UDK 903'23(571-I/-5)"633/634"
Documenta PraehistoricaXXXIV (2007)
The earliest Neolithic complex in Siberia:
the Ust-Karenga 12 site and its significance
for the Neolithisation process in Eurasia
Yaroslav V. Kuzmin1 and Viktor M. Vetrov2
1 Pacific Institute of Geography, Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Vladivostok, Russia
ykuzmin@tig.dvo.ru
2 Irkutsk State Pedagogical University, Irkutsk, Russia, a116@pochta.ru
ABSTRACT - The discovery of Neolithic (i.e. pottery-containing) components at the Ust-Karenga 12
site in northern Transbaikal brought to light new data on the appearance of pottery in Siberia. Ex-
cavations and geoarchaeological studies identified the pottery complex in layer 7, 14C-dated to c.
12180-10 750 BP (charcoal dates) and c. 11070-10 600 BP (pottery organics dates). The pottery is
thin and plant fibre-tempered; vessels are round-bottomed and with a comb-pattern design. Ust-Karen-
ga 12 thus preserves by far the earliest Neolithic assemblage in Siberia, and is only slightly younger
than the Initial Neolithic complexes of the Amur River basin, Russian Far East (c 13 300-12 400 BP).
IZVLEČEK - Odkritje neolitskih komponent na severno transbajkalskem najdišču Ust-Karenga 12 pri-
naša nove podatke o pojavu keramike v Sibiriji. Z izkopavanji in geoarheološkimi študijami so do-
ločili keramični kompleks v plasti 7, ki je 14C datirana na ca. 12180-10 750 BP (datirani vzorci og-
lja) in na ca. 11070-10 600 BP (datirani so organski ostanki v/na keramiki). Keramika je tanka in
vsebuje vlakna rastlin, posode imajo kroglasto dno in glavnikast okras. V najdišču Ust-Karenga 12 je
ohranjen najzgodnejši neolitski zbir v Sibiriji in je le neznatno mlajši od najstarejšega neolitskega
kompleksa v kotlini reke Amur na ruskem daljnem vzhodu (okoli 13300-12 400 BP).
KEY WORDS - Neolithic; Siberia; earliest pottery; radiocarbon dating
Introduction
The definition of the term 'Neolithic' in Siberia and
the northern and eastern parts of Asia implies first
of all the presence of pottery (e.g. Oshibkina 1996a;
Barnes 1999; Kuzmin 2003, 2006; Kuzmin and
Orlova 2000). In this case, pottery is determined as
containers made of fired clay (e.g. Darvill 2002.
337-338). Therefore, the concept of Neolithisation
for Siberia as well as East Asia means the emergence
of pottery-making. In this paper, we present a syste-
matic description of the earliest pottery assemblage
from Siberia known so far, Ust-Karenga. Previously,
it was published only in brief (e.g. Vetrov 1985; Kuz-
min 2002; Kuzmin and Orlova 2000.361).
The cluster of 16 prehistoric sites in the Karenga Ri-
ver mouth, located on the boundary between the
upper and middle courses of the Vitim River in
northern Transbaikal, Siberia (Figs. 1-2), was dis-
covered in the second half of the 1970s when a sy-
stematic survey was conducted in the Vitim River
basin by researchers from Irkutsk State University
(Aksenov and Vetrov 1977; Vetrov et al. 1978). The
geographical coordinates of the Ust-Karenga cluster
are: 54° 28' northern latitude and 116° 31' eastern
longitude, as determined with the aid of a U.S. Ope-
rational Navigation Chart, scale 1:1 000 000 (sheet
ONC E-8). The Ust-Karenga sites lie in the Vitim Ri-
ver valley; the water level elevation at the conflu-
ence of the Vitim and Karenga rivers is about 600
metres above sea level (asl). The Vitim River cuts
through the low mountain system of the Vitim Tab-
leland with heights of about 800-1200 m asl (End-
Copyright by Department of Archaeology, Faculty of arts, University of Ljubljana.
9
rikhinsky 1974), and the high-
est points in the vicinity of Ust-
Karenga are about 1200-1700
m asl. The climate of the Vitim
Tableland is of ultra-continental
type, with hot summers and
cold winters (e.g. Suslov 1961).
The mean January temperature
is -30° to -33 °C; and average
July temperature is up to +20 °C.
The annual amount of precipi-
tation is about 350-400 mm
(Gvozdetsky and Mikhailov
1978.350). The area is covered
with dense conifer forests (tai-
ga), consisting mainly of Dahu-
rian larch [Larix dahurica, in
some sources Larix gmelinii
(e.g. Shahgedanova et al.
2002)].
Materials and Methods
Fig. 1. General position of the Ust-Karenga cluster of prehistoric sites
in Northern Asia.
Depth from surface, m
0.0 - 0.10
0.10 - 0.22
The Ust-Karenga 12 site, which is the most represen-
tative for our study, was discovered in 1976. The
finds in cultural layer 7 included pottery fragments,
along with stone artefacts of typical final Upper Pa-
laeolithic appearance (wedge-shaped cores, Araya
type transversal burins, bifaces, and scrapers). It was
separated from the underlying and overlying cultu-
ral layers by about 1 metre of sterile sediments both
above and below (Figs. 3-4). Excavations of Ust-Ka-
renga 12 were conducted in a series of periodical
campaigns, from 1976 until recently. The total exca-
vated square at Ust-Karenga 12 for layer 7 is 214 m2.
As for geoarchaeological studies, palynological data
were obtained for layer 7 (Vetrov and Kuzmin
2005), and a series of radiocarbon (hereafter - 14C)
dates was generated. The first 14C dates were relea-
sed in the mid-1990s (Vetrov 1995a), and new re-
sults were produced and published in the late 1990s
and the 2000s (e.g. Vetrov and Kuzmin 2005; Vet-
rov et al. 2006).
