UDK 903’12/’15(517.3)“633/634”:574.9


Documenta Praehistorica XXXI 

An aspect of Neolithisation in Mongolia:
the Mesolithic-Neolithic site
of Tamsagbulag (Dornod district)


Michel Louis Séfériades 

UMR 6566, CNRS, Universités Rennes 1, Laboratoire d'Anthropologie,
Rennes et Nantes, France
michel.seferiades@univ-rennes1.fr 


ABSTRACT – The article outlines the first results of the French Archaeological Mission to Mongolia 
centered on the Neolithic. The topics discussed include general aspects of the initial Neolithisation in 
Eurasia, and the use of state-of-the art archaeological techniques in studies of Prehistory, with special reference to the Mesolithic/Neolithic interface, as exemplified by a survey and excavations in the 
area of Tamsagbulag site (Eastern Mongolia, aimak/district of Dornod) originally investigated by a 
Soviet-Mongolian mission directed by Professor A. P. Okladnikov, a renowned Russian archaeologist. 

IZVLE
EK – V 
lanku oriemo prve rezultate francoske arheoloke misije v Mongolijo, ki se je osredoto
ila na neolitik. Obravnavamo splone vidike za
etne neolitizacije v Evraziji in uporabo najboljih 
arheolokih tehnik pri raziskavah prazgodovine, posebno v zvezi z razmejitvijo mezolitika in neolitika. To ponazorimo s terenskim pregledom in izkopavanji na obmo
ju najdi
a Tamsagbulag (vzhodna Mongolia, aimak/okroje Dornod), ki ga je prvotno raziskala rusko-mongolska odprava pod vodstvom profesorja A. P. Okladnikova, slovitega ruskega arheologa. 

KEY WORDS – Mongolia; Tamsagbulag surveys and excavations; Neolithisation; Mesolithic; Neolithic 

INTRODUCTION 

I would like to discuss here the project of the French throughout the central and eastern part of Eurasia.” 
Archaeological Mission in Mongolia for the Neolithic At the beginning and concurrently with the North-
Period. This project covers Outer Mongolia, half way Pontic and Danubian areas, waves of nomadic pastobetween Russia (Siberia) to the north, Kazakhstan to ralists (Proto-Indo-Europeans in the opinion of many 
the west and China (Inner Mongolia and Manchu-of my colleagues) disrupted the established econoria), Korea and Japan to the south and east (Map 1). mic and social structures of the sedentary Neolithic 

and Eneolithic groups (the Cucuteni-Tripolye, Gumel-
Despite the fact that more than a thousand Paleoli-nitsa, Karanovo VI, etc.), introducing, among other 
thic sites are recorded and that the period is relati-novelties, the horse and wheel. 
vely well known there, this was not the case of the 
Neolithic (a fortiori for the Mesolithic) (Map 2). In Amazingly, more is known of dinosaurs’ fossil eggs 
the words of my colleague and friend Professor Jac-and bones in the Gobi Desert than of the Neolithic 
ques Legrand (INALCO, Paris): “Research into the of Mongolia. But despite the paucity of publications, 
Neolithic of Mongolia should provide informations there is a fair amount of actual data available. At the 
and essential hypotheses which would improve our Department of Archaeology of the Institute of His-
knowledge of the rise and formation of Central Asia-tory at Ulaan Baatar, with the help of my Mongolian 
tic nomadic pastoralism (particularly Mongolian), a colleague B. Gunchinsuren, I started a personal in-
phenomenon which dominated the historic period ventory of Mesolithic and Neolithic sites, putting 


Michel Louis Séfériades 


Map 1. Location of Tamsagbulag (Dornod aimak/district of Eastern Mongolia)
.


them on the map. I also started to study the stone
tools and ceramic assemblages, primarily from un
published and poorly known Soviet and Mongolian
surveys and excavations.


On this basis, I identified four regions of Mesolithic
and Neolithic socio-economic and cultural entities: 

 The region west of the Altai and west of the Khangai Mountains.
 The north-central region south of Lake Baikal.
 The southern region of northern of China (the
Northern Gobi)
.
 The eastern region of north and western Manchuria.


