determined for two charcoal samples taken from the fireplace remains identified by Irina V. Vereshchagina in excavation pit 2 in 1988: the fireplace had been found at a distance of approximately 4m from the central cluster of finds (Tab. 2.26,27; Fig. 5). However, no artefacts were found in the fireplace infill and its immediate vicin- ity (Vereshchagina 1989). Therefore, the connec- tion between the dated fireplace and archaeological material is uncertain. However, in some cases archaeologists have man- aged to identify archaeological objects or their parts without obvious negative impacts (for example, wo- oden roots and traces of ground deformation). For example, at Vadniur 1/5 and 1/7A we obtained two groups of dates (Tabs. 2.19,20; 3.3–6; Figs. 5.a, 6.a, 9) due to the discovery of horizontal chimney re- mains containing charcoal (Karmanov et al. 2017; Karmanov 2020). The preservation rate of the de- posits filling the investigated chimneys was relati- vely high. In addition, the intense ochre-like sand co- lour allowed us to avoid potentially problematic areas of deformation in the tubes and inclusions of the allochthonous material. The second group of problems is the lack of accurate data on the sample location and the poor documen- tation accompanying their identification and tran- sition to the laboratory. The archaeological situa- tions revealed during excavations cannot be fully re- stored, and therefore the role of accurate 3D fixation and comprehensive photographic documentation is essential. However, in most studies of the 20th cen- tury charcoal and bone were considered as raw ma- terials, and their field documentation is extremely rare. Nowadays, we often cannot determine where the samples were taken. The most striking example is the series of radiocarbon dates obtained from Muchkas settlement (Tab. 3.23–25; Fig. 6.c). They were valid for the Chalcolithic or the Bronze Age, but there is no proper information supplied on their context. Furthermore, four dwellings had been ex- cavated (Stokolos 1995), and it is not possible to as- certain precisely the assemblage or assemblages the samples were taken from. The Choinovty 2 site con- text (Tab. 3.21) also has to be considered unreliable because it is not known which fireplace outside the dwelling area had been dated, and which archaeo- logical material was concerned. Laboratory stage All samples of archaeological contexts in the region were analysed in the radiocarbon laboratories of the Soviet Union and Russia. Figure 2b shows the quantitative distribution according to this criterion: the laboratories GIN- (Geological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, RF) and the Le- (In- stitute of History of material culture, Russian Aca- demy of Sciences, Saint-Petersburg, RF) are leaders. All dates were obtained by the LSC method, except one (index IGANAMS) (Tab. 2.19). We shall not ana- lyse here the peculiarities of different pre-treatment procedures of conventional radiocarbon dating in different Russian laboratories – they are shared over the area of the former Soviet Union (see details in Zazovskaya 2016), except the direct dating of pot- tery which became popular in the Neolithic archaeo- logical community at the beginning of the 21st cen- tury (e.g., Vybornov 2008). Nine dates have been obtained from the total orga- nic carbon content or direct dating of pottery (Tab. 2.3,4,12,17,18,23,24,28,29) using the LSC method (Kovaliukh, Skrypkin 2007). Many publications have been devoted to the limitations and pitfalls of this approach (e.g., O’Malley et al. 1999; Gomes, Ve- ga 1999; Kulkova 2014.116, 117; Meadows 2020. 54–56). The authors of this paper have also touched on this subject earlier (Karmanov et al. 2014), and for that reason we regard it as unnecessary to in- clude the critical analysis here. Data interpretation The paradox of interpreting dating results lies in the fact that archaeologists often explain the valid- ity of their dates, i.e. which of the dates corres- pond to the age of the prehistoric event or not. In other words, the results they expect are already pre- supposed before any dating, so the primary purpose would have been to confirm what they expected. Nevertheless, some of the interpretations provided are very interesting: Burov wrote concerning the dated artefacts from Vis 1 peat bog: “The only ex- ception is the Le-713 date, which is incorrect be- cause it coincides with the Le-685 date. The sam- ples had simply been mixed up in the laboratory” (Burov 2012.361, Tab. 1.13,14). Thus, Burov tried to explain the inversion of these dates which have the same values but lie at different depths – 1.2 and 1.9m. Radiocarbon dating of Holocene archaeological sites in the Far Northeast of Europe> scopes and limits of a supraregional database 153 An explanation appears after the result has been obtained, although ideally the archaeologist him- self should make a statement regarding the reliabi- lity of the sample during his fieldwork. However, based on our practice and analysis of available data, it can be stated that if the sample selection context is reliable, the radiocarbon dates are valid. These statements are based on our studies (Tab. 4). Examples of speculations with single dates or inva- lid ideas are as follows. First is the Mesolithic camp- site, Topydnyur 7a (Tab. 1.20,21). Aleksandr V. Vo- lokitin makes the following comment about the data concerning its radiocarbon dates: “Unfortunately the radiocarbon dating of the Topydnyur 7a site does not inspire complete confidence. One date is too young, and this leads to doubts regarding the second, 6450±60 (Le-2790)” (Volokitin 1997.116). In addition to Volokitin’s view, we offer another ex- planation: charcoal fragments scattered among the remains of a dwelling with an area of about 10m2 have been dated. The first date (Tab. 1.21) is relat- ed to the Chalcolithic. However, the second, indicat- ing the Early Neolithic, would require a more de- tailed analysis of the context, including the technical- typological characteristics of the stone tools found in the excavated dwelling. Inside it, 266 objects (including débitage) were found (Volokitin 1987.6–9), and the quantitative and qualitative composi- tion of that assemblage meant that it was not possible to provide an unam- biguous answer to the question of its cultural and chronological attribu- tion. Nevertheless, it could be classi- fied with an equal degree of probabi- lity as a site of the Chornaya Vadya type (Kosinskaya 2002; Karmanov 2008.29–31). Materials of this kind could occur in the 6th millennium BC, and the date 6450±60 (5480–5370 cal BC, Le-2790) could correspond to the time when the assemblage had been created. The following example is from Nirem- ka 1 settlement. The series of dates to define the age of dwellings from dif- ferent cultures at this