Results
The cluster of archaeological sites at the confluence
of the Vitim and Karenga rivers is located on the al-
luvial terrace of the Karenga River, at a height of
20-25 m above the water level (Fig. 2). The general
stratigraphy of the Ust-Karenga cluster, mainly deri-
ved from the Ust-Karenga 12, 14, and 16 sites, is as
follows (Fig. 3):
0.28
0.38
0.44
0.52
Lithological layer
1.	Taiga soil
2.	Brown sandy loam,
humified
3.	Pale-yellow fine sand	0.22
4.	Brown fine sand	0.28
(palaeosol)
5.	Pale-yellow fine sand	0.38
6.	Pale-yellow fine sand	0.44
with greenish tint, with
ice-wedge structures
7.	Gray laminated sands	0.52 - 3.50
(thickness is approximate)
8.	Pebbles and rock	3.50 - 3.70
pieces (bedrock)
The cultural layer 1 is situated in lithological layer 1;
cultural component 2 - in layer 2; cultural layer 3 -
in layer 3; and component 4 - in layer 4. Cultural
layers 5 and 6 are located in lithological layer 6. The
cultural components 7, 7a, 8, and 8a are incorpora-
ted into the matrix of lithological layer 7 (Vetrov
2006) (Fig. 3). As for the determination of cultural
complexes, layer 1 dates to the time of the Iron Age
(or Palaeometal) to the ethnographic period. The
14C dates for this component at different locales of
the Ust-Karenga cluster are from 1890 ± 40 BP (LE-
2653) to 3670 ± 40 BP (LE-2650) (Vetrov 1986)
(Fig. 3). Cultural component 2 is associated with the
Late Neolithic, the so-called 'Ust-Yumurchen archaeo-
logical culture', and still has no 14C dates. Compo-
nents 3-7 are combined into the single 'Ust-Karenga
archaeological culture' of the Early and Middle Neo-
lithic (Vetrov 1982; 1997; 2000). It should be noted
Fig. 2. Position of individual sites in the Ust-Karen-
ga cluster.
that in Russian archaeology the term 'culture' is very
similar to 'cultural complex' in Western anthropo-
logy and archaeology. The 14C dates from cultural
component 4 at the Ust-Karenga 3 site are 6100 ±
400 BP (IM-922) and 6890 ± 80 BP (LE-1961) (Ak-
senov et al. 2000) (Fig. 3). The 14C dates for cultu-
ral component 7 are considered separately (see be-
low). Components 8 and 8a are of final Upper Pala-
eolithic type (e.g. Vetrov and Kuzmin 2005; Vetrov
2006; Aksenov et al. 2000), and without any pot-
tery. The charcoal 14C dates from component 8 at
the Ust-Karenga 12 site are 12 710 ± 380 BP (GIN-
8065), 12 880 ± 130 BP (GIN-6469a), 13 560 ± 195
BP (GIN-8070), and 16430 ± 240 BP (GIN-8668)
(e.g. Vetrov and Kuzmin 2005; Vetrov et al. 2006)
(Fig. 3). The oldest value of c. 16 430 BP was consi-
dered to be an outlier and rejected (e.g. Vetrov and
Kuzmin 2005.60-61), establishing the 14C age of the
pre-pottery component as c. 12 700-13 600 BP.
Cultural layer 7 as the earliest component of the Ust-
Karenga Neolithic culture is the main focus in this
report. It was excavated at several sites; the most
representative locale is Ust-Karenga 12 (Fig. 2), for
which a major part of archaeological and palaeo-en-
vironmental information was obtained. The thick-
ness of layer 7 is from 2 to 10 cm (Figs. 3-5). It con-
tains several well-preserved hearths and artefact con-
centrations around them; these spots are up to 6 m
in diameter.
The total number of stone artefacts recovered from
cultural layer 7 is several thousands; the exact num-
ber remains to be determined. Cores are represen-
ted by wedge-shaped, prismatic, and subprismatic
types (Fig. 6) (Vetrov 1995b). Major tool types in-
clude transversal (Araya) burins, scrapers, knives on
blades, chisels, microblade tools, points, and bifaces
(Fig. 7). Five kinds of burin were classified:
O burins made on blade spalls as preforms;
© core-like burins;
© burins made on wide prismatic blades;
© burins made on prismatic segmented microbla-
des; and
© burins made on segmented blade spalls (Vetrov
1995b).
The predominant raw material is flint obtained from
pebbles collected in the channels of the Vitim and
Karenga rivers.
In terms of raw materials used for the manufacture
of the stone tools, it is important to note the pre-
Fig. 3. General stratigraphy and 14C dates at the
Ust-Karenga cluster.
sence in cultural layer 4 of the Ust-Karenga 16 site
of some artefacts made on rocks 'exotic' for the mid-
dle stream of the Vitim River, hyalodacite and gra-
phitite (Vetrov et al. 2000). The sources of these
raw materials are located downstream from the Ust-
Karenga cluster, at a distance of up to 400 km. This
fact demonstrates that the inhabitants of the middle
course of the Vitim River had active contacts with
the neighbouring territories of Eastern Siberia, with
distances of 400 km and possibly up to 600 km (Vet-
rov et al. 2000).
The pottery from cultural layer 7 is unique in all Si-
beria. Numerous potsherds were excavated, includ-
ing large fragments, and this allows the reconstruc-
tion of the size and shape of vessels. The vessels are
of parabolic type, from 17-20 to 35 cm high, and
from 12 to 20 cm in diameter. The sharp-based bot-
tom looks mammiformed. The design is mainly comb-
pattern (Fig. 8), and also zigzag, herringbone, and
cogged stamped (Figs. 9-10) (Vetrov 1985; Kuzmin
and Orlova 2000.361). Both external and internal
sides have traces of grooves made with grass fibre
or comb trail to smooth the surface of the clay dur-
ing the pottery-making process (Figs. 11-12). Orna-
mentation was made mainly by cog-wheel (Vetrov
2006). The distinctive feature of the Ust-Karenga pot-
tery is that it is plant fibre-tempered. The number of
vessels used at the Ust-Karenga 12 site may be esti-
mated as about ten. For the whole Ust-Karenga clus-
ter, about 16-18 vessels can be reconstructed.
14C dating of cultural layer 7 was conducted using
two kinds of datable material - charcoal from hearths
and the cultural layer in general, and pottery temper
(Tab. 1). The extraction of carbon from organic-tem-
pered pottery was performed by low temperature
combustion with oxygen (O'Malley et al. 1999; De-
revianko et al. 2004; Vetrov et al. 2006). The car-
bon yield of three pottery samples was about 0.8-
Fig. 5. Stratigraphic profile of Ust-Karenga 12 site.