Yet this pattern results rather from the state of our
knowledge than a carefully designed research stra
tegy. It is mainly based on surface finds (stone tools,
sherds, etc.). Results from systematic excavations
are few, especially in chronostratigraphic sequences.
The only excavation worthy of the name is that of
the Soviet Mission directed (first in 1949 and then
1967) by the renowned Russian archaeologist A. P.
Okladnikov at the Mesolithic/Neolithic site of Tam
sagbulag (eastern Mongolia, Dornod aimak)
.


THE FRENCH ARCHAEOLOGICAL MISSION IN 
MONGOLIA FOR THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD 

The French Archaeological Mission in Mongolia for 
the Neolithic Period was established in 1996 under 
the auspices of the French Foreign Office and the 
Mongolian Academy of Sciences (Institute of History), 
with the intention, as its first objective, of undertaking remote sensing, excavations, and surveys at 
Tamsagbulag. Despite the brevity of reports on earlier Soviet excavations (essentially by Okladnikov, 
Derevianko 1970; Dorj 1971), it became clear that 
this was a key Mesolithic/Neolithic site in Central 
Asia, and this was confirmed by both the materials 
from these excavations and by two recent syntheses 
by A. P. Derevianko and D. Dorj (1992) and A. P. Derevianko (1994). 

Tamsagbulag is the key site for the Tamsagbulag Culture, which, in my opinion (see below), dates to the 
5th millenium BC. The occupants were both sedentary hunter-fisher-gatherers and farmers. Semi-subterranean dwellings (with posts supporting the roof) 
oriented south-east to north-west (around 40 m2: 

7.60 m long, 5.60 m wide and 0.60 m deep), with 

An aspect of Neolithisation in Mongolia: the Mesolithic-Neolithic site of Tamsagbulag (Dornod district) 


Map 2. Most important Neolithic sites in central and northern Asia (after A. P. Derevianko 1994): 1. Yamat Nuur, 2. 
Ovoot, 3. Tamsagbulag, 4. 
Khuitynbulag, 5. Shabarak, 6. 
Daringanga, 7. Arshan-Khad, 

8. Chandman, 9. Uldzit, 10. 
Andreyevskoe lake, 11. Chestyi-yaga, 12. the Samus burials, 13. the Tomsk burials, 14. 
Alexandrovskoe, 15. Zavjalovo, 16. Ust-Khemchik, 17. Toorakhem, 18. Khadynnykh, 
19. Kuyum, 20. the Vaskovskoe burial, 21. the Tomsk petroglyphs, 22. Lenkovka, 23. 
the Chastaya and Khinskaya 
valleys, 24. Olkhon, 25. Kamennye isles, 26. Mukhinskoe, 
27. Chindant, 28. Budulan, 
29. Shishkino, 30. Kullaty, 31. Belkachi, 32. Krestyakh, 33. Ushkovskaya, 34. Tarya, 35. Novopetrovka, 
36. Gromatukha, 37. Osinovoe lake, 38. Malyshevo, 39. Voznesenska, 40. Kondon, 41. Sakachi-Alyan, 42. 
Rudnaya, 43. Zaisanovska, 44. Kirovskoe. 
storage pits and burials inside the houses were 
found. The stone (chipped and polished) and bone 
tool assemblages, and ceramic materials are rich, as 
are the paleobotanical and faunal samples (millet, 
large fish, bird, cattle, pig, horse, etc.). A bull cult inherited from Paleolithic times (see Séfériades and 
Stanko 2000) has been identified from a pit filled 
with the bones of this animal. 

THE 1997 FIELD SEASON 

Tamsagbulag (“bulag” meaning “spring” in Mongolian) lies south-east of the town of Choibalsan, in the 
desert-steppe region just a few kilometers from the 
Chinese border (Manchuria), a region that was abundant in black-tailed gazelles and saiga antelopes before (so people say) the Soviet Army finished them 
off. It forms part of a large lake, which today is almost completely dry, one-two kilometres wide between the higher southern terraces (Tamsagbulag 1) 
and the lower northern ones (Tamsagbulag 2). In the 
north, we were able to locate the remains of the village of Tamsagbulag, built of mud-bricks and abandoned some fifty years ago (?). A few kilometres to the 
North-East one may note a series of small lakes located south of the larger Lake Buir. 