site (Tab. 3.7– 10) was commented on by Lyubov’ L. Kosinskaya, who investigated it. In the context of our research, it is im- portant to consider the reasoning of different researchers, and therefore let us cite verbatim from the paper of Kosinskaya: “Not one of those dates should be regarded as en- tirely satisfactory”. The date for dwelling no. 5 does not link in with the series for the Fatyanoid vessels found inside it. The dates for dwelling 2 are acceptable, but they would seem to be on the relatively late side. In ad- dition, the fact that fragments from the same pots were found in dwellings 2 and 5 shows that there was no significant chronological gap between them. The date for dwelling 12 is acceptable. As for the pottery finds, the stone collection and the type of dwelling itself, it is closest to and forms a pair with dwelling no. 9, so it is inappropriate to have a signi- ficant temporal gap between them: furthermore, a Fatyanoid pot was found in dwelling no. 9 (Kosin- skaya 1987.119, 120). To a large extent, a commentary of that kind has ceased to be relevant. For example, the so-called Fa- tyanoid pots – represented in this particular region by the Chirkov-Seyminsky type – found near the top of the section both inside and outside the dwellings have been identified in other diachronous settle- Fig. 9. Dwelling structure and results of 14C dating. A Vadniur 1/5 (Chalcolithic); B Vadniur 1/7A (Neolithic). 1 dwelling limits; 2 fireplaces; 3 traces of horizontal chimney. Victor N. Karmanov, Nataliya E. Zaretskaya 154 ments containing dwelling remains in the valleys of Severnaya Dvina (Vereshchagina 1985) and Pechora (Stokolos 1988.95–101) rivers. Those who main- tained this pottery tradition probably used the de- pressions left behind from the dwellings of their predecessors as shelters. This means that the ‘Fatya- noid pottery’ bear witness to a later habitation and their presence cannot be interpreted as an indica- tion that the radiocarbon dates are invalid. Far more important are data on fragments of a pot found in various dwellings but assigned to different dates. As the previous examples have shown, even samples from one fireplace are assigned to different ages, and for this reason the results from two dwellings of the same period with dates that do not match are hardly surprising. This could be explained as an example of the impact of tree roots mentioned ear- lier, or regarding the probability that the space in the depressions had been used on more than one occasion, bearing in mind their arrangement in a compact group. The following example shows how archaeologists can be selective in publishing dates. In our practice, we know about one example – dating results from the dwelling of settlement Choinovty 1. Several dates were obtained from a reliable homogenous context, and two of them (Tab. 3.18,19; Fig. 6.b) were ini- tially published (Stokolos 1986.100). Due to these results, the Final Neolithic age of the early period of the Chuzhyayolskaya culture was substantiated (Sto- kolos 1997.219). Later the whole series of dates ob- tained for that site was published (Tab. 3.17–20; Fig. 6.b; Timofeev et al. 2004.103). The duration of the whole age range is with c. 1000 years considerable, and the rationale for the very early age of this archa- eological phenomenon is no longer convincing. Evaluation of the radiocarbon sequences As a result of the evaluation of radiocarbon sampling and dating experience in our supraregion, we classi- fy the chronological data based on the reliability of provided information: reference = reliable; ambigu- ous; unreliable. The background for our further speculations is as follows: ● the system for evaluating the 14C data in archaeo- logy should depend on the peculiarities of the geography and historical context of the studied region, as well as the accumulated experience of instrumental dating in the region; ● this system should be based on the cooperation of an archaeologist and a geochronologist in order to adequately estimate the chronological informa- tion at all stages of its accumulation, from the pre- historic person to the chronometric data. ● the use of instrumental dating methods in archa- eology, in particular radiocarbon dating, is part of a process in which the initial conditions are some- times ambiguous and site-dependent: prehistoric individuals create samples, and various natural conditions constantly influence them. Therefore, the criteria for the reliability of 14C dating re- sults, like in any experiment, are simple and clear to everyone: repeatable accuracy and testability. Reliable age estimation of an archaeological event should ideally be obtained based on analysis of different materials and (or) different areas of ar- chaeological objects and layers. These data can be recommended to the scientific community as trust- worthy. The main problem is that the experience of devel- oping such a system for assessing regions that are identical to those we are studying in terms of geog- raphy, chronology and historical context is extre- mely small. We know the 14C databases for the Neo- lithic and Chalcolithic of Northern Eurasia within Russia (e.g., Timofeev et al. 2004; Chernykh et al. 2011; Dubovtseva, Kosinskaya 2021), but only one study offers an integral system of their critical ana- lysis. It is the study of the area closest to the FNE and the period of interest – Karelian Isthmus (north- west Russia), Mesolithic-Early Metal Age (Seitsonen et al. 2012.103, 104, Tab. 1). To assess the reliabi- lity of the database, researchers use a rating system to determine the probability of matching radiocar- bon ages with archaeological events. Paul Pettitt et al. (2003) proposed the basis of this system, while Graf and her followers then expanded it with new criteria and adapted the parameters to regional pe- culiarities (i.e. Graf 2009. 