Fig. 4. Stratigraphic profile of Ust-Karenga 12 site
with position of cultural layer 7 (indicated by dash
line).
1.0 %, which makes the 14C dates on pottery temper
quite reliable in terms of the origin of carbon. We
assume that the 14C-dated carbon comes predomi-
nantly from short-lived plant fibre temper, and not
from clay carbon itself, which may be much older
than the time of vessel manufacture. Calibration was
done with the aid of Calib Rev. 5.0.1 software (avai-
lable online: www.radiocarbon.org).
The results of 14C dating are presented in Table 1.
Charcoal from cultural layer 7 at a depth of 1.00 m
below the surface, found in small depressions in di-
rect association with pottery, was dated to c. 12 180-
12 170 BP (or c. 12 200-11 900 calBC). The hearth
charcoal gave slightly younger ages, c. 11 240-
10 750 BP (or c. 11 300-10 700 calBC). Three pot-
tery temper 14C dates, c. 11 070-10 600 BP (or c.
11 200-10 200 calBC), are similar to those on char-
coal. Therefore, it is safe to say that the age of cultu-
ral layer 7 at the Ust-Karenga 12 site is about 12 200-
10 600 BP (or c. 12 200-10 200 calBC; 14 150-
12 150 calBP), and this makes the pottery from cul-
tural component 7 the oldest in Siberia. The quite
'advanced' appearance of the Ust-Karenga pottery
may mean that it originated even earlier, if we take
into account that an area of only 25 m2 of cultural
layer 8 has been excavated so far. Thus, we should
not exclude the possibility that pottery at the Ust-Ka-
renga 12 site may be found in the earlier compo-
nent 8, dated to c. 12 700-13 600 BP.
The palaeo-environmental reconstruction of cultural
later 7 is based on the results of palynological ana-
lysis. An environment of cold grass steppe and open
pine-larch forest, with dwarf birch, alder, and cold-
adapted lycopodium moss (Selaginella sibirica) exis-
ted at the time of site activity at c. 12 200-10 600 BP.
This kind of vegetation is typical of the Pleistocene-
Holocene transition in Eastern Siberia (e.g. Krivono-
gov et al. 2004).
Discussion
In the light of Late Glacial pottery in Transbaikal, we
should examine the adjacent regions of Siberia to
see if there are any other Neolithic complexes known
with ages similar to the Ust-Karenga culture. In
Transbaikal, two other sites may contain pottery of
the final Pleistocene age. At the Ust-Kyakhta site, in
the southernmost part of the region near the border
with Mongolia, the 1978 excavation campaign of the
first cultural layer revealed stone artefacts, wedge-
shaped cores and scrapers, ostrich eggshell beads,
and about 10 small pieces of pottery, including two
rim fragments about 2 cm long (Aseev 2003.35-37;
Medvedev 1995). The pottery is tempered with mi-
neral particles and crushed ostrich eggshells. The
diameter of the vessel was up to 10 cm. A 14C date
on animal bone from cultural layer 1 is 11 505 ± 100
BP (SOAN-1552). At the Studenoe 1 site in the Chi-
koi River basin, southern Transbaikal, the earliest
pottery was found in cultural layers 9 and 8 (Khlo-
bystin and Konstantinov 1996.306). It is represen-
ted by fragments of a sharp-based vessel with thin
walls and string impressions. This thin-walled (0.2-
0.3 cm) pottery was made using the paddle and an-
vil technique (Tseitlin and Aseev 1982.110). The
overlying cultural layers 7 and 6 have similar pot-
tery. The 14C dates associated with this pottery are:
10 450 ± 300 BP (GIN-5493) for cultural layer 7b;
9620 ± 250 BP (GIN-5492) for layer 7; and 10 780
± 150 BP (GIN-4577) for layer 6 (e.g. Konstantinov
1994.85; Kuzmin and Orlova 2000.359). However,
Konstantinov (1994.85) rejected these 14C values;
he also stated that the reason for such an old age of
the Transbaikal Neolithic remains unclear, and de-
termined the age of the Early Neolithic in Transbai-
kal as c. 6500-5500 BP (Konstantinov 1994.153-
Fig. 6. Cores from the cultural layer 7 of Ust-Karen-
ga 12 site (on Figures 6-11, each bar unit is 1 cm
long).
155). Therefore, the situation with final Pleistocene
14C dates in possible association with pottery at the
Studenoe 1 is still obscure.
String and cord impressed pottery became common
in Siberia after c. 7000-6000 BP (e.g. Kuzmin and
Orlova 2000). Nowadays, in the light of the very
early 14C age of the Ust-Karenga complex pottery,
the question 'How old is comb-patterned pottery in
Siberia?' becomes an important issue related to the
Neolithisation of the region. The earliest sites with
pottery decorated with a comb-pattern and incised
ornamentation, besides the Ust-Karenga complex,
Material dated	14C age, BP	Lab Code and No.	Calibrated age, calBC (with ± 2 sigmas)*	Reference
Charcoal from cultural layer	12180 ± 60	AA-60210	12140-11 920	Vetrov and Kuzmin 2005
Charcoal from cultural layer	12170 ± 70	AA-60202	12 240-11 990	Vetrov and Kuzmin 2005
Charcoal from hearth	11 240 ± 80	GIN-8066	11 320-11 010	Vetrov 1995a
Charcoal from hearth	10750 ± 60	GIN-8067	10920-10740	Vetrov 1995a
Organic temper in pottery	11 065 ± 70	AA-38101	11160-10 930	Kuzmin and Keally 2001
Organic temper in pottery	10870 ± 70	AA-60667	10 990-10 840	Vetrov and Kuzmin 2005
Organic temper in pottery	10 600 ± 110	AA-21378	10890-10220	O'Malley et al. 1999
* Calib Rev. 5.1.0 software was used for calibration.				
Tab. 1. Radiocarbon dates for the cultural layer 7, Ust-Karenga 12 site.
Fig. 7. Stone tools from the cultural layer 7 of Ust-
Karenga 12 site.
are known now in the central West Siberian Plain.