Tamsagbulag 1 

With some difficulty we are able to locate the site of 
Tamsagbulag 1 on the basis of its position in rela

tion to a cliff ten-twelve metres high with a spring 
at its foot, mentioned in a brief publication of A. P. 
Okladnikov and A. P. Derevianko. 

It seems possible that Mesolithic and Neolithic hunters of gazelle and antelope were based here in 
much the same way as Magdalenian hunters awaited 
reindeer on the left bank of the Seine at Pincevent; 
and during the Late Upper Paleolithic, on the Bug 
terrace in Ukraine, bison herds were taken at Anetovka more than ten thousands years ago (Séfériades and Stanko 2000). 

During the first campaign (August/September 1997), 
two complementary strategies were adopted: 

 Intensive surveys yielded several hundred stone 
tools, including several polished ones, and a significant number of potsherds suggesting an affinity with 
the Neolithic of the Lake Baikal and Amur region of 
Siberia and contemporary groups in southeast Asia. 
 Four trenches (A, B, C and D) from 1 to 4 m2 in 
size were dug: 
Trench A (4 m2) on the higher terrace, a few metres from the cliff facing the spring yielded no archaeological material, but provided excellent stratigraphy for sedimentological and palynological analyses (Fig. 1). Two stratigraphic exposures to the east-
west and north-south provided a sequence for the 
upper terrace occupied during the Neolithic: below 
the vegetal topsoil (20 cm) there was a sequence of 
sand (90 cm) resting on compact clayey soil. The latter caused us to stop the excavations. The stratigra


Michel Louis Séfériades 

phy provided information on the 
formation of the upper terrace, the 
palaeoclimate, the landscape, and 
biotopes and ecosystems of semi-sedentary Mesolithic/Neolithic groups 
at the beginning of the Holocene. 
Trenches B and C were located 
two hundreds metres south of the 
spring. Only trench B yielded chipped stone artefacts (Neolithic). 
Trench D (3 m2) at the foot of the 
terrace, not far from the spring, yielded the upper part of the brown and 
yellow Neolithic layer mixed with 
charcoal and ash (with chipped 
stone tools, fragments of pottery). 
A 14C date from this trench (Gif. 
10949) of 5590 ± 120 BP (cal 4753– 
4155 BC) was obtained. This date is 
of the same order as the dates for Neolithic sites obtained in China. 

Tamsagbulag 2 

Tamsagbulag 2 is a new site, discovered on the opposite (northern) bank of the ancient lake. There, 
over one hundred metres on both sides of the remains of the “Soviet Army bridge”, a brief investigation yielded chipped stone artefacts and ceramic assemblages which belong predominantly to historic 
times. A few metres to the west of the military 
bridge, the remains of a Tibetan monastery (?), a 
temple, and a sort of clay hearth with numerous vases and other cultural objects were found. 

Tamsagbulag 3 

Tamsagbulag is yet another new site, discovered on 
the eastern side of the ancient lake; it lies to the 

north- north-east of Tamsagbulag 1 (Fig. 2). A small 
lake, almost completely dried up to-day, is surrounded by small sand dunes. Intensive reconnaissance 
on the eastern bank of the lake, below the small terrace and on the gentle (windward) slope of the 
dune, has yielded important lithic and ceramic materials. The artefacts collected came from a Neolithic 
camp or habitation site located not far from the terrace. The chipped stone industry and sherds were 
concentrated at the foot of the terrace. 

In the areas of a dense concentration of lithics and 
pottery, a long bone of gazelle or antelope (which 
appeared to be a fossil, given the state of preservation) was recovered. The 14C date obtained places 
the site in the third millenium BC – more recent than 
Tamsagbulag 1. Presumably, groups of Mesolithic 
hunters who became more sedentary in the process 
of Neolithisation, moved from the large dried-out 
lake area of Tamsgbulag 1 of the fifth millenium, to 
the residual lake of Tamsagbulag 3 
in the third millenium, prior to having to opt once again for a nomadic 
way of life – this time definitively. 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIAL 

Chipped stone industry 

The several hundreds of pieces recovered suggest the occurence of a rich 
assemblage. Raw materials consist of 
local flint (opaque and translucent) 
and semi-precious stones of various 

Fig. 1. Tamsgbulag 1. Trench A seen from the South. Spring (“bu-
lag” in Mongolian) at the foot of the terrace (12m high); the mar-
shy area and the soviet built milatary road through the ancient 
lake; on the background, the opposite terraces (Tamsagbulag 2) 
and the steppe. 
Fig. 2. Tamsagbulag 3. The Mesolithic/Neolithic site (palaeo-shore-
lines) discovered in 1997 during the first mission. 

