Content uploaded by Anvar Shukurov
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anvar Shukurov on Mar 12, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
The chronology of Neolithic dispersal in Central and
Eastern Europe
Pavel Dolukhanov
a,
*, Anvar Shukurov
b
, Detlef Gronenborn
c
,
Dmitry Sokoloff
d
, Vladimir Timofeev
e,1
, Ganna Zaitseva
f
a
School of Historical Studies, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
b
School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
c
Ro
¨misch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, 55116 Mainz, Germany
d
Department of Physics, Moscow University, Vorobyevy Gory, Moscow, 119992, Russia
e
Institute for History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg, 191186, Russia
f
Radiocarbon Laboratory, Institute for History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences,
18 Dvortsovaya nab., St Petersburg, 191186, Russia
Received 1 July 2003; received in revised form 4 January 2005
Abstract
We analyze statistically representative samples of radiocarbon dates from key Early Neolithic sites in Central Europe belonging
to the Linear Pottery Ceramic Culture (LBK), and of pottery-bearing cultures on East European Plain (Yelshanian, Rakushechnyi
Yar, Buh-Dniestrian, Serteya and boreal East European Plain). The dates from the LBK sites form a statistically homogeneous set
with the probability distribution similar to a single-date Gaussian curve. This implies that the duration of the spread of the LBK is
shorter than the available temporal resolution of the radiocarbon dating; therefore, the rate of spread must be larger than 4 km/yr,
in agreement with earlier estimates. The East European sites exhibit a broad probability distribution of dates. We identify in these
data a spatio-temporal sequence from south-east to north-west, which implies the rate of spread of the initial pottery-making of the
order of 1.6 km/yr, comparable to the average rate of spread of the Neolithic in Western and Central Europe. We argue that this
spatio-temporal sequence is consistent with an idea that the tradition of the initial pottery-making on East European Plain
developed under an early impulse from the Eastern Steppe.
Ó2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords: Neolithic; LBK; Eastern Europe; Propagation rate; Radiocarbon; Statistical analysis
1. Introduction
The transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic
was the most important landmark in prehistory of
mankind. Its character and chronology in various parts
of Europe remain controversial. Since Childe [9] had
proposed the concept of ‘Agricultural revolution’,
definitions of the Neolithic remained focussed on the
introduction of farming. Notwithstanding various mod-
ifications of the idea, the shift to agro-pastoral farming is
deemed to this day to be the most important single
signature of the Neolithic [57].
Based on the archaeobotanic evidence relevant to the
Neolithic context of Western Europe, Richmond [40]
and Hather and Mason [22] question the extent to which
the presence of cultigens implied actual cultivation.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: pavel.dolukhanov@newcastle.ac.uk (P. Dolukha-
nov), anvar.shukurov@newcastle.ac.uk (A. Shukurov), gronenborn@
rgzm.de (D. Gronenborn), sokoloff@dds.srcc.msu.su (D. Sokoloff),
ganna@mail.wplus.net (G. Zaitseva).
1
This is the last paper of V. I. Timofeev who died at the age of 57 as
a result of car accident in St Petersburg on 8 August 2004. His
friendship and his expertise will be sorely missed by us.
0305-4403/$ - see front matter Ó2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.jas.2005.03.021
Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 1441e1458
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas
Although Rowley-Conwy [41] supports the older view
that the ‘Neolithic people subsided mainly on cultivated
plants and domestic animals’, a widespread opinion
shifts towards viewing the Neolithic revolution as the
introduction of domesticates into broad-spectrum
economies. As discussed below, recent evidence has
changed the traditional perception of the ‘sub-Neolithic’
communities of Eurasia’s boreal forests, who are now
considered to be involved, at least partly, in food pro-
duction, rather than just pottery-making and hunter-
gathering. In view of that, the present writers accept
Thomas’ [46,47] view of the Neolithic as ‘a range of
various processes, generating considerable variability of
subsistence practices’.
A model of the Neolithisation as a result of direct
migrations is omnipresent in archaeological discourse
since the works of Childe [9]. This concept was
developed by Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza [3] who
have suggested that the transition to agriculture in
Europe resulted from the expansion of Neolithic farmers
from southwest Asia, and was further substantiated with
the use of ‘genetic markers’ [8,32]. Renfrew [38,39]
linked up the introduction of farming with the spread of
the Indo-European speech.
The advent of radiocarbon dating has provided
a new, sensitive instrument for testing models of the
Neolithisation. The first series of radiocarbon measure-
ments seemed to confirm the Childean concept of Ex
Oriente lux, indicating that the ‘Neolithic way of life
penetrated Europe from the south-east spreading from
Greece and the south Balkans.’[11: 67]. More recent,
comprehensive radiocarbon data for Neolithic sites
suggested a more balanced view. Tringham [52: 216e
217] discussed the spread of new techniques, and their
adoption (or rejection) by the local groups, resulting
from an expansion of population. Dolukhanov and
Timofeev [15: 29e30] considered this process as
a combination of diffusion and local inventions.
An analysis of a large dataset of Neolithic
radiocarbon dates by Gkiasta et al. [19] has confirmed
the earlier results of Clark [11] and Ammerman and
Cavalli-Sforza [3], showing a correlation of the earliest
occurrence of the Neolithic with the distance from an
assumed source in the Near East. Gkiasta et al. [19]
conclude that both a wave of advance of a cultural
trait and a population replacement are consistent with
the data.
Our aim here is to assess the chronologies of the
Neolithisation in Central Europe and East European
Plain as implied by statistical analysis of large datasets
of radiocarbon dates. We identify certain spatio-
temporal trends in the distribution of the radiocarbon-
dated Neolithic sites and their plausible correlation
with the spread of the Neolithic in Central and
Eastern Europe. Given the temporal resolution of the
radiocarbon dating, we do not (and cannot) address
the small-scale processes involved in the spread of the
Neolithic.
2. The database
This work is based on two major databases of
radiocarbon dates recently developed for Neolithic sites
in Europe. All dates for the former USSR (Russian
Federation, Baltic States, Byelorussia, Ukraine and
Moldova) have been included into the database de-
veloped at the Institute for History of Material Culture
in St Petersburg [51]. The date list for LBK sites in
Central Europe was compiled mainly from the Radon
database [18]. We have also included radiocarbon dates
from the sites in Austria and Germany published by
Lenneis et al. [28] and Sta
¨uble [44]. The latter dates span
rather short time ranges and are relatively homogeneous
archaeologically; we use them to estimate a typical
empirical uncertainty of the radiocarbon dates. We do
not make any distinction between radiocarbon dates
obtained by different methods (AMS versus conven-
tional). The reason is that the main source of date
uncertainty is not the accuracy of the radioactivity
measurement in the laboratory, but rather such effects
as contamination by young or old carbon, etc.
Therefore, the higher instrumental accuracy of the
AMS dates does not represent an important advantage
from the viewpoint of statistical analysis performed
here. Similar arguments apply to the choice of material
for radiocarbon dating, e.g., short-life material such as
cereal seeds versus the long-life material such as
charcoal. Since the plausible lifetime of the latter is still
comparable to (or less than) the typical total error of
radiocarbon dates, the difference can be ignored. This
allows us to use dates based on various materials
including charcoal unidentified to species. Any signifi-
cant improvement in this direction would require field
work for sample collection using procedures more
stringent than before, as discussed by Christen and
Buck [10] and Buck and Christen [6]. Such improved
samples would then justify the application of advanced
statistical methods, e.g., the Bayesian approach [7].
In all cases, the data marked as ‘dubious’ in the
original publication were omitted. Wherever the total
number of dates was too small to admit statistical
analysis described in Section 3, only the dates from
the lowest strata of multi-stratified sites were included
(although we appreciate the limitations of this
approach esee Section 3.1). All the dates have been
calibrated with the calibration curve of Stuiver et al. [45]
using OxCal 3.2. For each date, we used a continuous
age interval corresponding to the probability of 95%
(2s) or, occasionally, 99.5% (3s) as a measure of the
calibration error. The calibration errors given in tables
below are the 1serrors thus obtained.
1442 P. Dolukhanov et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 1441e1458
3. Statistical analysis
3.1. The need for statistical analysis
Under favourable conditions, the laboratory analysis
of a sample radioactivity can yield very accurate
estimates of the apparent age of the sample. Radiocar-
bon dates are often published with the quoted accuracy
of a few tens of years (see, e.g., tables below). Never-
theless, it is not unusual that the spread of the dates in
a sample confidently known to belong to an archaeo-
logically homogeneous and short-lived object exceeds
the published errors and any realistic estimate of the
lifetime of the object. For example, the dates from
Brunn am Gebirge discussed in Section 4show a spread
of about 400 years, with most of the published errors
being about 75 years or less; even the calibration errors
are larger than that. Meanwhile, the lifetime of the
object was most plausibly about 100 years or even
significantly less [43: 197].
The additional scatter of radiocarbon dates can be
caused by several factors, e.g., by contamination by
young or old carbon (e.g., [1]). For an individual mea-
surement, the radiocarbon age cannot be corrected for
this distortion. However, such a correction is feasible if
one has a statistically significant set of radiocarbon
dates from an archaeologically homogeneous and short-
lived object, forming a coeval set. In such cases one can
reasonably assume that the dates in the set represent
a single date contaminated by random noise. The
standard deviation of the dates in the coeval set can
then be accepted as the lower estimate of uncertainty for
the whole set of archaeologically related sites. Having
thus obtained an estimate of the total uncertainty, we
determine whether or not the spread of radiocarbon
dates belonging to another archaeological site can be
attributed to the random noise alone. If this is the case,
all the dates in this set must be treated as a single date
(that is, all the dates are coeval within the accuracy of
radiocarbon dating), and the difference between the
individual dates is purely random. As many other
authors, we assume that the random noise is Gaussian.
Otherwise, if the probability distribution of the dates in
the set cannot be approximated by a single Gaussian
curve, one has to conclude that the set refers to
a phenomenon that evolved over a prolonged time,
and the whole set cannot be characterized by a single
date. A statistical test for a coeval data set is discussed in
Section 3.3.