They are located in the upper reaches of the Konda
River, within the larger Ob River basin, about 3000
km west of the Ust-Karenga sites (Fig. 1). A cluster
of Neolithic sites was found in the 1960s on the
shore of the Satyiginsky Tuman Lake, in the Sumpa-
nya River mouth area (geographical coordinates:
59° 48' N, 64° 49' E). Pottery with both incised and
comb ornamentation on the surface of sharp-botto-
med vessels was determined as the 'Sumpanya' type
(Kovaleva et al. 1984; Krizhevskaya and Gadzhi-
eva 1991). At the Sumpanya IV site, a series of char-
coal 14C dates were obtained: 6850 ± 60 BP (LE-
1440) from a hearth; 6520 ± 70 BP (LE-1813) from
a burnt tree log; and 6590 ± 70 BP (LE-1814) from
the dwelling floor. At the Sumpanya II site, charcoal
collected in association with Sumpanya-type pottery
was dated to 6530 ± 70 BP (LE-1818) (Kovaleva et
al. 1984.38). At the Sumpanya VI site, three 14C
dates on charcoal from the cultural layer with Sum-
panya pottery were generated: 6100 ± 70 BP (LE-
2540); 9130 ± 80 BP (LE-2554); and 9920 ± 80 BP
(LE-2772) (Krizhevskaya and Gadzhieva 1991.85).
Kosarev (1996.262) and Timofeev and Zaitseva
(1996.344) accepted the 14C dates from these sites
in the range of c. 6850-6100 BP. However, they did
not include the 14C values of c. 9130-9920 BP from
the Sumpanya VI site in their databases (Timofeev
and Zaitseva 1996; Timofeev et al. 2004). Further-
more, 14C dates for Sumpanya IV sites in excess of
c. 10 000 BP, released after the original publication
of the site's materials, i.e., 10 100 ± 100 BP (LE; No.
is not given); 10 910 ± 100 BP (LE-1817); and
11970 ± 120 BP (LE-1812) (Krizhevskaya and Gad-
zhieva 1991.85), were not taken into account. In-
deed, it is hard to explain such a large variation in
a date series from the same site, especially in the
case of Sumpanya IV. This was noted by Krizhevska-
ya and Gadzhieva (1991) due to the absence of ear-
lier cultural complexes at the Sumpanya IV site.
New archaeological and chronological data were re-
cently gained from other sites in central Western Si-
beria with the Sumpanya type of pottery. At a cluster
of sites on the shore of Lake Andreevskoe near the
city of Tumen (geographical coordinates: 57° 01' N,
65° 51' E), four pottery types were determined at lo-
cality VIII (Usacheva 2001). The earliest pottery of
Sumpanya appearance with incised and comb orna-
mentation from dwelling 7 is associated with a 14C
date of 9140 ± 60 BP (LE-2296).
Therefore, it is possible to correlate tentatively the
Sumpanya pottery type from Western Siberia with
14C dates of c. 9900-6100 BP; more research is ne-
eded to explain the older values of c. 10 100-
12 000 BP. Currently, it is safer to accept the 'con-
servative' opinion on the Holocene age of the Sum-
panya pottery (e.g. Kosarev 1996; Usacheva 2001).
Fig. 8. Reconstruction of pottery vessels from the
cultural layer 7 of Ust-Karenga 12 site (after Vet-
rov 1985).
Fig. 9. Pottery from the cultural layer 7 of Ust-Ka-
renga 12 site.
As was recently highlighted, the discrepancy be-
tween the 14C and archeological ages in West Sibe-
rian prehistoric complexes is most commonly con-
nected with uncertain taphonomic situations, when
carbon material which could not be related to hu-
man occupation was 14C-dated (Kosintsev et al.
2004.21).
Another important issue is the search for the 'roots'
of the Ust-Karenga culture. Based on the most recent
results, final Pleistocene pottery is known from East
Asia, including the southern part of China, the Japa-
nese Archipelago, and the Russian Far East (Amur
River basin) (e.g. Derevianko and Medvedev 1995;
Barnes 1999; Lapshina 1999; Keally et al. 2004;
Kuzmin 2006; Nesterov et al. 2006). Pottery seems
to appear almost simultaneously in these three dif-
ferent regions of East Asia, at c. 13 700-13 300 BP,
and in each case pottery-making technology was
most probably invented independently (e.g. Kuz-
min 2006.368-369). There are some similarities and
differences between the pottery from the Ust-Ka-
renga complex, the Incipient Jomon of Japan, and
the Initial Neolithic of the Amur River basin. For
example, plant fibre tempering is common in the Ini-
tial Neolithic complexes of Osipovka and Gromatu-
kha in the Amur River basin (e.g. Kuzmin 2006; De-
revianko and Medvedev 2006.130), although some
plant-tempered pottery is known in the Incipient Jo-
mon (e.g. Jomon Jidai Sosoki 1996.46, 63; Keally
et al. 2003.5). On the other hand, pottery from the
Amur River basin is flat-based, while most of the In-
cipient Jomon vessels are sharp-based. Therefore, the
possible source of pottery origins for the Ust-Karen-
ga complex may be provisionally suggested in the
Amur River basin. This does not exclude the possibi-
lity of the independent invention of pottery-making
in northern Transbaikal at the end of the Pleistocene,
c. 12 200-10 700 BP. At the modern stage of re-
search, the final answer to the question 'What is the
origin of the Ust-Karenga pottery?' remains open to
discussion.
As for the implications of the Ust-Karenga pottery to
the broader Eurasian aspect of the emergence of the
Neolithic (sensu Chard 1974; Barnes 1999; Kuzmin
2006.362), it is important to keep in mind the very
early emergence of pottery-making in remote north-
ern Transbaikal, far from traditional 'centres' of the
origin and spread of prehistoric technological inno-
vations such as East Asia and the Near East (e.g. She-
rratt 1980). Based on the results of archaeological
studies in East Asia, Siberia, and Europe in the last
few decades, it becomes clear that the process of
Neolithisation was very 'unlinear' (e.g. Budja 2005;
2006), and there is no direct correlation between
environmental conditions and the appearance of pot-
Fig. 10. Pottery from the cultural layer 7 of Ust-Ka-
renga 12 site (closer view).