An aspect of Neolithisation in Mongolia: the Mesolithic-Neolithic site of Tamsagbulag (Dornod district) 

Fig. 3. Tamsagbulag 

1. Microlithic industry: Nucleus. 
colours (chalcedony, 
quartz, crystal, jasper, etc.). The micro-
lithic industry dominates the secondary-
chipped lithics. Small 
lake pebbles are notable, and are being analysed. 
One should note: prismatic nuclei, pyramidal nuclei, 
sub-pyramidal nuclei, bladelet nuclei (Fig. 3), the 
products of pressure flaking, standardised production using homogeneous raw material, morphologically varied blades and bladelets (for example, sickle microblades inserted into knives) (Fig. 4), blade 


Fig. 4. Tamsagbulag 1. Microlithic industry: blade-
lets. 
Fig. 5. Tamsagbulag 1. Thumbnail (micro)scrapers. 
scrapers, thick endscrapers carinated endscrapers, 
thumbnail (micro)scrapers (Fig. 5) and Tamsagbulag 
scrapers (Fig. 6), first recognised by A. P. Okladnikov 
(small plaquettes or fragments thereof of different 
shapes. Their edges are abruptly retouched). Burins 
and piercers are also present. A unifacially flaked leaf 
point in black stone (phtanite) (Fig. 7) and quartz 
arrow-heads come from Tamsagbulag 1. Typical microliths (geometric) seem absent. 

Polished stone industry 

Only five pieces have been recovered: an axe or adze 
fragment, a pestle fragment, fragments of a large 
disc and a heavy perforated circular tool (for digging sticks?) in volcanic rock from Tamsagbulag 3 
(Fig. 8). A. P. Okladnikov’s excavations yielded a similar piece and millstones also in volcanic rock. 

Bone industry 

No bone tools werefound among the surface collection, but knives, dagger knives, or sickles (stone bladelets mounted in a bone haft) (Fig. 9) are well represented in A. P. Okladnikov’s excavation assemblages as items of jewellery (beads) (Fig. 10). 

Ceramics 

The surveys and excavations at Tamsagbulag 1, 2 
and 3 have yielded fragments of Neolithic and Early 
(?) Bronze Age pottery. Neolithic/EBA sherds are distinguished by their friable raw material, with a high 
content of sand (and shell?) and grey surface, incised or impressed surfaces (also corded ware), with 
elementary geometrical motifs, some of which look 
like pottery from southern Siberia, the Amur valley, 
northwestern China, Inner Mongolia and Manchuria, 
Korea, and southeastern Asia (Fig. 11). The discs 

Fig. 6. Tamsagbulag 1. Tamsagbulag-type scrapers 
(small plaquettes with abruptly retouched edges). 

Michel Louis Séfériades 

Fig. 7. Tamsagbulag 1. Unifacially flaked leaf point 
in black rock (phtanite). 
were probably used for cereal pancakes or bread 
cooking (Fig. 12). 

Metallurgy 

Metallurgy is represented by bronze and iron objects 
and fragments which are dated to the Iron Age and 
modern period. 

Long-distance exchange 

Two pieces of obsidian, the millstone and the “brisemottes” of volcanic tuffaceous rock, also fragments 
of jade (?) and several sherds of decorated pottery 
indicate the occurrence of medium-and long-distance 
exchange network patterns. One should also note a 
pendant (exhibited in the Museum of Ulaan Baatar) 
from one of the burials excavated by A. P. Okladnikov (?), presumably lapis lazuli of Afghan origin. 