There is another reason why a collection of dates
for a given archaeological object must often be replaced
by a single date. In many cases, the frequency of
radiocarbon dates is used as a proxy for population
density. The spread of the Neolithic discussed here is
such an example. It is obvious that the number of
radiocarbon age determinations for a site or a certain
region is related to the interest and resources of the
researchers rather than to the prehistoric population
density. Therefore, studies of population dynamics often
rely on the earliest radiocarbon date for each site as
an estimate of the time when, say, farming was first
introduced at the site. However, the earliest date, as any
other date, is never known precisely (see above) and,
furthermore, this is one of the least probable dates in the
set. Therefore, this approach can result in systematic
errors, especially in those cases where the probability
distribution of individual age measurements for a site
can be interpreted as a single date in the sense discussed
above. For example, the probability distribution of
radiocarbon dates for the LBK site Ulm-Eggingen
(Section 4and Fig. 6) is as similar to a Gaussian as
might be expected for a sample of 22 dates. Therefore,
one cannot exclude that the spread of the dates in the
sample is due to random noise (even if the calibration
and instrumental errors alone are taken into account),
and then the earliest date in the sample is not an
acceptable estimate for the arrival of farming to the site.
For Ulm-Eggingen, the difference between the most
probable and the earliest dates is as large as 544 years.
Several other sites where radiocarbon dates exhibit
similar behaviour are analyzed in Sections 4 and 5. The
method to calculate the likely date for a sample,
presented in Section 3.3, is similar to that discussed
by, e.g., Aitken [1] (see also [16]).
3.2. Estimates of the date uncertainty
Many statistical techniques require reliable knowl-
edge of the statistical errors of individual data. As
argued above, the published errors of radiocarbon dates
represent only a relatively small part of the total error.
Brunn am Gebirge is a site that can be used to estimate
the total uncertainty of radiocarbon date measurements
for the LBK. A set of 20 dates from this site was
published by Lenneis et al. [28] (see Section 4). Their
standard deviation is 99 years, whereas the average
instrumental error is Cs
i
DZ69 years (after calibration,
with individual errors s
i
ranging from 45 to 92 years).
Rosenburg is another site for which a statistically
significant set of data has been published by Lenneis
et al. [28]. There are seven dates plausibly belonging to
the same Phase I of the LBK (see Section 4). The
standard deviation of these dates is 127 years, which is
significantly larger than their average instrumental error
Cs
i
DZ57 years.
The difference between the two error estimates, 100e
130 years (the standard deviation) and 60e70 years (the
mean instrumental error), is significant. Therefore, we
accept 100 years as the lower limit for the total error
of the LBK radiocarbon dates. Of course, some arch-
aeological objects can have smaller uncertainty (e.g.,
because of their shorter lifetime), but such cases have to
1443P. Dolukhanov et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 1441e1458
be considered individually, and the corresponding un-
certainty has to be estimated from independent evi-
dence.
Similar estimate for the Neolithic of the East
European Plain, about 130 years, is obtained in Section 5.
An estimate of the total uncertainty S
i
for each date
in each sample considered below has been chosen as
a maximum of the published instrumental error s
i
,as
obtained after calibration, and the corresponding lower
limit discussed above. The lower limits are 100 and 127
years for the LBK and East European data, respectively,
except for the Rosenburg LBK site where 127 years is
adopted esee Section 5. These estimates will be
important for the statistical test introduced in Section
3.3 which essentially relies on the availability of reliable
error estimates.
3.3. The mean age and its confidence interval for
a coeval sample
The most probable common date T
0
of the coeval
subsample is obtained using the weighted least squares
method as (see [16] for detail)
T0ZP
n
iZ1
ti=S2
i
P
n
iZ1
1=S2
i
;
where nis the number of age measurements t
i
,iZ1, .,n,
and S
i
are their errors obtained as described in Section
3.2. The quality of the fit is assessed using the c
2
test, with
the fit being acceptable if
X
n
iZ1
ðtiT0Þ2
S2
i
%c2
n1:
This test for the goodness of fit is based on the
assumption that the individual dates t
i
represent the
same average age T
0
contaminated by Gaussian random
noise whose amplitude is given by S
i
. The equality
occurs in the above equation if this assumption is true in
precise manner. If, however, the left-hand side exceeds
c2
n1, then the hypothesis must be rejected and t
i
cannot
be interpreted as a single date contaminated by noise. It
is important to note that the left-hand side will be
overestimated if the errors are underestimated; this is
why it is important to have reliable estimates of the total
error S
i
.
If the c
2
test is not satisfied, the dates deviating most
strongly from the current value of T
0
are discarded one
by one until the test is satisfied. This procedure results in
a ‘coeval subsample’.
The confidence interval Dof T
0
has been calculated as
DZs
nffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
c2
n1X2ðT0Þ
q;
where
1
s2Z1
nX
n
iZ1
1
S2
i
;
and
X2ðT0ÞZX
n
iZ1
X2
i;
with
X2
iZðtiT0Þ2
S2
i
:
The results of our calculations are presented in the
form TZT
0
GD; another important quantity is the
standard deviation of the dates in the coeval subsample,
s
c
. The quantity T
0
is the most probable age at which the
cultural entity studied was at its peak. The confidence
interval of T
0
, denoted D, characterizes the reliability of
our knowledge (rather than the object itself). For
example, small values of Dcan indicate that a slight
improvement of the data can resolve a temporal hetero-
geneity of the subsample. The standard deviation in the
coeval subsample, s
c
, is a measure of the duration of the
cultural phenomenon considered. For example, it can
reasonably be expected that the early signatures of the
cultural entity under consideration might have appeared
by (2e3)s
c
earlier than T
0
, while the total lifetime of the
entity is of order (4e6)s
c
(with the probability 95e
99.5%). In many respects, the significance of s
c
is similar
to the total error of an individual radiocarbon date.
Our results are based on statistically significant
samples; the number of individual dates in such a sample
cannot be smaller than, roughly, 5e10. Strictly speak-
ing, 30 or more measurements are needed in order to
rely on Gaussian statistics. However, in practice smaller
samples are often used with quite satisfactory results.
Since random element is present in any data, it is
reasonable to expect that the range of the data will grow
with the size of the sample (even if the sample has been
drawn from statistically homogeneous data). The histo-
gram of a coeval sample will fit a Gaussian shape if our
assumptions are correct. The Gaussian distribution
admits data that deviate strongly from the mean value,
and a pair of dates arbitrarily extracted from the widely
separated wings of the Gaussian can be very different.
The conclusion that they do belong to a coeval sub-
sample can only be obtained from a simultaneous
analysis of all the dates in the sample.
4. The Linear Pottery from Central Europe
Sites of the Linear Pottery Culture (LBK) are spread
in a vast area of Central Europe, stretching from the
1444 P. Dolukhanov et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 1441e1458
south-western Ukraine and Moldova in the east to the
Paris Basin in the west. Since Childe [9], the sites of the
LBK or ‘Danubian I’ culture have been considered as
belonging to the first authentic groups of farmers in that
area. Van Berg and Hauzeur [54] note a remarkable
homogeneity of LBK sites, both in the organisation of
space and in the manifestations of the material and
spiritual culture.
The sample from Brunn am Gebirge, Flur Wolfholz,
Austria, contains 20 date measurements given in Table 1.
According to Lenneis et al. [28], the inventory of the
entire site belongs to the oldest LBK (phase I sensu [48]).
The statistical test for contemporaneity introduced in
Section 3.3 would be satisfied for the whole subset
without discarding any measurements if only the in-
dividual date errors were all larger than 80 years. The
average instrumental error in the date set is Cs
i
Dz69
years. Since the difference of Cs
i
Dfrom the value of 80
years is negligible, this date set can be considered coeval,
with the average age and its standard deviation given by
T0Z5252G99 cal BC:
Lenneis et al. [28] attest that, although all the dated
structures belong to the same LBK phase, difference
between the true ages of individual objects can be
considerable. These authors distinguish the older
structure (Fundstelle I) and the younger one (Fundstelle
II). Nevertheless, the probability distribution of the
dates, shown in Fig. 1, fails to reveal any distinction of
this kind. The above estimates of the mean age and its
uncertainty are consistent with the lifetime of this
archaeologically complex settlement of the order of
a hundred years (i.e., a few standard deviations). Of
course, the different ages of individual, stylistically
distinct structures within an archaeologically complex
site (e.g., Fundstellen I and II) can be discernible with
other methods (e.g., the tree ring dating). However, this
distinction is not important here as long as the
individual structures still exhibit sufficient archaeologi-
cal and cultural affinity, and as long as the radiocarbon
dates contain random errors. This comment applies
to all other coeval subsamples discussed below that ori-
ginate from sites with archaeologically distinct temporal
structures.
The sample from Rosenburg, Flur Hofmu
¨hle, Austria,
contains 10 date measurements presented in Fig. 2 and
Table 2. The site occupies the total area of nearly 1 ha
and includes seven differently preserved houses and
more than 100 pits and ‘slot pits’ (Schlitzgruben).
According to Lenneis et al. [28], seven of the dates
belong to an ‘early phase’ of the older LBK, with only
one house and one pit (3 measurements) containing
younger material. The standard deviation of the seven
Table 1
The date sample for Brunn am Gebirge: (1) sample index, (2)
uncalibrated radiocarbon age and (3) its published instrumental error,
all according to Lenneis et al. [28], (4) calibrated date and (5) its error
resulting from calibration with the above instrumental error; and (6)
the sample’s material
Index Age
bp (yr)
Instrumental
error (yr)
Age cal
BC (yr)
Calibration
error (yr)
Material
ETH-11127 6520 50 5430 50 charcoal
ETH-11122 6520 55 5425 52 charcoal
ETH-11145 6480 70 5405 58 charcoal
ETH-11124 6470 55 5395 45 charcoal
ETN-11130 6365 55 5290 53 charcoal
ETH-11138 6390 65 5280 70 charcoal
ETH-11147 6365 70 5265 72 charcoal
ETH-11128 6360 60 5260 63 charcoal
ETH-11150 6360 70 5250 67 charcoal
ETH-11149 6335 70 5245 68 charcoal
ETH-11132 6320 65 5240 67 charcoal
ETH-11134 6325 70 5220 77 charcoal
ETH-11146 6315 70 5215 75 charcoal
ETH-11137 6285 70 5200 80 charcoal
ETH-11123 6260 70 5185 82 charcoal
ETH-11129 6265 70 5185 82 charcoal
ETH-11140 6265 70 5185 82 charcoal
ETH-11125 6235 70 5175 92 charcoal
ETH-11121 6265 55 5150 63 charcoal
ETH-11126 6150 75 5045 82 charcoal
0
2
4
6
8
10
5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6
Age (kyr BC)
Frequency
Fig. 1. The frequency of dates (cal BC) in the Brunn am Gebirge
sample per 100 yr interval.