Fig. 11. Internal side of potsherd from the cultural
layer 7 of Ust-Karenga 12 site (with grooves).
tery. The general vector of Neolithisation from the
eastern part of Asia to the west - proposed about
ten years ago (van Berg 1997; van Berg and Cauwe
1998) - remains valid today. However, no clear trend
has been observed in terms of the time-progressive
emergence of pottery from East Asia toward Europe.
The possible movement of populations with a pot-
tery-making tradition in Eurasia from the east to the
west can not be proved, because of the absence of
any scientific evidence of contacts and migrations,
such as the exchange of raw materials between East
Asia and Siberia. It is quite possible that in several
places in Siberia the tradition of pottery-making ap-
peared independently.
On the other hand, some authors (Dolukhanov 2004.
231-235; Dolukhanov et al. 2005.1456-1457) have
accepted early 14C dates from the pottery sites in
East Asia and Siberia, and suggested the spread of
pottery-making from the east to the west, reaching
the southeastern periphery of Eastern Europe at c.
7000 calBC, which roughly corresponds to c. 8000
BP (Reimer et al. 2004.1054). This conclusion re-
Fig. 12. Internal side of potsherd from the cultural
layer 7 of Ust-Karenga 12 site (with grooves).
mains quite debatable, and more research is needed
in order to understand the spatial-temporal patterns
of the Neolithisation of Eurasia.
It is feasible to see two main trajectories of the Neo-
lithisation process in Eurasia: the 'agricultural' route
from the Levant towards Europe (e.g. Mellaart 1994),
and the 'hunter-gatherer' route from East Asia to-
wards Siberia and Europe (e.g. van Berg 1997).
They represent two fundamentally different proces-
ses: the emergence of food production and the ap-
pearance of food containers, and should be treated
separately in terms of the meaning of the term 'Neo-
lithisation'. In this case, extreme caution should be
taken when one is trying to model the spread of the
Neolithic in Eurasia. A recent attempt by Davison et
al. (2006) (see also Timofeev et al. 2004.36, 63, 70-
72) seems to mix 'apples and oranges', by determi-
ning the Neolithic as an agricultural phenomenon
which emerged in the Near East. However, their mo-
del (Davison et al. 2006.648) shows the spread of
the 'Neolithic' from the Levant, where it is dated to
c. 10 300 BP at Jericho (e.g. Kuijt and Bar-Yosef
1994), to the southern and central parts of Eastern
Europe about 3000 years after its emergence, i.e., at
-ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS-
We are grateful to our colleagues who conducted the
14C dating of the Ust-Karenga samples, L. D. Suler-
zhitsky (Geological Institute, Russian Academy of Sci-
ences, Moscow, Russia); A. J. T. full, G. S. Burr and R.
J. Cruz (NSF-Arizona AMS Laboratory, University of
Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA); and G. I. Zaitseva (Insti-
tute of the History of Material Culture, Russian Aca-
demy of Sciences, St.-Petersburg, Russia). T. I. Nok-
hrina (Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography,
Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, Russia)
supplied us with some publications about the Neoli-
thic in Western Siberia; and Anastasia V. Abdulma-
nova (Novosibirsk) helped with preparation of figu-
res. We are pleased to acknowledge Professor M. Bu-
dja (University of Ljubljana, Slovenia) for his hospi-
tality and a chance to share knowledge about the Ust-
Karenga 12 site with participants at the 13th Neoli-
thic Seminar 'The Mesolithic and Neolithic Cultural
and Population Trajectories in Eurasia', in Ljubljana
on November 10-12, 2006. This research was suppor-
ted by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research
(RFFI), grants 06-06-80258, 06-06-80108, and 05-
06-97208; and by the Russian Foundation for the
Humanities (RGNF), grant 06-01-00466A. The De-
partment of Archaeology, University of Ljubljana,
kindly provided accommodation for Y. V. Kuzmin
during the 14th Neolithic Seminar.
c. 7000 BP, while agriculture was unknown in these
regions until at least the beginning of the Bronze
Age, c. 4500-4000 BP (e.g. Merpert 1994; Oshibki-
na 1996b). This is due to combining two different
phenomena, the Levantine-derived 'agricultural' Neo-
lithic and the pottery complexes of 'hunter-gatherer'
type originating somewhere in East Asia.
Conclusion
The discovery and excavations of the Ust-Karenga
cluster in northern Transbaikal brought to light new
data on the emergence of the Neolithic in Siberia. It
is evident that cultural layer 7 at the Ust-Karenga 12
site contains the oldest pottery west of the Amur Ri-
ver basin, and it is also one of the earliest ceramic
complexes in northern Eurasia, dated to c. 12 200-
10 700 BP (c. 12 200-10 200 calBC). The modelling
of the Neolithisation process in Eurasia should be
conducted with a more complete understanding of
the nature of this phenomenon. In East Asia and Si-
beria, the origin of the Neolithic is related to the ap-
pearance of pottery vessels for storing and proces-
sing food in hunter-gatherer communities long be-
fore the invention or adoption of agriculture and/or
animal husbandry.
REFERENCES
AKSENOV M. P. and VETROV V. M. 1977. Issledovaniya v
Gorno-Taezhnykh Raionakh Doliny r. Vitim [Research in
the Mountain-and-Taiga Regions of the Vitim River Valley].
In B. A. Rybakov (ed.), Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya 1976
Goda. Nauka Publisher, Moscow: 185-186.
AKSENOV M. P., VETROV V. M., INESHIN E. M., TETENKIN
A. V. 2000. Istoriya i Nekotovye Rezultaty Arkheologiches-
kikh Issledovanii v Basseine r. Vitim (Vitimskoe Plosko-
gorye i Baikalsko-Patomskoe Nagorye) [History and Some
Results of Archaeological Investigations in the Vitim River
Basin (Vitim Tableland and Baikal-Patom Highland)]. In
G. I. Medvedev (ed.), Baikalskaya Sibir v Drevnosti. Vy-
pusk 2, Chast 1. Irkutsk State Pedagogical University, Ir-
kutsk: 4-35.
ASEEV I. V. 2003. Yugo-Vostochnaya Sibir v Epokhu
Kamnya i Metalla [Southeastern Siberia in the Stone and
Metal Ages]. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography
Press. Novosibirsk.
BARNES G. L. 1999. The Rise of Civilization in East Asia:
The Archaeology of China, Korea and Japan. Thames &
Hudson. London.