TAMSAGBULAG DEATH 

A. P. Okladnikov (Okladnikov and Derevianko 1970) 
reported burials found under house floors, with a 
series of grave goods (bone knives with inserted 
stone bladelets, necklaces of Maral incisors, and 
bone or mother of pearl beads (Unio), etc.) (Figs. 9 
and 10). Remarkably, the skeletons 
were found in a sitting position! (Fig. 

Fig. 8. Tamsagbulag 3. Perforated 
circular tool (for 
digging sticks?) in 
volcanic rock. 

13). Unusual similarities with the mummies of Ancient Peru (Chachapoyas, Chancay, Paracas, etc.) 
come to mind. Flexed and sitting positions are unknown anywhere, and especially in Europe, West, 
Central and South-East Asia. They may suggest an 
emigration through the Bering Strait from the primary Eurasian area (Mongolia and northeastern Siberia) to the Americas (Alaska and the North American east coast) and then south to Central and South 
Americas. 

FIRST CONCLUSIONS 

The study of the site and its surroundings is indicative of a particular eco-system. Our field observations were corroborated by an analysis of satellite 
imagery (Landsat TM). E. Fouache, geomorphologist, points out (1998) that the terrain consists of a 
huge plateau at an altitude of 700 m, with two large 

Fig. 9. Bone industry (knives, dagger knives or sic-
kles) (after Dorj 1974). 
depressions, one in the North, with Lake Buir, and 
another in the south, with a string of small lakes. 
The Neogene sediments form the base of the plateau, the Quaternary deposits filling in the depressions. Satellite imagery shows that the present-day 
lakes were interconnected (certainly at the beginning of the Holocene) by what is today a dry valley. 
Landsat images show clearly at Tamsagbulag a system of palaeo-shorelines indicative of a regression 
of the lake, which was never deeper than 12 m (Fig. 
14). Intensive evaporation in this dry steppe environment was the likely cause of this regression. This 
site is highly appropriate for the study of Holocene 
climate fluctuations and their effects on the topography and human settlement. 

The extension of the Palaeo-lakes forms a key element in the prospecting of Neolithic sites in this area 


An aspect of Neolithisation in Mongolia: the Mesolithic-Neolithic site of Tamsagbulag (Dornod district) 

Fig. 10. Tamsagbulag 1. Necklace of stag canines, 
plate and tubular beads of pearl (Unio) from the 
graves (after Okladnikov and Derevianko 1970). 
of the Dornod district (aimak) of Mongolia. Images 
taken during our first mission in 1997 clearly show 
that sites were closely associated with the former 
hydrological network. However, in the absence of 
a strict topographic control, the map shown here is 
only a first approximation of the disposition of rivers and lakes in the past. 

It looks as if the Mesolithic-Neolithic inhabitants of 
Tamsagbulag and neighbouring sites existed in an 

Fig. 11. Tamsagbulag 1. Corded ware. 
Fig. 12. Tamsagbulag 1. Fragments of discs allegedly used for cooking cereal pancakes or bread. 

environment favouring partially predatory-type subsistence (hunting, fishing, and food-gathering), their 
biotope being equally proper for food-producing 
(domestication of plants and animals). The process 
of Neolithisation was well under way, highlighting a 
new type of sedentariness which accompanied the 
initial farming mode of subsistence in this part of 
eastern central Mongolia. 

Fig. 13. Tamsagbulag 1. Types of graves discovered 
beneath the house floors (after Okladnikov and De-
revianko 1970). 
The presently monotonous steppe-desert looked 
quite different during the three millennia that began 7000 years ago. The climate then was mild and 
humid, the boundless grassland was abundant in 
marmot (tarbagan in Mongol), wolf and eagle; stag 
and boar thrived in the forests; small plots were located close to villages. Tamsagbulag consisted of se


Michel Louis Séfériades 

Fig. 14. Analysis of satellite imagery 
(Landsat TM) by E. Fouache (University 
of Paris-Sorbonne 1998) showing a clear 
system of palaeo-shore-lines indicative of 
a regression of the lake during the Holocene. 

veral well-separated houses located on the border of 
the elevated terrace, near a spring, and stretching 
over a distance of 2–3 km. From there, its inhabitants could observe the herds of wild animals roaming around the lake: black-tailed gazelle (xarsuult 
zeer), antelope saiga (boxon), and kulan (xulan). 
The hunters and fishers were direct heirs of their 
Mesolithic predecessors (arrows or spears with chipped stone or bone points; also harpoons with notches on one side). The local inhabitants were also 

Fig. 15. Tamsagbulag 1. Plan of a semi-subterra-
nean house (after Okladnikov and Derevianko 
1970). 
farmers (they cultivated millet, likewise their counterparts in northern China), and stock-breeders, rearing cattle and, possibly horses (Okladnikov and Derevianko 1970). 