0
1
2
3
4
5
Frequency
5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.75.6
Age (kyr BC)
Fig. 2. The frequency of dates (cal BC) in the Rosenburg sample per
100 yr interval.
1445P. Dolukhanov et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 1441e1458
dates belonging to the same Phase I is 127 years. This
can be considered as an estimate of the total error of
the dates; then all the dates appear to be consistent
with each other (in the sense of the above criterion of
contemporaneity) and yield the sample age of
T0Z5141G62 cal BC;
with the spread
scZ138 years:
The oldest date, GRN-19909, can be included into the
coeval subsample because it has large error.
The sample of Schwanfeld, Germany, contains 17 date
measurements given in Tables 3 and 4. The dates taken
from the list published by Sta
¨uble [44] belong to House
11 (Earliest LBK) and House 14 (Middle Neolithic).
Among the eight dates belonging to House 11, seven
satisfy the statistical test for contemporaneity (see
Fig. 3) with the resulting age of
T0Z5467G90 cal BC;scZ514 years:
The nine dates from House 14 show strong scatter over
the time span of 3550e5600 cal BC, and six of them can
be deemed to be coeval (Fig. 4) with
T0Z4786G129 cal BC;scZ458 years:
The sample of Cuiry-les-Chaudardes, France, contains
15 date measurements presented in Fig. 5 and Table 5.
The site belongs to the younger LBK (Rubane
´re
´cent).
The statistical test for contemporaneity is satisfied for
the whole sample with
T0Z4841G133 cal BC;scZ321 years:
The sample of Ulm-Eggingen, Germany, includes 25
date measurements given in Fig. 6 and Table 6. The 22
dates that satisfy the statistical test for contemporaneity
are attributed to the stages 4e7 of the Baden-Wu
¨rtem-
berg division of the LBK. The resulting age is
T0Z4831G55 cal BC;scZ261 years:
All the discarded dates are older than T
0
. The statistical
analysis performed here confirms 4800e4900 cal BC as
the most probable date of the coeval subsample that
includes the younger dates because of their relatively
large errors. It has been noted that radiocarbon
measurements in south-western Germany favour earlier
dates in this range, whereas archaeological evidence [59]
suggests the older dates.
Table 3
The date sample for Schwanfeld 11, in the format of Table 2
Index Age
bp (yr)
Instrumental
error (yr)
Age cal
BC (yr)
Calibration
error (yr)
X
i
2
Material
KN-3044 7250 500 6200 567 1.7 wood
KN-3040 7100 500 6000 533 1.0 wood
KN-3046 6690 140 5600 133 1.0 wood
KN-3041 6700 190 5550 217 0.1 wood
KN-3425 6520 65 5425 55 0.2 wood
KN-3216 6540 260 5350 283 0.2 wood
KN-3192 6060 170 4900 200 8.0 wood
KN-3217 5800 320 4600 333 6.8 wood
X
2
(T
0
)Z10.9, c
6
2
(0.95) Z12.6.
The dates belonging to the coeval subsample are indicated with bold face.
Table 4
The date sample for Schwanfeld 14, in the format of Table 2
Index Age
bp (yr)
Instrumental
error (yr)
Age cal
BC (yr)
Calibration
error (yr)
X
i
2
Material
KN-3033 6800 370 5600 400 4.14 wood
KN-3034 6660 65 5560 47 59.91 wood
KN-3035 6065 140 4950 167 0.97 wood
KN-3038 5940 300 4750 317 0.01 wood
KN-2966 5890 65 4745 82 0.17 wood
KN-3039 5810 200 4650 250 0.30 wood
KN-3032 5420 140 4250 167 10.34 wood
KN-3037 5400 300 4200 367 2.55 wood
KN-3036 4780 170 3550 250 24.44 wood
X
2
(T
0
)Z8.1, c
5
2
(0.95) Z11.1.
The dates belonging to the coeval subsample are indicated with bold face.
Table 2
The date sample for Rosenburg, in the format of Table 1, with the structure identifier given in column 2 according to Lenneis et al. [28]
Index Structure
(Grube)
Age bp
(yr)
Instrumental
error (yr)
Age cal
BC (yr)
Calibration
error (yr)
X
i
2
Material
GrN-19909 198 6625 130 5525 142 5.70 charcoal
GrN-19914 198 6330 50 5255 62 0.29 charcoal
GrA-452 198 6310 30 5235 35 0.14 charcoal
GrA-449 198 6280 50 5210 57 0.03 charcoal
GrA-458 198 6270 30 5180 37 0.00 charcoal
GrA-456 198 6250 30 5165 35 0.03 charcoal
GrA-454 198 6240 30 5165 35 0.03 charcoal
GrA-422 242 6170 30 5110 40 0.37 charcoal
GrA-423 242 6140 30 5075 48 0.78 charcoal
GrA-649 242 6100 60 5015 75 1.83 charcoal
X
2
(T
0
)Z9.2, c
9
2
(0.95) Z16.9.
All the dates belong to the coeval subsample; X
i
2
is the contribution of the measurement into the total residual X
2
(T
0
) as defined in Section 3.3. The
latter is given at the bottom of the table together with the value of c
2
.
1446 P. Dolukhanov et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 1441e1458
We have similarly analyzed ten dates from the
Blicquy, Belgium, where the result is
T0Z5302G112 cal BC;scZ255 years:
The whole LBK date list presented in Table 7 is taken
from the Radon database, with the addition of the dates
obtained here. It includes 47 measurements; 40 of them
can be combined into a coeval subsample, with the most
probable age of
T0Z5154G62 cal BC;
and the standard deviation
scZ183 years:
Both the general sample and its coeval part are further
illustrated in Fig. 7 in the form of the date probability
distributions. The significance and implications of these
0
2
4
6
8
3.8 4.2 4.6 5.0 5.4
Frequency
Age (kyr BC)
Fig. 5. The frequency of dates (cal BC) in the Cuiry-les-Chaudardes
sample per 200 yr interval.
0
1
2
3
4
3.5 3.9 4.3 4.7 5.1 5.5 5.9 6.3
Frequency
Age (kyr BC)
Fig. 4. The frequency of dates (cal BC) in the Schwanfeld 14 sample
per 400 yr interval. Dates belonging to the coeval subsample are shown
shaded.
Table 5
The date sample for Cuiry-les-Chaudardes, in the format of Table 2
Index Age
bp (yr)
Instrumental
error (yr)
Age cal
BC (yr)
Calibration
error (yr)
X
i
2
Material
Ly-1736 6450 160 5300 167 7.56 collagen
Ly-1737 6220 230 5050 250 0.69 collagen
Ly-2321 5960 170 4900 200 0.08 collagen
Ly-2333 5980 110 4875 142 0.05 collagen
Ly-2331 6000 120 4875 142 0.05 collagen
Ly-1829 5930 190 4850 217 0.00 collagen
Ly-2336 5960 150 4850 167 0.00 collagen
Ly-2330 5910 130 4800 150 0.08 collagen
Ly-2335 5840 140 4750 167 0.30 collagen
Ly-2551 5870 170 4750 217 0.18 collagen
Ly-2552 5730 170 4650 217 0.78 collagen
Ly-2332 5800 170 4650 217 0.78 collagen
Ly-1827 5860 300 4650 317 0.37 collagen
Ly-1828 6580 400 4200 350 3.36 collagen
Ly-1826 5360 510 3950 583 2.34 collagen
X
2
(T
0
)Z16.6, c
14
2
(0.95) Z23.7.
All the dates are coeval in the sense of the statistical test of Section 3.3.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4
Frequency
Age (kyr BC)
Fig. 6. The frequency of dates (cal BC) in the Ulm-Eggingen sample
per 100 yr interval. Dates belonging to the coeval subsample are shown
shaded.
0
1
2
3
4.5 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.5
Frequency
Age (kyr BC)
Fig. 3. The frequency of dates (cal BC) in the Schwanfeld 11 sample
per 200 yr interval. Dates belonging to the coeval subsample are shown
shaded.
1447P. Dolukhanov et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 1441e1458
results in the broader context of the European Neolithic
are discussed in Section 6. Four of the discarded dates
are younger than 4700 cal BC. This agrees with
archaeological evidence that LBK sites younger than
4800 cal BC in the Paris basin are unlikely. Further to
the east, the LBK had ended around or before 5000 cal
BC.
5. The Neolithic of East European Plain
The sites on East European Plain, described as
Neolithic, feature large-scale production of pottery,
with no or limited evidence of either agriculture or
stockbreeding [34]. These sites are found in all parts of
East European Plain in environments invariably rich in
wildlife resources. Some sites are of a considerable size
and apparently were of a permanent character. Consid-
erable progress was attained in tool making, architecture
and symbolism with evidence of social hierarchy. There
is evidence of trade contacts between hunter-gathering
and agricultural communities, which involved flint,
amber, mollusc shells. Based on the styles of pottery
and the typology of stone, bone and antler tools,
a number of local ‘archaeological cultures’ are identi-
fied, some of which had several chronological stages. In
this section we consider radiocarbon dates from several
archaeological cultures belonging to the early Neolithic:
the Yelshanian sites in the Lower VolgaeUral In-
terfluve; Rakushechnyi Yar and related sites in the
Lower Don area; Buh-Dniestrian in South-Western
Ukraine; Upper Volga and other Early Neolithic
cultures in Central and Northern Russia.
Prior to investigating the dates from the early
Neolithic sites, we have analyzed a series of recently
obtained dates for pile structures of the site of Serteya 2,
a clearly stratified Late Neolithic lake settlement in the
upper stretches of the Western Dvina river at 55 30#N,
3130#E. This settlement belongs to a large cluster of sites
which were in existence through the early and middle
Holocene [14,33]. Analysis of archaeological and pollen
data has revealed cereal pollen and evidence for forest
clearance, suggesting swidden-type agriculture [17].