BUDJA M. 2005. The Process of Neolithisation in South-
Eastern Europe: From Ceramic Female Figurines and Ce-
real Grains to Entopics and Human Nuclear DNA Polymor-
phic Markers. In Budja M. (ed.), 12th Neolithic Studies. Do-
cumenta Praehistorica 32:53-72.
2006. The Transition to Farming and the Ceramic Tra-
jectories in Western Eurasia: From Ceramic Figurines
to Vessels. In Budja M. (ed.), 13th Neolithic Studies. Do-
cumenta Praehistorica 33:183-201.
CHARD C. E. 1974. Northeast Asia in Prehistory. Univer-
sity of Wisconsin Press. Madison.
DARVILL T. 2002. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Ar-
chaeology. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
DAVISON K., DOLUKHANOV P., SARSON G. R., SHUKUROV
A. 2006. The Role of Waterways in the Spread of the Neo-
lithic. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 641-652.
DEREVIANKO A. P., KUZMIN Y. V., BURR G. S., JULL A. J.
T., KIM J. C. 2004. AMS 14C Age of the Earliest Pottery
from the Russian Far East: 1996-2002 Results. Nuclear
Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 223-
224: 735-739.
DEREVIANKO A. P. and MEDVEDEV V. E. 1995. The Amur
River Basin as One of the Earliest Centers of Ceramics in
the Far East. In H. Kajiwara (ed.), Higashi Ajia - Enkai-
shu no Doki no Kigen. Tohoku Fukushi University, Sen-
dai: 13-25.
2006. Neolithic of the Nizhnee Priamurye (Lower Amur
River Basin). In S. M. Nelson, A. P. Derevianko, Y. V.
Kuzmin and R. L. Bland (eds.), Archaeology of the Rus-
sian Far East: Essays in Stone Age Prehistory (BAR
International Series S1540). Archaeopress, Oxford:
123-149.
DOLUKHANOV P. M. 2004. Prehistoric Environment, Hu-
man Migrations and Origin of Pastoralism in Northern Eu-
rasia. In E. M. Scott, A. Y. Alekseev and G. I. Zaitseva (eds.),
Impact of the Environment on Human Migration in Eu-
rasia (NATO Science Series. IV. Earth and Environmental
Sciences - Vol. 42). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dord-
recht: 225-242.
DOLUKHANOV P., SHUKUROV A., GRONENBORN D., SO-
KOLOFF D., TIMOFEEV V., ZAITSEVA G. 2005. The Chro-
nology of Neolithic Dispersal in Central and Eastern Eu-
rope. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1441-1458.
ENDRIKHINSKY A. S. 1974. Vitimskoe Ploskogorye [The
Vitim Tableland]. In N. A. Florensov (ed.), Nagorya Pri-
balkalya i Zabaikalya. Nauka Publisher, Moscow: 210-
244.
GVOZDETSKY N. A. and MIKHAILOV N. I. 1978. Fizihes-
kaya Geografiya SSSR. Aziatskaya Chast [The Physical
Geography of the USSR. Asiatic Part]. Vyschaya Shkola
Publisher. Moscow.
JOMON JIDAISOSOKI [The Incipient Jomon of Japan].
1996. Toppan-Insatsu Publisher. Yokohama.
KEALLY C. T., TANIGUCHI Y., KUZMIN Y. V. 2003. Under-
standing the Beginning of Pottery Technology in Japan
and Neighboring East Asia. The Review of Archaeology
24(2): 3-14.
KEALLY C. T., TANIGUCHI Y., KUZMIN Y. V., SHEWKOMUD
I. Y. 2004. Chronology of the Beginning of Pottery Manu-
facture in East Asia. Radiocarbon 46:345-351.
KHLOBYSTIN L. P. and KONSTANTINOV M. V. 1996. Neo-
lit Zabaikalya [The Neolithic of Transbaikal]. In S. V. Oshib-
kina (ed.), Neolit Severnoi Evrazii. Nauka Publisher, Mos-
cow: 306-310.
KONSTANTINOV M. V. 1994. Kamenny Vek Vostochnogo
Regiona Baikalskoi Azii [The Stone Age of the Eastern
Part of Baikal Asia]. Institute of Social Sciences, Buryat
Scientific Centre of Siberian Branch of the Russian Aca-
demy of Sciences and Chita State Pedagogical Institute.
Ulan-Ude and Chita.
KOSAREV M. F. 1996. Neolit Vostochnogo Zauralya i Za-
padnoi Sibiri [The Neolithic of Eastern Trans-Urals and
Western Siberia]. In S. V. Oshibkina (ed.), Neolit Severnoi
Evrazii. Nauka Publisher, Moscow: 253-269.
KOSINTSEV P. A., BOBKOVSKAYA N. E., BESPROZVANNY
E. M. 2004. Radiouglerodnaya Khronologiya Arkheologi-
cheskikh Pamyatnikov Taezhnoi Zony Zapadnoi Sibiri
[Radiocarbon Chronology of Archaeological Sites in the
Taiga Zone of Western Siberia]. In Y. A. Yakovlev (ed.),
Khanty-Mansiisky Avtonomny Okrug v Zerkale Proshlo-
go. Tomsk State University, Tomsk and Khanty-Mansiisk:
17-32.
KOVALEVA V. T., USTINOVA E. A., KHLOBYSTIN L. P. 1984.
Neoliticheskoe Poselenie Sumpanya IV v Basseine Kondy
[The Neolithic Site of Sumpanya IV in the Konda River Ba-
sin]. In V. E. Stoyanov (ed.), Drevnie Poseneniya Urala i
Zapadnoi Sibiri. Urals State University, Sverdlovsk: 32-44.
KRIVONOGOV S. K., TAKAHARA H., KUZMIN Y. V., ORLO-
VA L. A., JULL A. J. T., NAKAMURA T., MIYOSHI N., KAWA-
MURO K., BEZRUKOVA E. V. 2004. Radiocarbon Chrono-
logy of the Late Pleistocene-Holocene Paleogeographic
Events in Lake Baikal Region (Siberia). Radiocarbon 46:
745-754.