699–701, Tab. 3; Seitso- nen et al. 2012.Tab. 1). The score (from 0 to 4) in the offered system in- creases with the researchers’ confidence in the fol- lowing conditions: “(1) certainty of association of dated sample with human activity; (2) relevance of dated sample to the specific archaeological en- tity of concern; (3) quantity and reliability of dates for a specific archaeological horizon; (4) stratigra- phic position; (5) sample type choice and the own age of the material; (6) standard deviation; (7) fit- tingness with the archaeological material and stra- tigraphy” (Seitsonen et al. 2012.103, 104, Tab. 1). Radiocarbon dating of Holocene archaeological sites in the Far Northeast of Europe> scopes and limits of a supraregional database 155 As Kelly Graf (2009.699) rightly points out, these criteria are only effective if we have complete infor- mation on all the items in this system. But we con- sider that the probability rankings proposed are ar- tificial and the points awarded are the researchers’ desire for a beautiful system that does not take into account that attributes may have different weights and hence different numbers of points (see detail critique of Graf’ approach in Kuzmin 2009). There- fore, when assessing small databases, incomplete data, or apparent situations, such systems are exces- sive. For example, the argument that there is no in- formation about a particular sampling location is sufficient to define the data as unreliable. Repeatedly proven erroneous dating of carbon in pottery makes redundant the further search for arguments why such dates are unreliable. Researchers have repeat- edly been convinced of the validity of the ‘one date is no date’ principle, which allows such data to be defined as ambiguous. However, the estimation sys- tems are of significant guidance for critically ana- lysing databases and resolving disputed situations, resulting in determining the most significant proba- bility of each date on a single basis. Only a few definitions of FNE archaeological sites sa- tisfy our requirements: Vylys-Tom 2 (Mesolithic) (Fig. 4.a), Pezmog 4 and Vadniur 1/7A (Neolithic) (Fig. 5.a), Vadniur 1/5, Yumizh 1 and Pavshino 2/3 (Chal- colithic) (Fig. 6.a). Some of the 14C data may not match for various rea- sons. Therefore, we characterize them as ambiguous dates. The criteria for their determination are as fol- lows: ● the principle “one date is no date”: to confirm/ refute single dates, additional measurements are needed since the correspondence of the 14C def- inition and the desired age of an archaeological event may be an accidental coincidence of num- bers (Tabs. 1.1,6,9,19,22,23,29; 2.11,16,22,25; 3.1,2,7,8,22); ● significant difference in the series of dates, when it is impossible to determine which of the results corresponds to the time of the archaeological event, and which documents the negative impact on the sample based on other data (archaeologi- cal, paleogeographic or stratigraphic); the valida- tion by additional data is required (Tabs. 1.3–5; 2.26,27; 3.11–14,17–20,32,33); ● measurements with a large standard deviation (Tab. 3.26,27); ● uncertainty between the archaeological material and event of interest allows us to offer different re- lative-chronological interpretations (Tabs. 1.20; 3.9,10). If the sampling and dating were done in a methodo- logically correct manner, then we must not ignore the ambiguous dates. 14C results that do not corre- spond to modern archaeological models should also not be excluded from the databases. Additional mea- surements may prove that some of them do indeed date archaeological events. Other determinations can possibly define temporally not well understood im- pacts on cultural remains and their geoarchaeologi- cal context. We thus propose a more flexible ap- proach to the existing ambiguous data: after all, ar- chaeological concepts are changing, and technolo- gies for extracting dated substances are developing at a pace that was previously unthinkable (Casano- va et al. 2020). Inaccurate or unreliable data are often obtained by incorrect methods, such as direct dating of pottery (Tab. 2.3,4,12,17,18,23,24,28,29). In addition, there are data with a lack of detailed sample information, and which cannot currently be correlated with spe- cific archaeological contexts (Tab. 3.21,23–25,31,37). If nothing can be done with the first set of dates, then dates in the second set can become reliable if more information is found in the archives and sub- sequent dating episodes can substantiate them. The evaluation of the reliable data and their significance for a supraregional chronological scheme in the FNE archaeology The dating of the multilayered site Vylys-Tom 2 al- lowed us to obtain the first reliable sequence of the Mesolithic FNE layers. Previous datings were based on relative-chronological correlations of the materi- als from adjacent territories and on single 14C dates or measurements with a broad standard deviation. It now can be securely stated that the older phase of that site dates to c. 7500 cal BC and the younger to c. 6500 cal BC or, alternatively, both phases be- long to the 8th millennium BC (Figs. 4.a, 10.A). Comprehensive analysis of the archaeological con- text of Pezmog 4 (Karmanov et al. 2013; 2014) made it possible to move back in time the age of the early stage of the Kama Neolithic culture from the 4th millennium BC to second quarter of the 6th mil- lennium BC, or to 5760–5615 cal BC. In addition, these data (Tabs. 2.1,2, 5.a, 8) allow us to reliably date the oldest pottery in the studied region and identify the earliest appearance of the combed tra- Victor N. Karmanov, Nataliya E. Zaretskaya 156 dition in the ornamentation of early pottery in this part of Europe (Fig. 10.A,C). Unfortunately, another type of ancient pottery (Dutovo 1) is currently asso- ciated with only one date (Tab. 2.25; Figs. 5.b; 10.B). The study of the Vadniur 1 assemblages more con- vincingly confirms the results of previous studies of settlements with multiple dwellings (Stokolos 1986. 54–88, 113–166; 1988.27; Kosinskaya 1990; Seme- nov, Nesanelene 1997.19–60). It was established that these sites existed not simultaneously as a set- tlement but sequentially due to multiple occupations of attractive places by small groups. For example, the dwellings no. 5 and no. 7 of Vadniur 1 settlement were located only 13m from each other, had the exact same orientation of the long axis, unique fea- tures of construction, and similar flint knapping tech- nology, yet the most probable periods of their exis- tence are separated by an interval of about 400–500 years (Tabs. 2.19,20; 3.3–6). The dating of Vadniur 1/7A (Tab. 2.19,20) and Vadniur 1/5 (Tab. 3.19–21) assem- blages presented the first series of reliable age determinations of the late Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites. As a result, archae- ologists have the opportunity to revise the established views on the development of the Chuzhjajolskaya culture. In addition, it was determined that Vadniur 1/7A is the oldest forager’s dwelling in Northern Eu- rasia with a complex heating and ventila- tion system (Karmanov 2020). Such a stru- cture is similar to the gresbakken type in Norway (Seitsonen 2006) and on the Kola Peninsula (Kolpakov et al. 2020). The dating of the Chalcolithic complexes of the Garino culture (Yumizh 1 and Pavshino 2/3) are also significant. First, however, it is essential to clarify their age and some other dates of the complexes of this culture. So far, the age of sites with the oldest metal in northeastern Europe has been determin- ed very roughly – within the 3rd millenni- um BC (Fig. 10.A,C). In this regard, we pay attention to the problem of the different resolutions of me- thods. Every experienced archaeologist can assess how long a particular site was