The excavated area is below the water level in the
drainage canal and consists of rows of piles forming six
distinct clusters. Each of these clusters allegedly formed
a foundation for a platform on which a house was
erected. The platform is well preserved in the case of
Structure 1. Thus, wood samples from each structure
apparently belong to a single house constructed during
a single season. All the piles are made of spruce, which
could not sustain prolonged stocking. Hence, the dates
from each structure characterise a momentary event in
the sense of radiocarbon dating. Several samples were
taken from different sets of year-rings of a single pile.
We have calculated the empirical error for four sets from
Structures 1, 2, 3 and 6. In the case of Structure 1, all
dates form a Gaussian-type distribution with one date
obviously falling out (Fig. 8). The mean age of the
remaining dates is 2304 cal BC with a standard deviation
of 113 years. The corresponding values for the other
structures are 2372 G83 cal BC for Structure 2;
2295 G129 cal BC for Structure 3 (with one outlier),
and 2219 G184 cal BC for Structure 6 (with one
outlier). The average age of all four structures is
2298 G127 cal BC. The latter standard deviation, 127
years, is adopted as the minimum error in the statistical
analysis of the dates for the entire East European Plain.
The sites of the Yelshanian Culture [30] have been
identified in a vast area of the steppe stretching between
the Lower Volga and the Ural Rivers. The subsistence
was based on the hunting of a wide range of animals
(wild horse, aurochs, elk, brown bear, red deer, fallow
deer, saiga antelope, marten, beaver), food collecting
(tortoise, edible molluscs, mostly Unio), and fishing.
Remains of domestic animals (horse, cattle, sheep and
goat) were found at several sites, yet the penetration
from the later levels cannot be excluded. The archaic-
looking pottery is made from the silty clay tempered
with organic matter, fish scales and bone. The sample
contains eight dates presented in Table 8, and five of
them can be assumed to be coeval since they group
Table 6
The date sample for Ulm-Eggingen, in the format of Table 2
Index Age
bp (yr)
Instrumental
error (yr)
Age cal
BC (yr)
Calibration
error (yr)
X
i
2
Material
Hv-14732 6500 100 5375 108 25.3 charcoal
Hv-14727 6390 170 5225 175 5.1 charcoal
Hv-13596 6245 120 5150 133 5.7 charcoal
Hv-13600 6205 60 5120 67 8.4 charcoal
Hv-14725 6135 105 5075 125 3.8 charcoal
Hv-14730 6120 150 4975 158 0.8 charcoal
Hv-13601 5995 60 4950 100 1.4 charcoal
Hv-14731 6125 235 4950 250 0.2 charcoal
Hv-14724 6035 105 4900 133 0.3 charcoal
Hv-14722 6100 270 4900 300 0.1 charcoal
Hv-14734 6010 60 4885 58 0.3 charcoal
Hv-12982 5960 90 4875 125 0.1 charcoal
Hv-13599 5960 60 4865 68 0.1 charcoal
Hv-14729 5980 200 4850 217 0.0 charcoal
Hv-14735 5935 115 4825 142 0.0 charcoal
Hv-14728 5965 200 4800 233 0.0 charcoal
Hv-13595 5855 80 4750 100 0.6 charcoal
Hv-13597 5840 145 4750 167 0.2 charcoal
Hv-14726 5870 225 4750 250 0.1 charcoal
Hv-14733 5875 60 4735 72 0.9 charcoal
Hv-13598 5810 80 4650 100 3.3 charcoal
Hv-13594 5740 195 4600 233 1.0 charcoal
Hv-14721 5590 160 4400 200 4.6 charcoal
Hv-14736 5295 295 4150 383 3.2 charcoal
Hv-14737 5410 320 4150 383 3.2 charcoal
X
2
(T
0
)Z29.4, c
21
2
(0.95) Z32.7.
The dates belonging to the coeval subsample are indicated with bold
face.
1448 P. Dolukhanov et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 1441e1458
within a narrow age interval, with the mean age and
standard deviation of
T0Z6910G58 cal BC:
The remaining dates are older than that (8025e7475
cal BC).
Rakushechnyi Yar is a clearly stratified Neolithic
settlement located on a small island in the lower stretches
of the River Don, ca 100 km upstream of the city of
Rostov. Belanovskaya [5], who excavated the site, has
identified 23 archaeological levels. The deepest levels
(23e6) belong to the Early Neolithic. Animal remains
consist of both the wild (red deer, roe deer, fox, hare,
Table 7
Radiocarbon dates for the Linear Pottery (LBK) sites in Central Europe: the site name, laboratory index, the uncalibrated age and its instrumental
error, the calibrated age and an estimate of its total error
Site Index Age bp (yr) s
i
(yr) Age cal BC (yr) S
i
(yr)
Les Longrais Ly-150 5290 150 4100 167
Montbelliard Gif-5165 5320 120 4125 142
Chichery Gif-3354 5600 120 4450 150
Frankenau VRI-207 5660 100 4525 125
Horne
´Lefantovce Bln-304 5775 140 4700 200
Kaster KN-2130 5840 55 4700 100
Schwanfeld 14 4786 458
Guttenbrunn Bln-2227 5935 50 4830 100
Ulm-Eggingen 4831 261
Cuiry-les-Chaudardes 4841 321
Dresden-Nickern Bln-73/73A 5945 100 4850 133
Hallertau HAM-197 5990 90 4875 125
Menneville Ly-2322 6030 130 4900 225
Mold Bln-58 5990 160 4900 300
Chabarovice Bln-437 6070 200 4950 217
Kirschnaumen-Evendorff Ly-1181 6050 200 4975 263
Kecovo GrN-2435 6080 75 5000 100
Dachstein Ly-1295 6280 320 5050 350
Hienheim GrN-5870 6125 35 5065 100
Friedberg Bln-56 6120 100 5075 125
Niedermerz 3 KN-2286 6180 120 5075 188
Niedermerz 1 KN-I.594 6180 50 5100 100
Eilsleben OxA-1627 6190 90 5100 117
Langweiler 2 KN-I.885 6210 125 5100 133
Lautereck GrN-4750 6140 45 5100 200
Northeim-Imbshausen H-1573/1126 6192 140 5100 250
Mu
¨ddersheim KN-I.6 6210 50 5110 100
Mohelnice MOC-70 6220 80 5125 163
Niemcza Bln-1319 6210 80 5125 163
Dnoboh-Hrada LJ-2040 6300 300 5150 317
Bylany Stage II a-c GrN-4754 6270 65 5190 100
Rosenburg 5187 138
Langweiler 9 KN-2697 6370 210 5200 233
Elsloo GrN-5733 6300 65 5215 100
Ko
¨ln-Mengenich KN-I.369 6320 70 5220 100
Gerlingen KN-2295 6390 160 5225 158
Langweiler 1 KN-2301 6340 70 5245 100
Brunn am Gebirge 5252 99
Geleen GrN-995 6370 60 5260 100
Duderstadt H-919/889 6422 100 5300 100
Blicquy 5302 255
Lamersdorf KN-I.367 6410 45 5340 100
Langweiler 8 KN-2989 6540 155 5375 158
Eitzum Bln-51 6530 100 5400 100
Go
¨ttingen H-1534/1027 6530 180 5400 200
Schwanfeld 11 5467 514
Bylany Stage IV BM-569 6754 96 5625 108
X
2
(T
0
)Z46.3, c
39
2
(0.95) Z54.6.
The dates shown with no entries in columns 2e4 are those obtained in Section 4, where we adopt S
i
Zs
c
. Dates belonging to the coeval subsample
are shown in bold face.
1449P. Dolukhanov et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 1441e1458
and numerous birds) and domesticated species (sheep,
goat, cattle, dog, and horse, either wild or domestic).
Numerous shells of edible molluscs (mostly, Viviparus)
indicate the importance of food gathering. The pottery is
often tempered with organic matter and includes both the
flat- and pointed-bottom varieties.
Two Early Neolithic sites of Matveyev Kurgan 1 and 2
are in the valley of the Miuss River, on the littoral of the
Azov Sea [26]. The animal remains of both sites are
dominated by wild species: aurochs, red deer, roe deer,
beaver, wolf, wild boar, kulan and wild ass (the latter
two were more typical of the Mesolithic age). The
domesticates, which form 18e20% of the total assemblage,
include horse, cattle, sheep/goat, pig and dog. Both sites
contain rich stone industries, and a few potsherds. The
10 radiocarbon dates from the lower layers (the Early
Neolithic) are presented in Table 9, of which six dates
satisfy the criterion for contemporaneity, yielding
T0Z5863G130 cal BC;scZ247 years:
The remaining dates include one younger date (5000 cal
BC) and three older ones (6550e6850 cal BC).
About 40 sites belonging to the Buh-Dniestrian Culture
are located on the lower terraces of the River Dniester
(Nistru) and its tributaries, and on the River Pyvdenyi
Buh [12,31]. At earlier sites, about 80% of animal
remains belong to wild species, mostly roe deer and red
deer. Among the domestic animals, pig, cattle and sheep/
goat have been identified. Archaeological deposits
contain huge amounts of Unio molluscs and tortoise
shells. The pottery includes deep bowls with S-shaped
profile and hemispherical flat-bottomed beakers made of
clay tempered with organic matter and crushed shells.
Ornamental patterns consist of the rows of shell-rim
impressions, finger impressions, and incised lines forming
0
2
4
6
8
10
4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8
Frequency
Age (kyr BC)
Fig. 7. The rate of occurrence of radiocarbon dated sites for the LBK
sites in Central Europe, according to Table 7 (radiocarbon age in cal
BC, binned into 100 yr intervals). The coeval subsample is shown
shaded, and the remaining dates, unshaded.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8
Frequency
Age (kyr BC)
Fig. 8. The frequency of dates (cal BC) per 100 yr in the Serteya 2,
Structure 1.
Table 8
The date sample for Yelshanian in the format of Table 1
Site Index Material Age
bp
(yr)
Instru-
mental
error
(yr)
Age
cal BC
(yr)
Calib-
ration
error
(yr)
Chekalino 1 Le-4781 shell 8990 100 8025 163
Chekalino 1 GIN-7085 shell 8680 120 7725 118
Lebyazhinka 4 GIN-7088 shell 8470 140 7475 213
Chekalino 1 Le-4783 shell 8050 120 7000 225
Ivanovskaya Le-2343 bone 8020 90 6925 163
Chekalino 1 Le-4782 shell 8000 120 6900 200
Chekalino 1 Le-4784 shell 7940 140 6875 213
Chekalino 1 GIN-7086 shell 7950 130 6850 200
The dates accepted as coeval are highlighted with bold face.