KRIZHEVSKAYA L. Y. and GADZHIEVA E. A. 1991. Neoliti-
cheskoe Poselenie Sumpanya VI i Ego Mesto v Neolite Vo-
stochnogo Zauralya [The Neolithic Site of Sumpanya VI
and its Place in the Neolithic of Eastern Trans-Urals]. In L.
Y. Krizhevskaya (ed.), Neoliticheskie Pamyatniki Urala.
Urals Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Sverd-
lovsk: 80-99.
KUIJT I. and BAR-YOSEF O. 1994. Radiocarbon Chrono-
logy for the Levantine Neolithic: Observations and Data.
In O. Bar-Yosef and R. S. Kra (eds.), Late Quaternary
Chronology and Paleoclimates of the Eastern Mediterra-
nean. Radiocarbon, University of Arizona, Tucson: 227-
245.
KUZMIN Y. V. 2002. The Earliest Centres of Pottery Ori-
gin in the Russian Far East and Siberia: Review of Chrono-
logy for the Oldest Neolithic Cultures. In Budja M. (ed.),
9th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 29:37-
46.
2003. Introduction: The Nature of Transition from the
Palaeolithic to the Neolithic in East Asia and the Paci-
fic. The Review of Archaeology 24(2): 1-3.
2006. Chronology of the Earliest Pottery in East Asia:
Progress and Pitfalls. Antiquity 80:362-371.
KUZMIN Y. V. and KEALLY C. T. 2001. Radiocarbon Chro-
nology of the Earliest Neolithic Sites in East Asia. Radio-
carbon 43:1121-1128.
KUZMIN Y. V. and ORLOVA L. A. 2000. The Neolithization
of Siberia and the Russian Far East: Radiocarbon Evidence.
Antiquity 74:356-364.
LAPSHINA Z. S. 1999. Drevnosti Ozera Khummi [The
Antiquities of the Lake Khummi]. Amur Geographic So-
ciety. Khabarovsk.
MEDVEDEV V. E. 1995. K Probleme Nachalnogo i Rannego
Neolita na Nizhnem Amure [To the Problem of Initial and
Early Neolithic in the Lower Amur River Basin]. In A. P.
Derevianko and V. E. Larichev (eds.), Obozrenie Rezulta-
tov Polevykh i Laboratornykh Issledovanyi Arkheolo-
gov, Etnografov i Antropologov Sibiri i Dalnego Vostoka
v 1993 Godu. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography,
Novosibirsk: 228-237.
MELLAART J. 1994. Western Asia during the Neolithic and
the Chalcolithic (about 12,000-5,000 Years Ago). In S. J.
de Laet (ed.), History of Humanity. Volume 1. Prehistory
and the Beginnings of Civilization. UNESCO & Routledge,
Paris & London: 425-440.
MERPERT N. J. 1994. The European Part of the Former
USSR during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic. In S. J. de Laet
(ed.), History of Humanity. Volume 1. Prehistory and
the Beginnings of Civilization. UNESCO & Routledge, Pa-
ris & London: 557-569.
NESTEROV S. P., SAKAMOTO M., IMAMURA M., KUZMIN Y.
V. 2006. The Late-Glacial Neolithic Complex of the Groma-
tukha Site, Russian Far East: New Results and Interpreta-
tions. Current Research in the Pleistocene 23: 46-49.
O'MALLEY J. M., KUZMIN Y. V., BURR G. S., DONAHUE D.
J., JULL A. J. T. 1999. Direct Radiocarbon Accelerator Mass
Spectrometry Dating of the Earliest Pottery from the Rus-
sian Far East and Transbaikal. Memoires de la Societe
Prehistorique Frangaise 26:19-24.
OSHIBKINA S. V. 1996a. Ponyatie o Neolite [The Concept
of Neolithic]. In S. V. Oshibkina (ed.), Neolit Severnoi
Evrazii. Nauka Publisher, Moscow: 6-9.
ed. 1996b. Neolit Severnoi Evrazii [The Neolithic of
Northern Eurasia]. Nauka Publisher. Moscow.
REIMER P. J., BAILLIE M. G. I., BARD E., BAYLISS A., BECK
J. W., BERTRAND C. J. H., BLACKWELL P. G., BUCK C. E.,
BURR G. S., CUTLER K. B., DAMON P. E., EDWARDS R. L.,
FAIBANKS R. G., FRIEDRICH M., GUILDERSON T. P., HOGG
A. G., HUGHEN K. A., KROMER B., MCCORMAC G., MAN-
NING S., BRONK RAMSEY C., REIMER R. W., REMMELE S.,
SOUTHON J. R., STUIVER M., TALAMO S., TAYLOR F. W.,
VAN DER PLICHT J., WEYHENMEYER C. E. IntCal04 Ter-
restrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0-26 Cal Kyr BP.
Radiocarbon 46:1029-1058.
SHAHGEDANOVA M., MIKHAILOV N., LARIN S., BREDIKHIN
A. 2002. The Mountains of Southern Siberia. In M. Shah-
gedanova (ed.), The Physical Geography of Northern Eu-
rasia. Oxford University Press, New York: 314-349.
SHERRATT A. (ed.). 1980. The Cambridge Encyclopedia
of Archaeology. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
SUSLOV S. P. 1961. Physical Geography of Asiatic Rus-
sia. W. H. Freeman. San Francisco.
TIMOFEEV V. I. and ZAITSEVA G. I. 1996. Spisok Radioug-
lerodnykh Datirovok Neolita [The List of the Neolithic
Radiocarbon Dates]. In S. V. Oshibkina (ed.), Neolit Sever-
noi Evrazii. Nauka Publisher, Moscow: 337-348.
TIMOFEEV V. I., ZAITSEVA G. I., DOLUKHANOV P. M., SHU-
KUROV A. M. 2004. Radiouglerodnaya Khronologiya
Neolita Severnoi Evrazii [The Radiocarbon Chronology
of the Neolithic in Northern Eurasia]. Teza Publisher. St.-
Petersburg.
TSEITLIN S. M. and ASEEV I. V. (eds.). 1982. Geologiya i
Kultura Drevnikh Poseleniy Zapadnogo Zabaikalya
[Geology and Culture of Ancient Settlements in Western
Transbaikal]. Nauka Publisher. Novosibirsk.