inha- bited or frequented based on the collec- tions’ quantitative and qualitative characte- ristics, the nature of the deposits contain- ing traces of cultural remains, planography and stra- tigraphy. For mobile foragers in the northern taiga, such places cannot be long term settlements: spend- ing short periods in one place is the defining feature of such households with their appropriating econo- my. The creation of a burial pit, as a rule, is the work of a single day. Instrumental dating methods are inadequate for reliably assessing the precise age of such objects. According to calculations based on the sets of dates described here, the standard devi- ation intervals for uncalibrated dates are, on aver- age, 140 radiocarbon years. Thus, even for simple conclusions regarding the chronological correlations between mobile foragers in various territories, age estimations based on these data are still only very roughly sketched. Conclusions The FNE chronological database consists of valid dates (22), ambiguous dates (60), and unreliable or Fig. 10. Archaeological periodization of FNE: a model. A re- liable dates; B single dates corresponding to periodization model, but requiring confirmation; C important events. Radiocarbon dating of Holocene archaeological sites in the Far Northeast of Europe> scopes and limits of a supraregional database 157 uncertain dates (15). Among the radiocarbon dates obtained for Holocene sites of the Stone Age and the Chalcolithic in the FNE, only 18 dates from the seven assemblages (Figs. 4.a; 5.a; 6.a; 10.A) can be defined as reliable and with the highest probability associated with prehistoric events. Therefore, they can be used in regional research. In addition, four other dates provide contextual reliability, illustrat- ing the absence of stratigraphic inversion (Tab. 2.6, 7,9,10). Sixty determinations are considered from an archa- eological viewpoint as presenting ambiguous results (Figs. 2.b, 3.b, 4.b). There are 14 single dates that correspond to modern archaeological periodisation, but require confirmation (Fig. 10.B). At the very least, other measurements document the uncertain impacts on the materials or contexts in which the dated samples were found. We hope that future re- search can better determine their significance, which would require the dating of other materials from the assemblages they derived from or determining the age of similar complexes. Eventually, some of them may be confirmed, and we can identify them as re- liable. The next group of 15 dates (Figs. 5.c, 6.c) is here considered as unreliable and should not be used for the chronological determination of archaeological sites or events associated with this evidence. The number of reliable age determinations of Meso- lithic, Neolithic and Chalcolithic archaeological com- plexes is insufficient to elaborate even a tentative chronology of those periods. So far, they define only single events of mobile foragers’ residence in the FNE in the Early and Middle Holocene. Nevertheless, they offer us the possibility to synchronize these events with those from adjacent territories, and thus they do provide some insights into the diversity of the ancient traditions of pottery making and build- ing dwellings. They also point out possible direc- tions for the search for the origins of these skills. In addition, they provide new arguments for the claim that the studied dwelling complexes were the result of multiple occupations of attractive places rather than the founding of large settlements. Further work will be concerned with the enrichment of the data- base and an increase in the responsibility for sam- ple selection, in order to enhance the reliability and accuracy of dating. A first step could be a more de- tailed investigation of informative complexes, such as Vadniur 1, Pezmog 4 and Vylys-Tom 2. The study was carried out within the state assignment of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation, on the research theme ‘Ar- chaeological Data: Description, Systematization and Critical Analysis (Based on the Materials of the Eu- ropean Northeast of Russia)’, no. 121051400045-9 (2021–2025) and the state assignment no. 0127-2019- 0008 of the Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, and of the Geological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences. The authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive criticism of the manuscript. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Arkheologicheskaya karta Respubliki Komi 2014. Kar- manov V. N. (ed.), Syktyvkar. (in Russian) Atlas pochv Respubliki Komi 2010. Dobrovolskiy G. V., Taskaev A. I., and Zaboeva I. V. (eds.). Syktyvkar. (in Rus- sian) Bronk Ramsey C. 1995. Radiocarbon Calibration and Ana- lysis of Stratigraphy: The OxCal Program. Radiocarbon 37(2): 425–430. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200030903 2000. Comment on “The Use of Bayesian Statistics for 14C dates of chronologically ordered samples: a critical analysis”. Radiocarbon 42(2): 199–202. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200059002 2008. Radiocarbon dating: revolutions in understand- ing. Archaeometry 2(50): 249–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2008.00394.x Burov G. M. 1962. Nauchnyi otchet ob arkheologiches- kikh issledovaniiakh v raione Sindorskogo ozera v 1961 godu. Syktyvkar. Nauchnyi arhiv Instituta arkheologii Ros- siiskoy akademii nauk. R-1. No 2294. (in Russian) 1967. Drevniy Sindor (Istoriia plemen Evropeyskogo Severo-Vostoka v 7 tys. do n.e. – 1 tys. n.e. Izdatelstvo Nauka. Moskva. (in Russian) 1969. O poiskakh dereviannykh veshchei i rybolovnykh sooruzhenii’ v starichnykh torfianikakh ravninny’kh rek. Kratkiye soobshcheniya Instituta arkheologii 117: 130–134. (in Russian) 1974. Archeologicheskie cultury Evropeiskogo Severa SSSR (Severodvinsky Region). Ulyanovsk. (in Russian) 1990. Etapy razvitiia i zapadnye sviazi mezolita v Sever- nom Priural’e (po dannym dereviannogo inventaria). Vzaimodeistvie drevnikh kul’tur Urala. Perm: 28–33. (in Russian) 2012. Eshche raz o vozraste drevneishikh dereviannykh artefaktov poseleniia Vis I. Pervobytnye drevnosti Ev- razii: k 60-letiyu Alekseya Nikolaevicha Sorokina. In- stitut arkheologii Rossiyskoy akademii nauk. Moskva: 359–364. (in Russian) Burov G. M., Romanova E. N., and Sementsov A. A. 1972. Khronologiia dereviannykh sooruzhenii i veshchei, nai- dennykh v Severodvinskom basseine. Problemy absoliu- tnogo datirovaniia v arkheologii. Izdatelstvo Nauka. Mo- skva: 76–79. (in Russian) Casanova E., Knowles T. D. J., Bayliss A., + 22 authors, and Evershed R. P. 2020. Accurate compound-specific 14C dating of archaeological pottery vessels. Nature 580: 506– 510. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2178-z Chernykh E. N., Kuz’minykh S. V., and Orlovskaya L. B. 2011. Metallonosnye kul’tury lesnoy zony vne sistemy Tcirkumpontiyskoy provintcii: problemy radiouglerodnoy khronologii IV–III tys. do n.e. Analiticheskie issledova- niya laboratorii estestvennonauchnykh metodov 2: 59– 61. (in Russian) Dubovtceva E. N., Kosinskaya L. L. 2021. Khronologiya i periodizatciya neolita tayozhnoy zony Zapadnoy Sibiri. Tverskoy arkheologicheskiy sbornik 12: 11–29. (in Rus- sian) Gomes D. C., Vega O. 1999. Dating organic temper of ce- ramics by AMS: sample preparation and carbon evalua- tion. Radiocarbon 41(3): 315–320. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200057179 Graf K. E. 2009. “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”: evalu- ating the radiocarbon chronology of the middle and late Upper Paleolithic in the Enisei River valley, south-central Siberia. Journal of Archaeological Science 36(3): 694– 707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2008.10.014 Karmanov V. N. 2008. Neolit Evropeyskogo Severo-Vosto- ka. Syktyvkar. (in Russian) 2012. Neoliticheskoe naselenie na evropei’skom Seve- ro-Vostoke: obitanie ili preby’vanie? Pervobytnye drev- nosti Evrazii: k 60-letiyu Alekseya Nikolaevicha Soro- kina. Institut arkheologii Rossiyskoy akademii nauk. Moskva: 419–446. (in Russian) 2020. Vadniur I/7 – pamiatnik finalnogo neolita i eneo- lita na r. Vychegde. Vestnik arheologii, antropologii i etnografii. 4(51): 63–72. (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.20874/2071-0437-2020-51-4-6 Karmanov V. N, Zaretskaya N. E., and Volokitin A. V. 2014. Another Way of Early Pottery Distribution in Eastern Eu- rope? Case Study of the Pezmog 4 Site, European Far Northeast. Radiocarbon 56(2): 733–741. https://doi.org/10.2458/56.16952 Karmanov V. N., Chernov A. V., Zaretskaya N. E., Panin A. V., and Volokitin A. V. 2013. Paleochannel studies in ar- chaeology: the case of the Vychegda river, Northeastern European Russia. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropo- logy of Eurasia 2(54): 83–93. Victor N. Karmanov, Nataliya E. Zaretskaya 158 References Radiocarbon dating of Holocene archaeological sites in the Far Northeast of Europe> scopes and limits of a supraregional database 159 Karmanov V. N., Zaretskaya N. E., and Lychagina E. L. 2012. Neolithic Dispersal in Far Northeast Europe: Ways and Chronology. Radiocarbon 54(3): 331–339 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200047111 Karmanov V. N., Makarov A. S., and Zaretskaya N. E. 2017. New data on the chronology of the Chuzhyayol culture in the Extreme Northeast of Europe. Rossiiskaya arkheolo- giya 2: 55–62. (in Russian) Kolpakov E. M., Murashkin A. I., and Shumkin V. Ya. 2020. Drevnie zhilishcha Vostochnoy Laplandii – paradoks za- polyarnoy arkheologii. Archaeology of Arctic 7: 278–299. (in Russian) Kosinskaya L. L. 1990. K voprosu o haraktere hoziaistva naseleniya basseina r. Vychegdy v epohu eneolita – ran- ney bronzy. In L. A. Nagovitcyn (ed.), Eneolit lesnogo Urala i Povolzhia. Izhevsk: 120–131. (in Russian) 1987. Mezolit – rannya bronza basseina Nizhney Vychegdy. Dissertatsiya na soiskanie uchenoy stepeni kandidata istoricheskikh nauk. Syktyvkar. (in Russian) 2002. K probleme genezisa chernoborskoy kultury (po materialam stoianki Chernaia Vadia na Nizhney Vycheg- de). Tverskoy arkheologicheskii sbornik 5: 224–231. (in Russian) Kovaliukh N. N., Skrypkin V. V. 2007. Radiouglerodnoe datirovanie arkheologicheskoy keramiki zhidkostnym stcintilliatcionnym metodom. In G. I. Zaitseva, M. A. Kul- kova (eds.), Radiouglerod v arkheologicheskikh i paleo- ekologicheskikh issledovaniiakh. Materialy konferentsii, posviashchennoy 50-letiyu radiouglerodnoy laboratorii IIMK RAN, 9–12 aprelia 2007 g., Sankt-Peterburg. Institut Istorii material’noy kul’tury Rossiyskoy akademii nauk. Sankt-Peterburg: 120–125. (in Russian) Kul’kova M. A. 2014. Radiouglerodnoe datirovanie drev- ney keramiki. Samarskiy nauchny vestnik 3(8): 115–122. Kuzmin Y. V. 2009. Comments on Graf, Journal of Archa- eological Science 36, 2009 “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”: evaluating the radiocarbon chronology of the mid- dle and late Upper Paleolithic in the Enisei River valley, south-central Siberia”. Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 2730–2733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2009.08.012 2010. Holocene radiocarbon-dated sites in Northeast- ern Siberia: issues of temporal frequency, reservoir age, and human–nature interaction. Arctic Anthropology 47 (2): 104–115. Kuzmin Y. V., Keates S. G. 2005. Dates Are Not Just Data: Paleolithic Settlement Patterns in Siberia Derived from Radiocarbon Records. American Antiquity 70(4): 773– 789. https://doi.org/10.2307/40035874 Kuzmin Y. V., Tankerslay K. B. 1996. The Colonization of Eastern Siberia: an Evaluation of the Paleolithic Age Ra- diocarbon Dates. Journal of Archaeological Science 23: 577–585. https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1996.0054 Lapteva E. M., Beznosikov V. A., and Shamrikova E. V. 2016. Pochvy i pochvennye resursy Respubliki Komi: etapy issledovaniy, itogi i perspektivy. Izvestiia Komi NTC UrO RAN 3(27): 23–34. (in Russian) Loginova E. S. 1985. Mezoliticheskie stoianki na srednei Vychegde. In E. A. Savelieva (ed.), Arkheologicheskie pamyatniki Severnogo Priuralya (Materialy po arkheo- logii Evropeiskogo Severo-Vostoka 9). Syktyvkar: 16– 30. (in Russian) Meadows J. 2020. Interpreting 14C Ages of the Total Orga- nic Carbon Content of Prehistoric Pottery. In N. D. Buro- va, A. A. Vybornov, and M. A. Kul’kova (eds.), Radiougle- rod v arkheologii i paleoekologii: proshloe, nastoiash- chee, budushchee. Materialy mezhdunarodnoy konferen- tsii, posvyashchennoy 80-letiyu starshego nauchnogo so- trudnika IIMK RAN, kandidata khimicheskikh nauk Gan- ny Ivanovny Zaytsevoy. Institut Istorii material’noy kul’- tury Rossiyskoy akademii nauk. Sankt-Peterburg: 54–56. DOI: 10.31600/978-5-91867-213-6-54-57 Nikiforova L. D. 1982. Dinahmika landshaftnykh zon go- locena Severo-Vostoka evropeiskoy chasti SSSR. In Raz- vitie prirody territorii SSSR v pozdnem pleistocene i go- locene. Moskva: 154–162. (in Russian) O’Malley J. M., Kuzmin Y. V., Burr G. S., Donahue D. J., and Jull A. J. T. 1999. Direct radiocarbon AMS dating of the ear- liest pottery from the Russian Far East and Transbaikal. Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique Française 26: 19– 24. (Supplement 1999 de la Revue d’Archéometrie) Pettitt P. B., Davies W., Gamble C. S., and Richards M. B. 2003. Palaeolithic radiocarbon chronology: quantifying our confidence beyond two half-lives. Journal of Archaeo- logical Science 30(12): 1685–1693. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-4403(03)00070-0 Reimer P. J., Austin W. E. N., Bard E., +38 authors, and Ta- lamo S. 2020. The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere Radio- carbon Age Calibration Curve (0–55 cal kBP). Radiocar- bon 62(4): 725–757. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.41 Rick J. W. 1987. Dates as data: an examination of the Pe- ruvian pre-ceramic radiocarbon record. American Anti- quity 52(1): 55–73. https://doi.org/10.2307/281060 Seitsonen O. 2006. Petsamo Maattivuono Rotojoki: two Late Stone Age dwellings excavated by Sakari Pälsi in 1929. In V.-P. Herva (ed.), People, material culture and environment in the North. Proceedings of the 22nd Nor- Victor N. Karmanov, Nataliya E. Zaretskaya 160 dic Archaeological Conference. University of Oulu. 18–23 August 2004. Studia humaniora ouluensia 1. Gummerus Kirjapaino Oy: 226–237 Seitsonen O., Nordqvist K., Gerasimov D. V., and Lisitsyn S. N. 2012. “The good, the bad, the weird”: Stone Age and Early Metal Period radiocarbon dates and chronology from the Karelian Isthmus, North-West Russia. Geochro- nometria 39(2): 101–121. https://doi.org/10.2478/s13386-012-0001-9 Semenov V. A., Nesanelene V. N. 1997. Evropeiskiy Seve- ro-Vostok v epohu bronzy (po materialam raskopok Syktyvkarskogo universiteta). Syktyvkar. (in Russian) Semyontsov A. A., Dolukhanov P. M., Romanova Ye. N, and Timofeev V. I. 1972. Radiocarbon dates of the Insti- tute of Archaeology III. Radiocarbon 14(2): 336–367. doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200059415 Smirnova T. I. 1971. Osnovnye izmeneniia rastitelnosti severa Pechorskoy nizmennosti v chetvertichnoe vre- mia (po palinologicheskim dannym). Avtoreferat disser- tatcii na soiskanie uchenoy stepeni kandidata biologiches- kikh nauk. Moskva. (in Russian) Spriggs M. 1989. The dating of the island Southeast Asian Neolithic: an attempt at chronometric hygiene and lingui- stic correlation. Antiquity 63: 587–613. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00076560 Stokolos V. S. 1986. Drevnie poseleniya Mezenskoy do- liny. Izdatelstvo Nauka. Moskva. (in Russian) 1988. Kultury epokhi rannego metalla Severnogo Priu- ralya. Izdatelstvo Nauka. Moskva. (in Russian) 1995. Poselenie Muchkas na Mezeni. In E. A. Savelieva (ed.), Etnokulturnye kontakty v epokhu kamnya, bronzy, rannego zheleza i srednevekovya v Severnom Priuralie. Materialy po arkheologii Evropeiskogo Seve- ro-Vostoka 1). Syktyvkar 59–64. (in Russian) 1997. Eneolit i bronzovyi vek. In E. A. Savelieva (ed.), Arkheologiya Respubliki Komi. Izdatelstvo Nauka. Moskva: 213–246 (in Russian) Stuiver M., Reimer P. J., and Reimer R. W. 2020. CALIB 8.2. http://calib.org/calib/calib.html Timofeev V. I., Zaitseva G. I. 1996. Nekotorye aspekty ra- diouglerodnoi khronologii neoliticheskikh kul’tur lesnoi zony Evropeiskoi Rossii. In Arkheologiya i radiouglerod. Ezhegodnik radiouglerodnoi laboratorii IIMK RAN 1. Sankt-Peterburg: 49–55. (in Russian) Timofeev V. I., Zaitseva G. I., Dolukhanov P. M., and Shu- kurov A. M. 2004. Radiouglerodnaya Khronologiya Neo- lita Severnoi Evrazii. Teza. Sankt-Peterburg. (in Russian) Vasiliev S. Yu., Suvorov A. V. 2000. Novye materialy k arkheologicheskoi karte doliny r. Iug (po itogam rabot Iugskogo arkheologicheskogo otryada NPT “Drevnosti Severa”. In Velikiy Ustyug. Kraevedcheskiy al’manah 2: 5–31. (in Russian) Vaskul I. O. 2011. Shikhovskoy geoarkheologicheskii mi- kroraion. In Vtorye Miandinskie chteniia. Materialy vse- rossiyskoy nauchnoy-praktichesloy konferentsii. Selo Ust’- Tsil’ma, 11–12 iyulya 2010. Syktyvkar: 4–11. (in Russian) Vereshchagina I. V. 1985. Otchet o polevykh issledovani- iakh Sredne-Dvinskogo arheologicheskogo otryada v 1984 godu. Nauchnyi arhiv Instituta arkheologii Rossiis- koy akademii nauk. R-1. No 10241, 10241a. Leningrad. (in Russian) 1989. Otchet o polevykh issledovaniiakh Sredne-Dvin- skogo arheologicheskogo otryada v 1988 godu. Lenin- grad. Nauchnyi arhiv Instituta arkheologii Rossiiskoy akademii nauk. R-1. No 13043. (in Russian). 2008. Struktura poseleniy mezolita – rannego metalla na severo-zapade Rossii (bassein Severnoi Dviny). Tran- sactions of the Institute for the History of Material Culture RAS 3: 118–136. (in Russian) Volokitin A. V. 1987. Osobennosti industrii mezolitiches- kikh pamiatnikov Topyd-Niur 5 i 7a na srednei Pechore. In E. A. Savelieva (ed.), Material’naya i dukhovnaya kul’- tura naseleniya Evropeiskogo Severo-Vostoka. Trudy In- stituta iazyka, literatury i istorii Komi filiala AN SSSR 39. Syktyvkar: 6–15. (in Russian) 1997. Mezolit. In E. A. Savelieva (ed.), Arheologiya Res- publiki Komi. Izdatelstvo Nauka. Moskva: 91–145. (in Russian) 2005. Mezoliticheskii pamiatnik Lek-Lesa 1 na r. Izhma. In Kamennyi vek lesnoy zony Vostochnoy Evropy i Zauralia. Izdatelstvo Nauka. Moskva: 198–206. (in Rus- sian) 2006. Mezoliticheskie stoianki Parch 1 i Parch 2 na Vy- chegde. Syktyvkar. (in Russian) Volokitin A. V., Andreicheva L. N., and Zaretskaya N. E. 2013. Geoarchaeological studies in the Izhma river: a multilayered site Vylys Tom 2. Vestnik of the Institute of Geology of the Komi Science Centre UB RAS 8(224): 13–18. (in Russian) Radiocarbon dating of Holocene archaeological sites in the Far Northeast of Europe> scopes and limits of a supraregional database 161 Volokitin A. V., Gribchenko Yu. N. 2017. North of the East European Plain. In V. M. Kotlyakov, A. A. Velichko, and S. A. Vasil’ev (eds.), Human Colonization of the Arctic. The Interaction Between Early Migration and the Paleoenvi- ronment. Academic Press. London: 75–104. Volokitin A. V., Panin A. V., and Arslanov Kh. A. 2014. The Multilayered Site Vylys Tom 2 and the Izhma River Valley Formation in the Holocene. Evraziia v kainozoe. Strati- grafiia, paleoekologiia, kul’tury 3: 42–46. (in Russian) Volokitin A. V., Volokitina N. A. 2019. Izhma-tomskiy geo- arkheologicheskiy raiyon: noveyshie issledovaniya po me- zolitu Pripechorya. In Geologiya i mineralnye resursy Evropeyskogo Severo-Vostoka Rossii: Materialy XVII Geologicheskogo s’ezda Respubliki Komi. Vol. 3. Syktyv- kar: 396–397. (in Russian) Volokitin A. V., Zaretskaya N. E. 2006. Radiouglerodnaya hronologiya zaseleniya evropeiskogo Severo-Vostoka v nachale golotsena. In Sovremennye problemy arkheolo- gii Rossii. Institut arkheologii i etnografii SO RAN. Sibir- skoye otdeleniye RAN Novosibirsk: 185–188. (in Russian) Vybornov A. A. 2008. New Data on Radiocarbon Chrono- logy of Neolithic Ceramics from the Volga-Kama Region. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 36 (4): 15–24. Waterbolk H. T. 1971. Working with radiocarbon dates. Proceedings of the prehistoric society 37: 15–33. World reference base soil resources 2006. A framework for international classification, correlation and com- munication. World Soil Resources Reports 103. Rome. Zaboeva I. V. 1975. Pochvy i zemelnye resursy Komi ASSR. Syktyvkar. (in Russian) Zaretskaya N. E., Volokitin A. V., and Karmanov V. N. 2014. Novyi vzgliad na starye problemy: formirovanie kulturovmeshchaiushchikh otlozheniy Visskikh torfiani- kov (Respublika Komi). In A. N. Mazurkevich, M. E. Pol- kovnikova, and E. V. Dolbunova (eds.), Arkheologiya ozernyh poseleniy IV-II tys. do n. e.: hronologiya kul- tur i prirodno-climaticheskie ritmy. Materialy mezhdu- narodnoy konferentsii, posvyashchennoy poluvekovomu issledovaniyu svaynykh poseleniy na Severo-Zapade Ros- sii. Sankt-Peterburg, 13–15 noyabrya 2014 g. Gosudarst- vennyy Ermitazh. Rossiyskaya akademiya nauk. Institut istorii material’noy kul’tury. Sankt-Peterburg: 93–98. (in Russian) Zazovskaya E. P. 2016. Radiouglerodnoe datirovanie – so- vremennoe sostoianie, problemy, perspektivy razvitiia i ispol’zovanie v arkheologii. Vestnik arkheologii, antro- pologii i etnografii 1(32): 151–164. (in Russian) https://doi.org/10.20874/2071-0437-2016-32-1-151-164 Victor N. Karmanov, Nataliya E. Zaretskaya 162 N o . A rc ha eo lo gi ca l s ite D at in g m at er ia ls La bo ra to ry in de x 14 C a ge , B P C al ib ra te d ag e, R ef er en ce an d nu m be r B C , 1 σσ V yc he gd a ri ve r ba si n (K om i R ep ub lic ) 1 C he rd yb 1 C ha rc oa l< un it 1 G IN -1 33 57 75 20 ±9 0 64 60 –6 34 0 V ol ok iti n, Z ar et sk ay a 20 06 2 C he rd yb 2 C ha rc oa l< un it 2 G IN -1 33 58 74 60 ±7 0 64 0 0 –6 25 0 3 Pa rc h 2\ 5 C ha rc oa l, fir ep la ce G IN -1 19 12 95 0 0 ±2 50 92 50 –8 55 0 V ol ok iti n 20 06 4 Pa rc h 2\ 6 C ha rc oa l, fir ep la ce G IN -1 19 13 91 0 0 ±2 50 87 0 0 –7 90 0 5 Pa rc h 2\ 3 C ha rc oa l, fir ep la ce G IN -1 19 11 78 0 0 ±3 0 0 71 0 0 –6 35 0 6 Pa rc h 1 C ha rc oa l c lu st er Le -4 0 33 71 65 ±3 0 0 64 0 0 –5 70 0 7 C he rt as 2 C ha rc oa l, de pt h 1m TA -1 54 7 M od er n – Sl ip c ar d, E . S . L og in ov a ar ch iv e (1 98 1) 8 C ha rc oa l w ith s an d, Le -1 93 2 39 10 ±4 0 24 70 –2 34 0 Sl ip c ar d , E .S . L og in ov a ar ch iv e (1 98 5) < de pt h 1m Ti m of ee v et al . 2 00 4. 10 0 9 Pe zm og ty 6 C ha rc oa l c lu st er G IN -1 39 44 50 70 ±1 0 0 39 70 –3 76 0 Th is p ap er 10 V is 1 p ea t bo g< r iv er V is W oo d, p ro ce ss ed lo g, d ep th 1 .7 m Le -7 76 (4 78 ) 80 80 ±9 0 71 80 –6 90 0 B ur ov et a l. 19 72 11 W oo d, lo g, d ep th 1 .7 5m R U L- 61 6 78 20 ±8 0 67 80 –6 56 0 12 W oo d, b ow , d ep th 1 .9 m Le -6 84 71 50 ±6 0 60 70 –5 98 0 13 W oo d, s tic k w ith le dg e Le -6 85 70 90 ±8 0 60 50 –5 89 0 at t he e nd , d ep th 1 .2 m 14 W oo d, p ro ce ss ed p la nk , d ep th 1 .9 m Le -7 13 70 90 ±7 0 60 30 –5 89 0 15 D ia to m g yt tja < d ep th 0 .4 m G IN -1 33 45 15 0 0 ±7 0 44 0 –6 40 A D Z ar et sk ay a et a l. 20 14 16 G yt tja < d ep th 0 .7 m G IN -1 33 46 25 30 ±4 0 79 0 –5 50 17 G yt tja < d ep th 1 .3 4m G IN -1 33 47 73 30 ±4 0 62 40 –6 0 90 18 G yt tja < d ep th 2 .3 m G IN -1 33 48 84 80 ±5 0 75 80 –7 52 0 19 Yo vd in o II \4 < r iv er V ym C ha rc oa l, fir e pi t in d w el lin g TA -1 54 6 45 90 ±5 0 35 0 0 –3 33 0 K os in sk ay a 19 87 .9 3 Pe ch or a ri ve r ba si n (K om i R ep ub lic ) 20 To py d- ny ur 7 a C ha rc oa l Le -2 73 9 64 50 ±6 0 54 80 –5 37 0 V ol ok iti n 19 97 .1 16 21 C ha rc oa l Le -2 74 0 46 40 ±1 50 36 50 –3 10 0 22 M at iu sh ev sk ay a 8< r iv er C ha rc oa l G IN -1 46 0 9 78 50 ±6 0 67 80 –6 60 0 Th is p ap er Se ve rn ay a M yl va 23 Le k- le sa 1 < r iv er I zh m a C ha rc oa l Le -3 60 7 90 10 ±7 0 83 0 0 –8 19 0 V ol ok iti n 20 05 24 V yl ys -T om 2 , c ul tu ra l C ha rc oa l, fir ep la ce G IN -1 53 31 77 20 ±1 0 0 66 40 –6 46 5 V ol ok iti n, V ol ok iti na 2 01 9. 39 6 ho ri zo n no . 3 ( hu m ou s 25 lo am \s an dy lo am )< C ha rc oa l, fir ep la ce G IN -1 45 93 78 0 0 ±9 0 67 60 –6 49 0 V ol ok iti n et a l. 20 14 26 ri ve r Iz hm a C ha rc oa l, fir ep la ce LU -7 28 9 85 10 ±7 0 75 95 –7 52 0 27 V yl ys -T om 2 , c ul tu ra l C ha rc oa l, fir ep la ce LU -7 28 8 86 90 ±9 0 78 30 –7 59 0 28 ho ri zo n no . 4 ( hu m ou s C ha rc oa l, fir ep la ce G IN -1 45 94 85 40 ±7 0 76 0 5– 75 20 lo am \s an dy lo am ) Pi ne ga r iv er b as in ( A rk ha ng el sk r eg io n) 29 Ya vr on ga 1 C ha rc oa l, bo tt om o f f ir e pi t Le -8 53 ( 54 7) 85 30 ±6 0 75 95 –7 53 5 B ur ov 1 97 4. 86 Ta b. 1 R ad io ca rb on d at in g re su lt s. M es ol it hi c as se m bl ag es . Radiocarbon dating of Holocene archaeological sites in the Far Northeast of Europe> scopes and limits of a supraregional database 163 N o . A rc ha eo lo gi ca l s ite D at in g m at er ia ls La bo ra to ry in de x 14 C a ge , B P C al ib ra te d ag e, R ef er en ce an d nu m be r B C , 1 σσ V yc he gd a ri ve r ba si n (K om i R ep ub lic ) 1 Pe zm og 4 , Fo od c ru st , i nn er p ar t of t he c er am ic v es se l< G IN –1 19 15 68 20 ±7 0 57 60 –5 63 0 K ar m an ov et a l. 20 12 ex ca va tio n of 1 99 9 de pt h 3. 66 –3 .7 5m 2 C ha rc oa l, cu ltu ra l-b ea ri ng d ep os its < d ep th 3 .6 –3 .7 m G IN –1 23 24 67 60 ±5 0 57 10 –5 63 0 3 To ta l o rg an ic c ar bo n co nt en t (T O C C ) of p ot sh er ds K i– 15 42 8- 2 61 30 ±1 0 0 52 20 –4 95 0 4 TO C C K i– 15 42 8- 1 64 10 ±9 0 54 80 –5 31 0 5 Pe zm og 4 , Si lty p ea t (c ul tu ra l-b ea ri ng d ep os its )< d ep th 3 .6 -3 .8 m G IN –1 23 22 67 30 ±5 0 57 10 –5 61 5 6 sa m pl in g of 2 0 0 2 G yt tja < d ep th 3 .2 m G IN -1 23 25 45 70 ±4 0 33 80 –3 12 0 7 Pe at < d ep th 1 .8 m G IN -1 23 26 32 30 ±4 0 15 30 –1 44 0 8 Pe zm og 4 , Si lty p ea t< de pt h 3. 58 –3 .9 0 m G IN –1 42 0 2 68 70 ±4 0 58 0 0 –5 71 0 9 sa m pl in g of 2 0 0 9 Si lty p ea t< de pt h 3. 25 –3 .2 8m G IN –1 42 0 1 62 0 0 ±4 0 51 80 –5 0 60 10 Si lty p ea t< de pt h 2. 54 –2 .5 7m G IN –1 42 0 0 46 10 ±2 0 34 90 –3 36 0 11 Pe zm og ty 1 A C ha rc oa l, fir ep la ce G IN –1 19 14 58 40 ±1 0 0 48 0 0 –4 55 0 12 Po ts he rd , d ir ec t da tin g K i– 16 65 7 56 90 ±8 0 46 20 –4 45 0 13 Pe zm og ty 4 B C ha rc oa l, sm al l f ra gm en ts G IN -1 29 83 42 0 0 ±3 0 0 33 50 –2 35 0 Th is p ap er 14 C ha rc oa l, sm al l f ra gm en ts a m on g th e sh er ds o f G IN -1 29 79 35 60 ±1 0 0 20 30 –1 75 0 br ok en p ot 15 C ha rc oa l, sm al l f ra gm en ts G IN -1 29 80 18 30 ±7 0 80 –2 60 A D 16 U gd ym 1 A C ha rc oa l, sm al l f ra gm en ts , u til ity p it G IN -1 43 53 53 0 0 ±1 0 0 42 50 –4 0 30 17 En ty 1 A TO C C K i– 16 0 32 49 30 ±8 0 38 0 0 –3 63 0 K ar m an ov et a l. 20 12 18 TO C C K i– 15 53 4 56 25 ±8 0 45 30 –4 36 0 19 V ad ni ur 1 \7 A C ha rc oa l, ho ri zo nt al c hi m ne y no . 1 in fil l IG A N A M S– 61 0 7 50 90 ±2 0 38 70 –3 81 0 K ar m an ov 2 02 0 20 C ha rc oa l, ho ri zo nt al c hi m ne y no . 2 in fil l G IN -1 56 16 49 50 ±1 0 0 38 10 –3 64 0 21 C ha rc oa l G IN -1 56 15 16 90 ±3 0 25 6– 41 6A D 22 R ev yu 1 C ha rr ed b on es , p it no . 