Table 9
The date sample for Rakushechnyi Yar and Matveev Kurgan (two dates labelled MK1) in the format of Table 2
Site Index Material Age bp
(yr)
Instrumental
error (yr)
Age cal
BC (yr)
Calibration
error (yr)
X
i
2
Layer 20 Ki-6476 organic crust 930 140 6850 200 24.4
Layer 20 Ki-6477 organic crust 7860 130 6725 163 28.1
Layer 20 Ki-6475 organic crust 7690 110 6550 175 15.4
MK 1 GrN 7193 unknown 7505 210 6400 300 3.2
Layer 9 Le-5344 shell 7180 250 6000 250 0.3
MK 1 Le-1217 charcoal 7180 70 5980 70 0.9
Layer 15 Ki-6480 organic crust 7040 100 5860 95 0.0
Layers 14-15 Ki-6478 organic crust 6930 100 5780 90 0.4
Layer 15 Ki-6479 organic crust 6825 100 5700 100 1.6
Layer 8 Bln-704 charcoal 6070 100 5000 115 46.2
X
2
(T
0
)Z6.4, c
5
2
(0.95) Z11.1.
The coeval dates are highlighted with bold face.
1450 P. Dolukhanov et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 1441e1458
zigzags; several patterns find direct analogies in the
‘monochrome’ pottery of the Balkan Early Neolithic
(Star
cevo-CrisxCulture). Imported potsherds of Linear
Pottery (with ‘music-note’ patterns) were found at several
sites belonging to the Culture’s latest phase. The
radiocarbon date sample contains the total of 7 date
measurements from the sites on the Pyvdenyi Buh
presented in Fig. 9 and Table 10. All the seven dates
satisfy the statistical test for contemporaneity, with
T0Z6121G143 cal BC;scZ101 years:
The early Neolithic in the boreal East European Plain
exhibits several stylistic varieties of the ‘notch-and-comb
decorated pottery’. The Upper Volga Culture consists of
small-size sites usually found along the rivers of the
Upper Volga basin, on lake shores, and in bogs and
mires [25]. The subsistence of the Upper Volga groups
was based on hunting (elk, red deer, roe deer, aurochs,
wild boar, and other wild forest animals), supplemented
by fishing and food-collecting. The early types of pottery
consist of small vessels (15e30 cm in diameter) that are
either conic or flat bottomed, and made of chamotte-
tempered clay.
The sites of the Sperrings Culture (or the I:1 Style of
the Finnish writers) are located on ancient sea and lake
shore-lines in a vast territory encompassing southern
and central Finland and Ladoga and Onega Lake basins
in Russian Karelia [35]. The pottery corpus consists of
large conic vessels with straight rims decorated with
impressions of cord, incised lines and pits forming
a simple zoned ornament.
Early pottery-bearing sites occur in the extreme
north-east of European Russia, on the Pechora and
Northern Dvina rivers [29,55]. The pottery reflects
Upper Volga influences.
We have also analyzed dates for Zedmar, Kalinin-
grad Oblast [49], where we have isolated two coeval
subsets whose dates are presented in Table 12.
The total sample for early pottery-bearing sites of the
boreal East European Plain contains 55 radiocarbon date
measurements presented in Table 11 and Fig. 10. They
include a series of dates from the stratified wetland sites
of the Upper Volga Culture: Ivanovskoe 2, 2a, 3 and 7,
Berendeevo 1 and 2a, and Yazykovo. The sample also
includes dates for the sites of Valdai Culture which
several writers consider to be related to the Upper Volga
Culture [25]. We also include several dates from
Sperrings sites (located in Karelia), as well as two
dates from Chernoborskaya-type sites in the Russian
North-East. Thirty-two dates satisfy the statistical test
for contemporaneity and yield
T0Z5417G30 cal BC;scZ160 years:
The probability distribution for the coeval subsample is
shown with hatched boxes in Fig. 10. The remaining
dates include those which are older (5800e6200 cal BC)
and younger (4200e5200 cal BC) than the coeval
sample. The number of dates that do not belong to the
coeval subsample is large; this indicates that this
collection of dates belongs to a heterogeneous and/or
long-lived cultural entity. These data deserve careful
study based on a more extensive selection of age
determinations and other evidence.
Our selection of Neolithic dates for East European
Plain as a whole contains 129 measurements presented in
Table 12 and Fig. 11. This selection suggests a much
older age of the initial pottery-making than earlier
0
1
2
3
4
5.9 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4
Frequency
Age (kyr BC)
Fig. 9. The frequency of dates (cal BC) for the Buh-Dniestrian per
100 yr interval.
Table 10
The date sample for the Buh-Dniestrian in the format of Table 2
Site Index Material Age bp
(yr)
Instrumental
error (yr)
Age cal
BC (yr)
Calibration
error (yr)
X
i
2
Sokol’tsy 2 Ki-6697 bone 7470 60 6295 63 1.9
Sokol’tsy 2 Ki-6698 bone 7405 55 6210 67 0.5
Baz’kov Ostrov Ki-6651 horn 7325 60 6115 63 0.0
Pechora Ki-6693 horn 7305 50 6095 48 0.0
Pechora Ki-6692 bone 7260 65 6075 58 0.1
Baz’kov Ostrov Ki-6696 boar tusk 7215 55 6060 55 0.2
Baz’kov Ostrov Ki-6652 boar tusk 7160 55 5995 62 1.0
X
2
(T
0
)Z3.8, c
6
2
(0.95) Z12.6.
All the dates belong to the coeval subsample.
1451P. Dolukhanov et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 1441e1458
Table 11
The date sample for the Upper Volga and related Early Neolithic sites presented in the format of Table 2
Site Index Material Age bp
(yr)
Instrumental
error (yr)
Age cal
BC (yr)
Calibration
error (yr)
X
i
2
Berendeevo 2a Le-1585 wood 7270 80 6095 73 28.5
Berendeevo 2a Le-1561 wood 7240 80 6100 100 28.9
Ivanovskoe 7 IGAN-95 lake mud 7170 40 6030 50 23.3
Ivanovskoe 3 Le-1972 peat 7110 80 5940 80 17.0
Ivanovskoe 2 Le-1950 wood 7080 80 5885 83 13.6
Berendeevo 2a Le-1560 wood 7080 80 5885 83 13.6
Berendeevo 1 Le-1576 wood 7050 80 5860 80 12.2
Ivanovskoe 3 Le-1250 peat 7010 70 5835 68 10.8
Ivanovskoe 7 IGAN-96 humic acids
from soil
6970 70 5820 70 10.1
Ivanovskoe 3 Le-1947 wood 6980 80 5820 75 10.1
Yazykovo Le-2051 charcoal 6950 70 5810 75 9.6
Ivanovskoe 3 Le-1904 wood 6930 80 5785 83 8.4
Berendeevo 2a Le-1585 wood 6930 70 5780 63 8.2
Ivanovskoe 3 Le-1948 wood 6900 70 5770 63 7.7
Ivanovskoe 3 Le-1911 wood 6860 70 5715 68 5.5
Nizhnie Kotitsy 2 Le-1333 charcoal 6860 100 5700 100 5.0
Zhabki 3 GIN-2767 charcoal 6870 100 5700 100 5.0
Okaemovo-5 GIN-6193 lake mud 6800 140 5675 138 3.5
Vashutinskaja Le-2607 charcoal 6820 80 5665 75 3.8
Okaemovo-18 GIN-6416 elk bone 6800 60 5655 58 3.5
Berendeevo 2a Le-1586 charcoal 6780 70 5640 60 3.1
Yazykovo Le-2053 charcoal 6730 80 5575 68 1.5
Ivanovskoe 3 Le-1913 charcoal 6690 70 5555 58 1.2
Prilukskaya Le-4813 charcoal 6680 70 5555 58 1.2
Ivanovskoe 7 IGAN-92 burned wood 6670 70 5535 53 0.9
Ivanovskoe 3 Le-1970 wood 6570 80 5460 70 0.1
Ivanovskoe 3 Le-1935 charcoal 6540 70 5445 68 0.0
Zales’e 1 Le-1144 charcoal 6530 50 5430 50 0.0
Ivanovskoe 3 IGAN-71 lake mud 6500 50 5420 55 0.0
Pegerma 9 TA-1161 charcoal 6510 90 5420 70 0.0
Yerpin Pudas TA-344 charcoal 6510 120 5415 98 0.0
Hepo-jarvi Le-1412 charcoal 6480 60 5400 65 0.0
Sheltozero-9 TA-1312 charcoal 6480 70 5400 65 0.0
Nikolskaya Pravaya Le-2055 wood 6470 70 5395 68 0.0
Zhabki 3 GIN-3214 charcoal 6460 160 5350 175 0.1
Hepo-jarvi Le-1411 charcoal 6380 60 5335 53 0.4
Ivanovskoe 3 Le-1978 wood 6360 80 5300 100 0.8
Yazykovo Le-1189 wood 6370 80 5300 100 0.8
Sheltozero 10 TA-1308 charcoal 6400 80 5295 78 0.9
Shettima 1 TA-1152 charcoal 6400 150 5275 163 0.8
Ivanovskoe 3 Le-1973 wood 6370 70 5270 70 1.3
Prilukskaya Le-4814 charcoal 6350 60 5255 62 1.6
Lanino 2 Le-4347 charcoal 6440 370 5250 375 0.2
Ivanovskoe 3 Le-3097 wood 6350 70 5245 68 1.8
Ivanovskoe 3 IGAN-160 lake mud 6300 40 5205 45 2.8
Ivanovskoe 2 Le-1974 wood 6270 80 5185 85 3.3
Yazykovo Le-1080 peat 6250 60 5180 70 3.5
Lanino 2 Le-3298 charcoal 6296 260 5150 275 0.9
Ivanovskoe 3 Le-3094 wood 6210 60 5125 73 5.3
Ivanovskoe 7 IGAN-94 wood 6100 40 5030 63 9.3
Yerpin Pudas TA-799 charcoal 5990 100 4925 163 9.2
Yerpin Pudas TA-472 charcoal 5860 100 4705 118 31.4
Yerpin Pudas TA-413 charcoal 5825 80 4650 100 36.5
Lanino 2 Le-3485 charcoal 5570 80 4410 85 62.9
Lanino 2 Le-3490 charcoal 5440 140 4275 163 49.4
Chernaya Rechka 1 Le-1223 charcoal 5440 140 4275 163 49.4
X
2
(T
0
)Z43.4, c
31
2
(0.95) Z45.0.