Their rectangular wattle-and-daub semi-subterranean 
houses were 30–40 m2 in size (Okladnikov and Derevianko 1970) (Fig. 15). Wooden houses were also 
found similar to the winter dwellings used by the 
Ainou on the Kuril Islands in the early 20th century. 
It seems that none of these houses had doors or windows, the only way of access being an aperture in 
the roof that was also used to remove the smoke, 
and stairs consisting of an inclined tree trunk with 
incised steps. Similar structures were used until recently in the winter dwellings of various peoples in 
Manchuria and Siberia, as well as the Koriaks in the 
Northern Pacific. For these peoples, as well as for 
those of Alaska reported by Cook in the course of 
his third journey two centuries ago, such stairs had 
sacred connotations, and were viewed as the guardians of the house (Figs. 16 and 17). 

Both Soviet-Mongolian digs and our own investigations have yielded a rich archaeological assemblage 
that sheds light on early communities in Central Asia, 
who were hunters, fishers, and food gatherers, and, 
at the same time, sedentary farmers and stock-breeders. 

Seven thousand years ago, the people in that presently forgotten area of Central Asia, took part in 
their own manner in the process of Neolithisation 


An aspect of Neolithisation in Mongolia: the Mesolithic-Neolithic site of Tamsagbulag (Dornod district) 


Fig. 16. Village of Kamchatka with a winter semi-subterranean house. The only way of access is via an 
aperture in the roof (after Cook 1785). 


Fig. 17. Inside look of a house from Alaska. The only way of access, using a trunk with incised steps, is 
also via an aperture in the roof (after Cook 1785). 


Michel Louis Séfériades 

that encompassed the whole of Eurasia. Adapting to of their economy played a leading role; this remains 
a very special local environment, they chose an ori-one of the main objectives of our project; we may 
ginal form of food-producing economy, comparable only suggest that these branches were mutually comto the broadly contemporaneous great civilizations plementary. In contrast to their predecessors, they 
of Yangshao and Longshan in China, Jomon in Ja-were rather sedentary dwellers than nomads. And 
pan, as well as those of southern Siberia, Kazakhstan, they remained so, until the new change of climate 
Central and Eastern Europe, and the European early and the advance of the steppe made them change 
Neolithic complex (exemplified by ‘Linear pottery’), their mode of subsistence: they became hunters and, 
which extended from the Carpathian Mountains to more importantly, stock-breeders once more, who in-
Armorica. They were both hunter-gatherers and far-creasingly led herds of goat, sheep, camels, and hormers. At present it is difficult to assess which branch ses still farther beyond the endless horizon. 


 
REFERENCES 

BERKELEY C. P., NELSON N. C. 1926. Geology and 
Prehistoric Archaeology of the Gobi Desert. Am. 
Mus. Novit (New York) 222: 3–18. 

CHANG K.-C. 1986. The Archaeology of Ancient 
China. Yale University Press: Taiwan Edition. 

DEREVIANKO A. P. 1970. Novopetrovskaja kul’tura 
Srednego Amura. Novosibirsk. 

1994. Central and Northern Asia during the Neolithic. In History of Humanity, vol. I: Prehistory 
and Beginnings of Civilization, edited by S. J. De 
Laet. Paris, Unesco: 457–467. 

DEREVIANKO A. P., DORJ D. 1992. Neolithic Tribes 
in Northern Parts of Central Asia. In History of Civilizations of Central Asia, vol. I, edited by A. H. Dani, 

V. M. Masson. Paris, Unesco: 169–189. 
DEREVIANKO A. P., OLSEN J. W., TSEVENDORJ D. 
1996. Archaeological Studies carried out by the 
joint Russian-Mongolian-American Expedition in 
Mongolia in 1995. Novosibirsk. 