5 G IN –1 57 46 59 10 ±9 0 49 10 –4 68 0 23 V is 2 , r iv er V is TO C C K i-1 60 34 -2 48 40 ±9 0 37 20 –3 51 0 K ar m an ov et a l. 20 12 24 TO C C K i-1 60 34 -1 53 70 ±9 0 43 30 –4 22 0 Pe ch or a ri ve r ba si n (K om i R ep ub lic ) 25 D ut ov o 1 C ha rr ed b on es G IN –1 40 0 9a 66 80 ±5 0 56 45 –5 55 5 K ar m an ov et a l. 20 12 Se ve rn ay a D vi na r iv er v al le y (A rk ha ng el sk r eg io n) 26 Pr ilu ks ka ya < C ha rc oa l, fir ep la ce Le –4 81 4 63 50 ±6 0 53 80 –5 29 0 Ti m of ee v, Z ai ts ev a 19 96 .5 2 27 ex ca va tio n pi t 2, 1 98 8 C ha rc oa l, fir ep la ce Le –4 81 3 66 80 ±7 0 56 60 –5 53 0 28 Pr ilu ks ka ya < TO C C K i– 16 20 7 62 20 ±9 0 53 0 0 –5 0 50 K ar m an ov et a l. 20 12 29 ex ca va tio n pi t 1, 1 97 4 TO C C K i– 16 17 4- 1 61 70 ±9 0 52 30 –4 99 0 Ta b. 2 . R ad io ca rb on d at in g re su lt s. N eo li th ic a ss em bl ag es . Victor N. Karmanov, Nataliya E. Zaretskaya 164 N o . A rc ha eo lo gi ca l s ite D at in g m at er ia ls La bo ra to ry in de x 14 C a ge , B P C al ib ra te d ag e, R ef er en ce an d nu m be r B C , 1 σσ V yc he gd a ri ve r ba si n (K om i R ep ub lic ) 1 Po dt y 1, c on st ru ct io n no . 1 C ha rc oa l f ro m t he b ot to m o f c ul tu ra l l ay er G IN -1 53 34 39 70 ±7 0 28 39 –2 21 0 Th is p ap er 2 U gd ym 1 D C ha rr ed b ir ch b ar k in t he b ro ke n po t G IN -1 45 92 34 80 ±1 90 20 40 –1 60 0 3 V ad ni ur 1 \5 C ha rc oa l, in fil l o f h or iz on ta l c hi m ne y no . 1 G IN -1 51 91 45 30 ±4 0 32 40 –3 11 0 K ar m an ov et a l. 20 17 4 C ha rc oa l, in fil l o f h or iz on ta l c hi m ne y no . 3 G IN -1 51 93 45 20 ±8 0 33 60 –3 0 90 5 C ha rc oa l, in fil l o f h or iz on ta l c hi m ne y no . 1 G IN -1 51 90 44 80 ±1 0 0 33 50 –3 0 80 6 C ha rc oa l, in fil l o f h or iz on ta l c hi m ne y no . 3 G IN -1 51 92 44 0 0 ±7 0 31 10 –2 91 0 7 N ir em ka 1 \1 2, r iv er V ym C ha rc oa l, in fil l o f e xi t di tc h TA -1 54 5 46 50 ±6 0 35 20 –3 36 0 K os in sk ay a 19 87 .1 19 8 N ir em ka 1 \5 C ha rc oa l, un kn ow n co nt ex t TA -1 54 4 38 80 ±6 0 25 59 –2 14 9 9 N ir em ka 1 \2 C ha rc oa l, un kn ow n co nt ex t Le -1 35 6 30 15 ±4 0 13 95 –1 12 6 10 C ha rc oa l, un kn ow n co nt ex t Le -1 35 7 29 70 ±4 0 13 71 –1 0 51 Pe ch or a ri ve r ba si n (K om i R ep ub lic ) 11 Sh ih ov sk oe 2 \2 , r iv er P ec ho ra C ha rc oa l, re m ai ns o f b ur nt r oo f Le -7 47 7 39 50 ±1 0 0 25 80 –2 28 0 V as ku l 2 01 1. 5 12 C ha rc oa l, re m ai ns o f b ur nt r oo f Le -7 47 8 43 60 ±1 40 31 30 –2 87 0 13 La st a 8\ 1, r iv er I zh m a C ha rc oa l< sq ua re 5 3- 5G Le -6 20 4 41 30 ±9 0 27 80 –2 58 0 Ti m of ee v et a l. 20 04 .1 02 14 C ha rc oa l< sq ua re 4 G Le -6 20 5 47 70 ±3 0 0 39 50 –3 10 0 15 M ar tiu sh ev sk oe 2 \1 , C ha rc oa l< pi t no . 2 G IN -1 59 28 37 90 ±4 0 24 0 1- 20 46 Th is p ap er 16 ri ve r Se ve rn ay a M yl va C ha rc oa l< up ro ot ed t re e pi t, un de r pi t no . 2 G IN -1 59 29 46 80 ±6 0 36 34 -3 35 8 Th is p ap er M ez en r iv er b as in ( K om i R ep ub lic ) 17 C ho in ov ty 1 C ha rc oa l< de pt h 0 .4 m Le -4 49 5 57 50 ±7 0 46 90 –4 52 0 Ti m of ee v et a l. 20 04 .4 5, 1 03 18 C ha rc oa l< de pt h 0 .3 m Le -1 72 9 53 20 ±6 0 42 40 –4 0 50 St ok ol os 1 98 6. 10 0< Ti m of ee v et a l. 20 04 .4 5, 1 03 19 C ha rc oa l Le -2 16 8 52 10 ±6 0 40 70 –3 95 0 St ok ol os 1 98 6. 10 0 20 C ha rc oa l< de pt h 0 .4 m Le -5 16 4 46 40 ±2 5 35 0 0 –3 44 0 Ti m of ee v et a l. 20 04 .4 5, 1 03 21 C ho in ov ty 2 C ha rc oa l, fir ep la ce o ut o f d w el lin gs Le -6 0 50 48 80 ±2 0 36 65 –3 64 0 Ti m of ee v et a l. 20 04 .1 03 22 O sh ch oy 5 \3 C ha rc oa l< de pt h 0 .8 m Le -1 73 0 45 30 ±4 0 32 40 –3 11 0 St ok ol os 1 98 6. 10 1< Ti m of ee v et a l. 20 04 .1 02 23 M uc hk as C ha rc oa l, dw el lin g |< d ep th 0 .3 m Le -5 16 2 36 10 ±2 0 19 80 –1 93 5 Ti m of ee v et a l. 20 04 .4 3, 1 02 24 C ha rc oa l, dw el lin g |< d ep th 0 .1 2m Le -5 16 1 34 70 ±2 0 17 80 –1 74 0 Ti m of ee v et a l. 20 04 .1 02 25 C ha rc oa l, dw el lin g |< d ep th 0 .4 m Le -5 16 3 33 30 ±1 10 17 50 –1 49 0 Se ve rn ay a D vi na r iv er v al le y (A rk ha ng el sk r eg io n) 26 C ho rn ay a R ec hk a 1 C ha rc oa l, th e cu ltu ra l l ay er Le -4 0 0 1 43 70 ±2 40 34 0 0 –2 65 0 V er es ha gi na 2 00 8. 12 8 27 C ha rc oa l, th e cu ltu ra l l ay er Le -4 0 0 2 43 60 ±3 70 36 0 0 –2 40 0 28 Yu m iz h 1 C ha rc oa l< sq ua re 2 5 Le -2 59 7 42 20 ±4 0 29 0 0 –2 75 0 29 C ha rc oa l, th e fir ep la ce 1 < d ep th 0 .4 5m Le -2 59 9 43 20 ±4 0 29 60 –2 89 0 30 C ha rc oa l, th e fir ep la ce 1 < d ep th 0 .2 -0 .4 m Le -2 59 8 45 30 ±4 0 32 40 –3 11 0 Ta b. 3 . R ad io ca rb on d at in g re su lt s. C ha lc ol it hi c as se m bl ag es . Radiocarbon dating of Holocene archaeological sites in the Far Northeast of Europe> scopes and limits of a supraregional database 165 N o . A rc ha eo lo gi ca l s ite D at in g m at er ia ls La bo ra to ry in de x 14 C a ge , B P C al ib ra te d ag e, R ef er en ce an d nu m be r B C , 1 σσ Yu g ri ve r va lle y (V ol og da r eg io n) 31 Pa vs hi no 2 C ha rc oa l b ur ie d w ith p od zo l d um p< G IN -8 17 9 39 70 ±5 0 25 73 –2 45 7 V as ili ev , S uv or ov 2 00 0. 21 10 m fr om t he d es tr oy ed d w el lin g no . 1 32 Pa vs hi no 2 \2 C ha rc oa l, pa ss ag e be tw ee n tw o ch am be rs G IN -8 18 1 40 20 ±5 0 25 80 –2 47 0 33 Sc at te re d ch ar co al fr ag m en ts , G IN -8 17 8 33 20 ±1 0 0 17 40 –1 49 0 cu ltu ra l l ay er in t he p it- ho us e 34 Pa vs hi no 2 \3 C ha rc oa l, fir ep la ce ( |) G IN -8 60 7 41 80 ±1 20 29 0 0 –2 58 0 35 C ha rc oa l, fir ep la ce ( |) G IN -8 60 8 40 0 0 ±1 0 0 26 70 –2 34 0 36 C ha rc oa l, fir ep la ce ( |) G IN -8 60 9 39 20 ±1 10 25 0 0 –2 27 0 37 Pa vs hi no 2 \4 C ha rc oa l f ra gm en ts fr om t he d w el lin g pi t, G IN -8 18 0 39 0 0 ±8 0 24 80 –2 28 0 sa m pl ed fr om t he a re a de st ro ye d by a la ir 38 M ar m ug in o pe at b og W oo d, fi sh in g tr ap n o. 1 Le -7 11 47 0 0 ±6 0 34 70 –3 37 0 Ti m of ee v et a l. 20 04 .9 9 39 W oo d, fi sh in g tr ap n o. 2 Le -7 0 3 45 10 ±5 0 32 40 –3 10 0 Ti m of ee v et a l. 20 04 .9 8 M at er ia ls a va ila bl e fo r da tin g Fr eq ue nc y N um be r o f d at es a va ila bl e fo r p ub lic at io n C ha rc oa l C om m on 68 ( Ta bs . 1 .1 –9 ,1 9– 29 < 2 .2 ,1 1, 13 –1 6, 19 –2 1, 26 ,2 7< 3 .1 ,3 –3 7) C al ci na te d or c ha rr ed b on es 67 o f 1 58 r ef er en ce a ss em bl ag es 2 (T ab . 2 .2 2, 45 ) To ta l o rg an ic c ar bo n co nt en t in s he rd s 76 5 po ts 9 (T ab . 2 .3 ,4 ,1 2, 17 ,1 8, 23 ,2 4, 28 ,2 9) U nd ef in ed g lu e (b itu m en , r es in o r ta r) 46 o f 7 65 p ot s 0 fo r po ts r ep ai ri ng Fo od c ru st 1 of 7 65 p ot s 1 (T ab . 2 .1 ) W oo d 2 si te s 7 (T ab s. 1 .1 0 –1 4< 3 .3 8, 39 ) C ha rr ed b ar k 2 ca se s 1 (T ab . 3 .2 ) To ta l o rg an ic c ar bo n co nt en t in th e se di m en ts , c on ta in in g 3 si te s 4 (T ab s. 1. 17 ,1 8< 2 .5 ,8 ) ar ch ae ol og ic al m at er ia ls To ta l o rg an ic c ar bo n co nt en t in t he 6 si te s 6 (T ab s. 1 .1 5, 16 < 2 .6 ,7 ,9 ,1 0 ) se di m en ts , o ve rl yi ng t he c ul tu ra l l ay er s Ta b. 4 . S yn op si s of d at ed m at er ia ls a n d av ai la bi li ty o f re su lt s.