Dates belonging to the coeval subsample are indicated with boldface.
1452 P. Dolukhanov et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 1441e1458
estimates from radiocarbon dates [15] or geological
evidence [42]. Importantly, we have now identified an
earlier cluster of dates belonging mainly to Yelshanian.
The probability distribution of the dates shown in
Fig. 11 is rather broad, and one might identify at least
two maxima at about 5100 cal BC and 3300 cal BC. A
straightforward application of the procedure of Section
3.2, as in the case of the LBK dates, would split the
sample into a set of ‘coeval subsamples’, but this is not
justified in this case since the probability distribution is
very different from a single Gaussian. Instead, we have
applied the KolmogoroveSmirnov test to find out if the
histogram in Fig. 11 shows any statistically significant
deviations from the uniform distribution. Except for the
earliest dates, younger than 2600 cal BC, the hypothesis
that the probability distribution of the dates for the East
European Plain is uniform cannot be rejected at the
significance level of 80% (in other words, the probability
that the maxima are real does not exceed 20%). This
implies that the dates of the East European Plain
represent a phenomenon prolonged in time, and so
cannot be described as a single date. The maxima in the
histogram of Fig. 11 are not statistically reliable.
6. Discussion
Since Childe [9], the spread of LBK settlements in
Central Europe was viewed as a classical example of
prehistoric migration. More recent studies [37,56] attach
much greater significance to indigenous adoption and to
contacts between invading farmers and local foragers
[20,21]. These views were strengthened by the discovery
of a distinct cultural tradition in the north-western
part of the LBK area, La Hoguette. This was viewed
as belonging to local Mesolithic groups that started
practising horticulture and herding before the arrival of
the LBK [37].
Gronenborn [20: 156] suggests that the earliest LBK
sites appeared in Transdanubia at around 5700e5660
cal BC, and reached Franconia at about 5500 cal BC.
Price et al. [37] argue that the ‘initial’ LBK appeared in
Hungary at around 5700 cal BC and spread further
west. Our analysis does not reveal any temporal
structure in the entire sample of the radiocarbon LBK
dates for Central Europe. Forty out of 47 LBK dates in
our sample satisfy the criterion of contemporaneity,
forming a nearly Gaussian distribution with the 2s-
range of 5600e4800 cal BC, with the most probable age
of 5154 G62 cal BC, and without any apparent
temporal substructure. Our analysis indicates the spread
of the LBK was so fast that it cannot be subdivided into
distinct events using radiocarbon dating alone. This is
why most of the LBK date sample can be characterized
in terms of a single date (presumably corresponding to
the culture peak or rather the peak of activities at the
individual sites) with a relatively small error.
The resulting lower estimate of the rate of spread can
be obtained from the width of the above probability
distribution. With the largest dimension of the LBK
region of about 1500 km (from Transdanubia to the
Paris Basin) and the time taken to spread over that area
of about 360 years (twice the standard deviation of the
dates in the coeval LBK subsample), the average
propagation rate of the LBK could not be less than
4 km/yr. The rate of the LBK expansion can be best
estimated for the earliest LBK which spread from
Transdanubia to the Rhine valley within less than 150
years [20]. Settlers thus covered an average distance of
about 850 km at the rate of at least 5.6 km/yr. The
actual propagation speed could be even larger, as only
the loess regions were settled. This value is consistent
with the earlier estimates of about 6 km/yr obtained by
Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza [3] and Gkiasta et al.
[19] from data for a significantly larger region. The LBK
propagation rate is in a striking contrast to the average
rate of spread of the European Neolithic, 1 km/s [3].
The probability distribution of radiocarbon dates for
individual pottery-bearing cultures on East European
Plain (Section 5,Table 12,Fig. 11) reveals a different
spatio-temporal structure extended over a long time
interval. Our statistical age estimates indicate a clear
temporal sequence from Yelshanian (6910 G58 cal BC),
through Buh-Dniestrian (6121 G101 cal BC) and
Rakushechnyi Yar (5846 G128 cal BC), to Upper
Volga (5317 G30 cal BC). The rate of spread of the
early pottery-bearing cultures in East European Plain,
estimated from the extent of the region involved (ca
2500 km) and the time of spread (ca 1600 years), is
about 1.6 km/yr. This is significantly smaller than the
rate of spread of the LBK but somewhat larger than the
average European Neolithic rate of spread. The com-
parable magnitudes of the rates of spread of farming in
Western Europe and early pottery-making in Eastern
0
2
4
6
8
10
4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2
Frequency
Age (kyr BC)
Fig. 10. The frequency of dates (cal BC) for the Upper Volga and
related Early Neolithic sites per 100 yr interval. The coeval subsample
is shown shaded.
1453P. Dolukhanov et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 1441e1458
Table 12
Radiocarbon dates for the Neolithic sites on East European Plain: the site name, laboratory index, the uncalibrated age and its instrumental error,
the calibrated age and an estimate of its total error
Site Index Material Age bp (yr) s
i
(yr) Age cal BC (yr) S
i
(yr)
Kladovets 4 TA-1410 charcoal 3400 60 1710 127
Villa TA-20 bone 3570 240 1950 317
Muchkas Le-5162 charcoal 3610 20 1955 127
Shakes Le-3709 charcoal 3680 350 2100 333
Vladychinskaya Le-1341 charcoal 3820 60 2225 127
Zalavruga 4 TA-994 charcoal 3810 50 2250 127
Serteya 2 2298 127
Lakshozero 2 TA-1520 charcoal 3920 60 2350 127
Sjaberskoe 3 Le-3427 charcoal 3910 100 2425 158
Kudomguba 7 TA-1893 charcoal 4010 80 2500 133
Usvyat Stage i TA-203 wood 4100 70 2650 127
Nida Bln-2592 charcoal 4070 50 2665 127
Krivun Le-2364 wood 4090 50 2670 127
Mayak 2 Le-1491 charcoal 4160 70 2695 127
Zolotets 4 TA-793 charcoal 4150 80 2700 127
Tugunda 14 TA-2018 charcoal 4210 60 2750 127
Usvyat Stage g/i TA-202 wood 4210 70 2750 127
Zedmar 2 2770 179
Voinavolok 24 TA-820 charcoal 4250 70 2775 127
Chernaya Maza Le-941 charcoal 4250 45 2775 127
Povenchanka 15 TA-1519 charcoal 4270 60 2825 127
Dubokrai 1 Le-2838 wood 3660 40 2870 127
Voinavolok 27 TA-1748 charcoal 4280 80 2900 150
Maieri 2 TA-1518 charcoal 4300 100 2925 158
Yumizh 1 Le-2599 charcoal 4320 40 2930 127
Rakushechnyi Yar Bln-704 charcoal 4360 100 2950 150
Vladychinskaya Le-1220 charcoal 4300 60 2950 127
S
ˇventoji Bln-4385 wood 4360 50 3025 127
Voinavolok 27 TA-1448 charcoal 4410 50 3110 127
Dubokrai 5 Le-3891 wood 4430 60 3115 127
Z
ˇemajtis
ˇke Bln-2593 unknown 4420 60 3115 127
Severnaja Salma Le-4509 charcoal 4550 570 3150 717
Oskchoi 2 Le-1730 charcoal 4530 40 3150 127
Borovskoe 3 Le-4612 charcoal 4480 70 3175 127
Vodysh Le-1228 charcoal 4590 140 3200 200
Nerpich’ya Guba Le-1329 charcoal 4630 100 3300 133
Krivun Le-1331 charcoal 4650 90 3300 133
Sarnate Bln-769 wood 4639 100 3300 133
Zolotets 4 TA-391 charcoal 4620 60 3325 127
S
ˇventoji L7-2528 wood 4640 60 3350 127
Choinovty Le-5164 charcoal 4640 25 3425 127
S
ˇventoji L7-2523 wood 4730 100 3475 158
Maslovo Boloto 4 Le-1234 charcoal 4780 120 3500 167
Kudrukula CAMS-6265 bone 4770 60 3535 127
Modlona Le-994 charcoal 4850 120 3550 167
Utinoe Boloto Le-1237 charcoal 4870 230 3550 317
Zalavruga 1 TA-393 charcoal 4775 70 3560 127
Sukhaja Vodla 2 NA-1553 unknown 4810 60 3570 127
Chernaja Guba 9 TA-2023 charcoal 4840 80 3650 127
Usvyat Stage g Le-256 unknown 4870 40 3650 127
Kudrukula CAMS-6266 bone 4860 60 3650 127
Chernaja Guba 3 TA-1890 charcoal 4950 100 3700 127
Spiginas GIN-5569 bone 5020 200 3750 250
Tsaga 1 Le-4292 charcoal 5020 250 3750 317
Lugovski Torfjanik Le-950 wood 5000 100 3800 150
Besovy Sledki TA-431 wood 5000 60 3805 127
Imerka 5 Le-2160 charcoal 5050 40 3835 127
Ivanovskoe 2 Le-1977 wood 5060 40 3840 127
Gundorovka GIN-9040 bone 5080 40 3850 127
Zedmar 1 3870 192
Zvejnieki OxA-5986 bone 5110 45 3900 127
Serteya 10 Le-5258 wood 5100 80 3925 127
1454 P. Dolukhanov et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 1441e1458
Table 12 (continued )
Site Index Material Age bp (yr) s
i
(yr) Age cal BC (yr) S
i
(yr)
Universitetskaja 3 Le-1013 wood 5080 125 3925 142
Ivanovskoe 4 Le-2900 wood 5160 40 3940 127
Suna 12 TA-1310 charcoal 5160 70 3975 127
Tekhonovo Sarskoe Le-1735 charcoal 5260 60 4075 127
Krasnoe Selo Le-637 charcoal 5300 300 4100 400
Staroryazanskaja 1a Le-1803 wood 5280 60 4125 127