1998. Archaeological Studies carried out by the 
joint Russian-Mongolian-American Expedition 
in Mongolia in 1996. Novosibirsk. 

DORJ D. 1969. Neolithic Burials and Dwellings in 
Eastern Mongolia. Izvestiya Akademii Nauk Mongol’skoy Narodnoy Respubliki: 34–53. 

1971. Neolit vostocnoj Mongolii. Ulaan Baatar. 

1974. Tamsa-Bulagkaja kul’tura i eë mesto v drevnejshej istorii Tsentral’noj Azii. Rol’ kochevîkh na

rodov v Tsivilizatsii Tsentral’noj Azii. Ulaan Baatar: 43–56. 

DORJ D., DEREVIANKO A. P. 1970. Novîje materiali 
dlja izuchenija neolita Vostochnoj Mongolii. Izvestiya Akademii Nauk Mongol’skoy Narodnoy Respubliki, Ulaan Baatar: 43–56. 

FAIRSERVIS W. A. Jr. 1993. Archaeology of the Southern Gobi of Mongolia. Carolina Academic Press. 
Durham, North Carolina. 

JOMON 1998. Jomon. L’art du Japon des Origines. 
Maison de la Culture du Japon a Paris. Paris. 

KIM J. -H. 1978. The Prehistory of Korea. The University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu. 

KILUNOVSKAYA M., SEMENOV V. 1995. The Land of 
the Heart of Asia. St Petersburg, Ego Publishers. 

KYZLASOV L. P.1982. Drevnjaja Tuva. Moscow. 

MILLEDGE NELSON S. 1993. The Archaeology of Korea. Cambrige University Press. 

MILLEDGE NELSON S. 1995. The Archaeology of 
Northeast China. Beyond the Great Wall. Rout-
ledge, London. 

NATSAGDORJ S. 1987. Archaeology, Ethnography 
and Anthropology of Mongolia. Novosibirsk. 

NAVAN D. 1975. The Bronze Age in Eastern Mongolia. Ulaan Baator. 

NELSON N. C. 1926a. The Dune Dwellers of the Gobi. 
Natural History 28: 305–308. 


An aspect of Neolithisation in Mongolia: the Mesolithic-Neolithic site of Tamsagbulag (Dornod district) 

1926b. Prehistoric Archaeology of the Gobi Desert. American Museum Novitates 222: 10–16. 

NOVGORODOVA E. A. 1989. Drevniaia Mongolija. 
Moscow. 

OKLADNIKOV A. P. 1968. Istorija Siberi. I. Drevnjaja Sibir’. Léningrad. 

1986. Paleolit Mongolii. Novosibirsk. 

OKLADNIKOV A. P., DEREVIANKO A. P. 1970. Tam-
sag-Bulak. Neoliticeskaja kul’tura Vostocnoj Mongo

lii. Materialî po istorii i filologii Tsentral’noy Azii 
5: 3–20. 
SEFERIADES M. 1993. The European Neolithisation 
Process. Poro
ilo o razskovanju paleolita, neolita 
in eneolita v Sloveniji 21: 137–162. 

1999. A Tamsagbulag, les Premiers Paysans 
de Mongolie. Archéologia (Dijon) 354: 56– 65. 

2000. In the Heart of the Eurasian Steppe: Ancient 
Hunter-Gatherers, First Sedentary Farmers and 
Nomad Stock Herders of Mongolia (8000–3000 
BC). In C. Renfrew and M. Levine (eds.), Late Prehistoric Exploitation of the Eurasian Steppe. Papers presented for the Symposium to be held 12 
Jan–16 Jan 2000. The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, Vol. III: 107– 

125. 
SEFERIADES M., STANKO V. 2000. Simples Gibiers 
ou Objets de Culte? Les Bisons Préhistoriques d’Anetovka (Ukraine). Archéologia (Dijon) 370: 50–55. 

VASILEVSKIJ R. S. 1985. Ancient Cultures of Mongolia. Novosibirsk. 

cont ent s