USACHEVA I. V. 2001. Stratigraficheskie Pozitsii Neoliti-
cheskikh Tipov Keramiki Poseleniya "VIII Punkt" na An-
dreevskom Ozere i Nekotorye Obshchie Voprosy Neolita
Zauralya [Stratigraphic Positions of the Neolithic Types of
Pottery from the "Locality VIII" at the Andreevskoe Lake
and Some General Questions of the Neolithic of Trans-
Urals]. In V. A. Zakh (ed.), Problemy Izuheniya Neolita
Zapadnoi Sibiri. Institute of Problems for Development
of the North Press, Tumen: 116-133.
VAN BERG P.-L. 1997. Le Ceramique et son Decor en Eu-
rasie. Cahiers de l'Associationpour la Promotion de la
Recherche Archeoloqique en Alsace (Supplement 1997):
223-264.
VAN BERG P.-L. and CAUWE N. 1998. The Early Pottery in
Northern Asia: Relations with the European Peninsula. In
A. P. Derevianko (ed.), Paleoekologiya Pleistotsena i Kul-
tury Kamennogo Veka Severnoi Azii i Sopredelnykh Ter-
ritorii. Tom 2. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography
Press, Novosibirsk: 464-475.
VETROV V. M. 1982. Kulturnye Razlichiya Arkheologiches-
kikh Pamyatnikov Verkhnego i Srednego Techeniya Viti-
ma [Cultural Differences of the Archaeological Sites in the
Upper and Middle Courses of the Vitim River]. In G. I.
Medvedev (ed.), Problemy Arkheologii i Etnografi Sibiri
(Tezisy Dokladov k Regionalnoi Konferentsii). Irkutsk
State University, Irkutsk: 78-79.
1985.	Keramika Ust-Karengskoi Kultury na Vitime [The
Pottery of Ust-Karenga Culture at Vitim River]. In P. B.
Konovalov (ed.), Drevnee Zabaikalye i Ego Kulturnye
Svyazi. Nauka Publisher, Novosibirsk: 123-130.
1986.	Stratigrafiya i Problemy Periodizatsii Arkheolo-
gicheskikh Pamyatnikov Verkhnego Vitima [Strati-
graphy and Problems of Periodization of Archaeologi-
cal Sites in the Upper Vitim River Basin]. In I. N. Reza-
nov (ed.), Chetvertichnaya Geologiya i Pervobytnaya
Arkheologiya Yuzhnoi Sibiri (Tezisy Dokladov Vse-
souznoi Konferentsii). Tom 2. Buryat Scientific Cen-
tre of Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Scien-
ces, Ulan-Ude: 49-53.
1995a. The Ancient Cultures of the Upper Vitim: Early
Pottery. In H. Kajiwara (ed.), Higashi Ajia - Enkaishu
no Doki no Kigen. Tohoku Fukushi University, Sendai:
31-35.
1995b. Reztsy i Nukleusy Ust-Karengskoi Arkheologi-
cheskoi Kultury (Opyt Tipologii) [The Biruns and Co-
res of the Ust-Karenga Archaeological Culture (Attempt
of Typology)]. In G. I. Medvedev (ed.), Baikalskaya Si-
bir v Drevnosti. Irkutsk State University, Irkutsk: 30-
44.
1997. Ust-Karengskaya Kultura i ee Mesto v Sisteme
Arkheologicheskikh Pamyatnikov Sopredelnykh Ter-
ritoriy [The Ust-Karenga Culture and its Place in the
System of Archaeological Sites in Neighbouring Re-
gions]. In B. D. Pak (ed.), Vzaimootnosheniya Naro-
dov Rossii, Sibiri i Stran Vostoka: Istoriya i Sovre-
mennost. Kniga 2. Irkutsk State University, Moscow,
Irkutsk and Taegu: 176-180.
2000. Arkheologiya Kamennogo Veka Vitimskogo Plo-
skogorya (Kultura i Khronologiya) [The Stone Age Ar-
chaeology of the Vitim Tableland (Culture and Chrono-
logy)]. In M. G. Turov (ed.), Arkhaicheskie i Traditsi-
onnye Kultury Severo-Vostochnoi Asii: Problemy Pro-
iskhozhdeniya i Transkontinentalnykh Svyazei. Ir-
kutsk State University, Irkutsk: 28-36.
2006. Problemy Skhodstva v Tekhnike Izgotovleniya i
Ornamentatsii Sosudov Rannykh Keramicheskikh Kom-
pleksov Severnoi Evrazii [Problems of Similarity in
Techniques of Making and Ornamentation for Vessels
from the Early Pottery Complexes in Northern Eurasia].
In A. P. Derevianko and V. I. Molodin (eds.), Sovremen-
nye Problemy Arkheologii Rossii. Tom 1. Institute of
Archaeology and Ethnography Press, Novosibirsk: 173-
176.
VETROV V. M., INESHIN E. M., REVENKO A. G., SEKERIN
A. P. 2000. Artefakty iz Ekzoticheskikh Vidov Surya na
Arkheologicheskikh Pamyatnikakh Vitimskogo Basseina
[Artefacts Made of Exotic Raw Materials on Archaeological
Sites of the Vitim River Basin]. In G. I. Medvedev (ed.),
Baikalskaya Sibir v Drevnosti. Vypusk 2, Chast 1. Irkutsk
State Pedagogical University, Irkutsk: 98-116.
VETROV V. M., INESHIN E. M., MIRONOV A. Y., TRIFONOV
A. P. 1978. Issledovaniya v Doline r. Vitima [Research in
the Vitim River Valley]. In B. A. Rybakov (ed.), Arkheolo-
gicheskie Otkrytiya 1977 Goda. Nauka Publisher, Mos-
cow: 216.
VETROV V. M. and KUZMIN Y. V. 2005. K Istorii Izucheniya
Drevnei Keramiki na Verkhnem Vitime [To the History of
Study of the Ancient Pottery in Upper Vitim River]. In A.
V. Kharisnky (ed.), Sotsiogenez v Severnoi Azii. Chast 1.
Irkutsk State Technical University, Irkutsk: 59-63.
VETROV V. M., KUZMIN Y. V., BURR G. S. 2006. The Final-
Pleistocene Pottery of Siberia: Ust'-Karenga 12 Site Case
Study. Current Research in the Pleistocene 23: 49-51.