Lipetskoe Ozero Le-3743 bone 5310 110 4125 127
Krivina 3 Le-1658 peat 5290 60 4145 127
Choinovty 1 Le-1729 charcoal 5320 60 4155 127
Chernushka 1 Le-1874 unknown 5350 60 4165 127
Rudnja Serteiskaya Le-3020 wood 5390 40 4195 127
Matveev Kurgan 2 Le-882 charcoal 5400 200 4250 250
Lanino 2 Le-3490 charcoal 5440 140 4275 175
Ust’-Drozdovka Le-1332 charcoal 5510 100 4325 127
Z
ˇemajtis
ˇke Bln-2594 no 5510 60 4340 127
Chavan’ga Le-1222 charcoal 5560 80 4400 127
Ivanovskoe 5 Le-1109 peat 5560 100 4400 133
Kolupaevskaya Le-1194 charcoal 5600 150 4450 167
Zatsen’e Ki-6214 bone 5625 40 4465 127
Zarech’e Torfyanik Le-969 peat 5670 50 4530 127
Rudnya Stage d/e Le-2570 wood 5770 60 4645 127
Chernaja Rechka 1 TA-1550 charcoal 5800 100 4650 127
Osovets 4 Ki-6213 bone 5860 50 4720 127
Yerpin Pudas TA-472 charcoal 5860 100 4725 127
Kladovets 5a TA-1450 charcoal 5850 80 4725 127
Mjangora 1 TA-1079 charcoal 5880 80 4750 127
Khvalynsk 1 UPI-120 bone 5880 79 4750 127
Sakhtysh 1 Le-1258 wood 5900 70 4775 127
Lebjazhinka 3 GIN-7087 shell 5960 180 4850 217
Vyun Le-561 wood 5980 100 4875 127
Yerpin Pudas TA-799 charcoal 5990 100 4875 127
Podol 3 Le-5172 charcoal 6010 50 4900 127
Zvejnieki OxA-5970 bone 6005 75 4925 127
Varfolomeyevskaya Lu-2620 unknown 6090 160 4950 167
Ruhnu 2 Le-5627 charcoal 6150 60 5055 127
Rudnya d Le-2569 wood 6180 70 5080 127
Chernaja Rechka 1 TA-1634 charcoal 6200 100 5100 127
Khvalynsk AA-12571 bone 6200 85 5125 127
Yasinovatka Ki-6605 bone 6255 70 5180 127
Berendeevo 2a Le-1557 charcoal 6310 70 5210 127
Ust’ Rybezhna Le-405 charcoal 6380 220 5250 250
Glukhaja Le-4200 charcoal 6460 300 5250 317
Shettima 1 TA-1152 charcoal 6400 150 5250 150
Hepo Jarvi Le-1411 charcoal 6380 60 5290 127
Sheltozero 10 TA-1308 charcoal 6400 80 5295 127
Zhabki 3 GIN-3214 charcoal 6460 150 5300 150
Ivanovskoe 3b Le-1978 wood 6360 80 5300 127
Nikol’skaya Pravaya Le-2055 wood 6470 70 5400 127
Pegrema 9 TA-1161 charcoal 6510 90 5420 127
Zales’ye Le-1144 charcoal 6530 50 5430 127
Chernaya Guba 9 TA-1315 charcoal 6530 80 5435 127
Ivanovskoe 7 IGAN-92 wood 6670 70 5570 127
Yazykovo 1 Le-2053 charcoal 6730 80 5620 127
Brikuli Le-1770 charcoal 6770 80 5645 127
Okaemovo 18 GIN-6416 bone 6800 60 5655 127
Kurovo 2 Le-1736 charcoal 6770 70 5665 127
Vashutinskaya Le-2607 charcoal 6820 80 5665 127
Nizhnie Kotitsy 5 Le-1333 charcoal 6860 100 5700 127
Grad 3 Ki-6650 bone 6865 50 5725 127
Savran’ Ki-6654 bone 6985 60 5810 127
Lukovo Ozero 3 Le-2054 charcoal 7010 80 5830 127
Ivanovskoe 3a Le-1250 peat 7010 70 5835 127
Rakushechnyi Yar Ki-6480 food remains 7040 100 5900 127
(continued on next page)
1455P. Dolukhanov et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 1441e1458
Europe are highly significant as they may imply different
aspects of the same process.
A spatio-temporal trend directed from the south-east
to the north-west, clearly visible in Fig. 12, apparently
suggests that the tradition of pottery-making in the East
European Plain developed under an impulse from the
Eastern Steppe (cf. [50]). Recent evidence shows a very
early appearance of pottery-making in an area further
east, stretching along the southern edge of the boreal
forest in Eurasia [53]. This includes Jomon Culture in
Japan, with the earliest ‘incipient’ stage at ca 11,000 cal
BC [2]. An early centre of pottery-making has been
identified in the Russian Far East on the lower stretches of
the Amur River: Gasya (14,200e10,690 cal BC), Khum-
mi (14,600e9700 cal BC) and Goncharka (13,400e9700
cal BC), as well as Gromatukha on the Zeya River
(13,500e9230 cal BC; [13,23,27]). Early dates have been
obtained for pottery-bearing sites in the Trans-Baikal
province in southern Siberia: Ust-Karenga (11,600e
10,450 cal BC), Ust-Kyakhta (11,900e11,150 cal BC)
Table 12 (continued )
Site Index Material Age bp (yr) s
i
(yr) Age cal BC (yr) S
i
(yr)
Matveev Kurgan 1 Le-1217 charcoal 7180 70 5980 127
Baz’kov Ostrov Ki-6652 tusk 7160 55 5995 127
Surskoi Ostrov Ki-6691 bone 7245 60 6085 127
Pechora Ki-6692 bone 7260 65 6095 127
Berendeevo 2a Le-1561 wood 7240 80 6100 127
The dates shown with no entries in columns 2e4 are those obtained in Section 5, where we adopt S
i
Zs
c
.
Fig. 11. The rate of occurrence of Neolithic radiocarbon dated sites on
East European Plain (light grey) and the coeval subsample of the LBK
dates (dark grey), both in cal BC per 200 yr interval.
Fig. 12. Neolithic cultures in the central and eastern Europe, with the dates obtained here: Linear Pottery Culture (LBK); Yelshanian (1);
Rakushechnyi Yar (2); Buh-Dniestrian (3); Upper Volga (4); Valdai (5); Sperrings (6); Narva (7); Chernoborskaya (8); Serteya (9); and Zedmar (10).
The sequence from (1) to (10) is ordered both in time (see Section 5) and in space.
1456 P. Dolukhanov et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 1441e1458
and Studenoye (11,250e10,350 cal BC) [27]. At these
sites, the subsistence was based on huntingegathering
and intense procurement of aquatic resources. Their
pottery assemblages are stylistically unrelated to each
other and are believed to be local inventions [24]. One may
only speculate that pottery-making independently de-
veloped in the context of broad-spectrum hunter-
gathering economies. This technical novelty initially
emerged in the forest-steppe belt of northern Eurasia
starting at about 14,500 cal BC, and spread to the west to
reach the south-eastern confines of East European Plain
by 7000 cal BC.
The group of dates at 5300e4900 cal BC that form
the statistically insignificant maximum in Fig. 11 largely
belongs to Upper Volga and other early pottery-bearing
cultures in the boreal central and northern Russia. This
time span is close to the assessed age of the LBK in
Europe. Significantly, this period corresponds to the
Holocene climatic optimum, characterized by the
maximum rise of temperature and biological productiv-
ity of landscapes in both Central and Eastern Europe
[36].
The model advanced by Aoki et al. [4] can be relevant
in explaining these phenomena. These writers model the
advance of expanding farmers accompanied by partial
conversion of the indigenous population into farming.
The intruding farmers can spread either as a wave front
or as an isolated, solitary wave. However, either
intruding or converted farmers remain behind the
propagating wave (front) in both cases. There are no
definite signs of widespread farming in the East
European Neolithic sites, even though there is clear
evidence of the interaction of those cultures with
farming [58]. This suggests yet another scenario where
an advancing wave of farming is not accepted by the
local hunteregatherers, but still results in considerable
demographic and cultural modifications. The approach
of Aoki et al. [4] can be further developed to incorporate
the advantages of the wave of advance, adoption and
other models in a single mathematical framework.
Reliable assessment of these possibilities requires further
analysis, including detailed numerical simulations.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Tom Higham, Christopher Bronk
Ramsey and Paula J. Reimer for useful discussions and
practical recommendations. Critical reading of the
manuscript by M. Zvelebil and the anonymous referee,
and their useful comments are gratefully acknowledged.
This work was partially supported by the INTAS
Grant 00e0016, the PPARC Grant PPA/G/S/2000/
00528 and the NATO Collaborative Research Grant
PST.CLG974737.
References
[1] M.J. Aitken, Science-Based Dating in Archaeology, Longman,
London, 1990.
[2] C.M. Aitkens, T. Higuchi, Prehistory of Japan, Academic Press,
New York, 1982.
[3] A.J. Ammerman, L.L. Cavalli-Sforza, A population model for the
diffusion of early farming in Europe, in: C. Renfrew (Ed.), The
Explanation of Culture Change, Duckworth, London, 1973,
pp. 343e357.
[4] K. Aoki, M. Shida, N. Shigesada, Travelling wave solutions for
the spread of farmers into a region occupied by hunteregatherers,
Theoretical Population Biology 50 (1996) 1e17.
[5] T.D. Belanovskaya, Iz drevneishego proshlogo Nizhnego Podo-
nya. Poselenie vremeni neolita i eneolita Rakushechnyi Yar,
University Press, St. Petersburg, 1995.
[6] C.E. Buck, J.A. Christen, A novel approach to selecting samples
for radiocarbon dating, Journal of Archaeological Science 25
(1998) 303e310.
[7] C.E. Buck, W.G. Cavanagh, C.D. Litton, The Bayesian Approach
to Interpreting Archaeological Data, Wiley, Chistester, 1996.
[8] L.L. Cavalli-Sforza, P. Menozzi, A. Piazza, The History and
Geography of Human Genes, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ, 1994.
[9] V.G. Childe, The Dawn of European Civilisation, Kegan Paul,
London, 1925.
[10] J.A. Christen, C.E. Buck, Sample selection in radiocarbon dating,
Applied Statistics 47 (1998) 543e557.
[11] J.G.D. Clark, Radiocarbon dating and the expansion of farming
culture from the Near East over Europe, Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society 31/4 (1965) 58e73.
[12] V.N. Danilenko, Neolit Ukrainy, Naukova Dumka, Kiev, 1969.
[13] A.P. Derevyanko, V.E. Medvedev, The Amur River basin as one
of the earliest centres of ceramics in the Far East, in: H. Kajiwara
(Ed.), The Origins of Ceramics in East Asia and the Far East,
Tohoku Fukishi University Press, 1995, pp. 13e25.
[14] P.M. Dolukhanov, A.N. Miklyaev, Prehistoric lacustrine pine
dwelings in the north-western part of the USSR, Fennoscandia
Archaeologica III (1986) 81e90.
[15] P.M. Dolukhanov, V.I. Timofeev, Absoljutnaya hronologiya
neolita Evrazii (po dannym radiouglerodnogo metoda), in:
B.A. Kolchin (Ed.), Problemy Absoljutnogo Datirovanija v
Arkheologii, Nauka, Moscow, 1972, pp. 28e75.
[16] P. Dolukhanov, D. Sokoloff, A. Shukurov, Radiocarbon
chronology of Upper Palaeolithic sites in Eastern Europe at im-
proved resolution, Journal of Archaeological Science 18 (2001)
699e712.
[17] P.M. Dolukhanov, A.M. Shukurov, Kh.A. Arslanov,
A.N. Mazurkevich, L.A. Savel’eva, E.N. Dzinoridze,
M.A. Kulkova, G.I. Zaitseva, The Holocene environment and
transition to agriculture in Boreal Russia (Serteya Valley case
study), Internet Archaeology 17 (2004), http://intarch.ac.uk/
journal/issue17/dolukhanov_index.html.
[18] M. Furholt, J. Mu
¨ller, D. Raetzel-Fabian, C. Rinne, H.-P.
Wotzka, Radiocarbondaten online: Datenbank mittelaeropa
¨i-
scher 14C-Daten fu
¨r das Neolithikum und die fru
¨he Bronzezeit,
http://www.jungsteinzeit.de/radon/radon.htm, 2002.
[19] M. Gkiasta, T. Russel, S. Shennan, J. Steele, Neolithic transition
in Europe: the radiocarbon dates revisited, Antiquity 77 (2003)
45e66.
[20] D. Gronenborn, A variation on basic theme: the transition to
farming in southern central Europe, Journal of World Prehistory
13 (1999) 123e210.
[21] D. Gronenborn, Migration, acculturation and culture change in
temperate Europe and Eurasia, 6500e5000 cal BC, in: M. Budja
(Ed.), The Neolithization of EurasiadReflections in Archaeology
1457P. Dolukhanov et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 1441e1458
and Archaeogenetics. Documenta Praehistorica, vol. 30, 2003,
pp. 79e91 (Lubljana).
[22] J.G. Hather, S.L. Mason, Introduction: some issues in the
archaeobotany of hunteregatherers, in: S.L. Mason, J.G. Hather
(Eds.), HuntereGatherer Archaeobotany, Institute of Archaeology,
UCL, London, 2002, pp. 4e5.
[23] C.T. Keally, Y. Taniguchi, Y.V. Kuzmin, I.Y. Shewkomud,
Chronology of the beginning of pottery manufacture in East Asia,
Radiocarbon 46 (2004) 345e351.
[24] L.P. Khlobystin, Vostochnaya Sibir’ i Dal’nij Vostok, in:
S.V. Oshibkina (Ed.), Neolit Severnoi Evrazii, Nauka, Moscow,
1996, pp. 270e329.
[25] D.A. Krainov, Verkhnevolzhskaya kul’tura, in: S.V. Oshibkina
(Ed.), Neolit Severnoi Evrazii, Nauka, Moscow, 1996, pp. 166e172.
[26] L.Y. Krizhevskaya, Nachalo Neolita v Stepyakh Severnogo
Prichernomor’ya, IIMK, St. Petersburg, 1992.
[27] Y.V. Kuzmin, L.A. Orlova, The Neolithisation of Siberia and
Russian Far East, Antiquity 74 (2000) 356e364.
[28] E. Lenneis, P. Stadler, H. Windl, Neue
14
C-Daten zum
Fru
¨hneolithikum in O
¨sterreich, Pre
´histoire Europe
´enne 8 (1996)
97e116.
[29] V.E. Luzgin, Drevnie Kul’tury Izhmy, Nauka, Moscow, 1972.
[30] E.A. Mamonov, Khronologicheskij aspekt izucheniya yelshanskoi
kul’tury, in: E.N. Nosov (Ed.), Khronologiya Neolita Vostochnoi
Evropy, IIMK, St. Petersburg, 2000, pp. 50e52.
[31] V.I. Markevich, Bugo-Dnestrovskaya Kul’tura na Territorii
Moldavii, Sxtiinca, Cisxineu, 1974.
[32] P. Menozzi, A. Piaszza, L.L. Cavalli-Sforza, Synthetic map of
gene frequencies in Europe, Science 210 (1978) 786e792.
[33] A.M. Miklyaev, Kamennyiezheleznyj vek v mezhdurech’e
Zapadnoi Dviny i Lovati, Peterburgskii Arheologicheskii Vestnik
9 (1995) 5e39.
[34] S.V. Oshibkina, Introduction, in: S.V. Oshibkina (Ed.), Neolit
Severnoi Evrazii, Nauka, Moscow, 1996, pp. 6e9.
[35] S.V. Oshibkina, Sever Vostochnoi Evropy, in: S.V. Oshibkina
(Ed.), Neolit Severnoi Evrazii, Nauka, Moscow, 1996, pp. 210e
242.
[36] G.M. Peterson, Vegetational and climatic history of the western
Former Soviet Union, in: H.E. Wright, J.E. Kutzbach, T. Webb,
W.F. Ruddiman, F.A. Street-Perrott, P.J. Bartlein (Eds.), Global
Climates Since the Last Glacial Maximum, University of
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1993, pp. 169e193.
[37] T.D. Price, R.A. Bentley, J. Lu
¨ning, D. Gronenborn, J. Wahl,
Prehistoric human migration in the Linearbandkeramik of
Central Europe, Antiquity 75 (2001) 593e603.
[38] C. Renfrew, Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-
European Origins, Cape, London, 1987.
[39] C. Renfrew, Language families and the spread of farming, in:
D.R. Harris (Ed.), The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and
Pastoralism in Eurasia, UCL Press, London, 1996, pp. 70e92.
[40] A. Richmond, Preferred Economies: The Nature of Subsistence
Base throughout Mainland Britain during Prehistory. Oxford:
British Archaeological Reports. British Series 290, 1999.
[41] P. Rowley-Conwy, How the West was lost. A reconsideration of
agricultural origins in Britain, Ireland, and southern Scandinavia,
Current Anthropology 45 (2004) 1e46.
[42] A. Siiria
¨inen, Archaeological background of Ancient Lake
Pa
¨ija
¨nne and geological dating of the Meso/Neolithic boundary
in Finland, Bulletin of the Geological Society of Finland 42 (1970)
119e127.
[43] B. Soudsky´ , Higher level archaeological entities: models and
reality, in: C. Renfrew (Ed.), The Explanation of Cultural
Change. Models in Prehistory, Duckworth, London, 1974,
pp. 195e207.
[44] H. Sta
¨uble, Radiocarbon dates of the earlier Neolithic in Central
Europe, Radiocarbon 37 (1995) 227e237.
[45] M. Stuiver, A. Long, R. Kra (Eds.), Calibration 1993, Radiocar-
bon 35 (1) (1993).
[46] J. Thomas, The cultural context of the first use of domesticates in
Continental and Northwest Europe, in: D.R. Harris (Ed.), The
Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia,
UCL Press, London, 1996, pp. 310e322.
[47] J. Thomas, Thoughts on the ‘repacked’ Neolithic revolution,
Antiquity 77 (2003) 75e86.
[48] R. Tichy´ , Osidleni s voloutovou keramikou na Morave, Pama
´tki
Archeologicne 53 (1960) 245.
[49] V.I. Timofeev, Pamyatniki tipa Zedmar, in: S.V. Oshibkina (Ed.),
Neolit Severnoi Evrazii, Nauka, Moscow, 1996, pp. 165e192.
[50] V.I. Timofeev, Radiouglerodnye daty i problema neolitizatsii
Vostochnoj Evropy, in: E.N. Nosov (Ed.), Khronologiya Neolita
Vostochnoi Evropy, IIMC, St. Petersburg, 2000, pp. 81e82.
[51] V.I. Timofeev, G.I. Zaitseva, Spisok radiouglerodnykh datirovok
neolita, in: S.V. Oshibkina (Ed.), Neolit Severnoi Evrazii, Nauka,
Moscow, 1996, pp. 337e348.
[52] R. Tringham, Hunters, Fishers and Farmers of Eastern Europe
6000e3000 BC, Hutchinson University Press, London, 1971.
[53] P.-L. Van Berg, N. Cauwe, Les plus anciennes ce
´ramiques d’Asia
et leur relation avec le peninsule europe
´ene, Civilisations XLVII
(1e2) (2000) 25e40.
[54] P.-L. Van Berg, A. Hauzeur, Le Ne
´olithique ancien, Anthro-
pologica et Praehistorica 112 (2001) 63e76.
[55] I.V. Vereshchagina, Periodizatsija i khronologija neolita krajnego
evropeiskogo severo-vostoka Rossii, in: E.N. Nosov (Ed.),
Khronologiya Neolita Vostochnoi Evropy, IIMK, St. Petersburg,
2000, pp. 10e13.
[56] A. Whittle, Europe in the Neolithic. Creation of New Worlds,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.
[57] M. Zvelebil, The agricultural frontier and the transition to
farming in the circum-Baltic region, in: D.R. Harris (Ed.), The
Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia,
UCL Press, London, 1996, pp. 323e345.
[58] M. Zvelebil, M. Lillie, Transition to agriculture in Eastern
Europe, in: T.D. Price (Ed.), Europe’s First Farmers, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 2000, pp. 57e92.
[59] J. Petrasch, Zur Datierung der Bandkeramik, Archa
¨ologisches
Korrespondenzblatt 29 (1999) 159e168.
1458 P. Dolukhanov et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 1441e1458
