Introduction: Rediscovering Tibet’s Ancient Foundations

The archaeological exploration of Tibet’s Neolithic period began relatively late compared to other regions of China. Before the 1950s, scholars knew virtually nothing about prehistoric human habitation on the Tibetan Plateau. This changed when scattered reports of microlithic tools emerged – first in Heihe (1956), then in Nyalam (1966), followed by discoveries in Medog (1973) and Nyingchi (1974-1975). However, it wasn’t until large-scale archaeological surveys began in the late 1970s that researchers started piecing together Tibet’s Neolithic heritage. The excavation of the Karuo site in 1978 marked a turning point, followed by important work at Qugong near Lhasa and Changguogou in Gongga County during the 1990s. These discoveries revealed two distinct Neolithic cultures that flourished on the roof of the world – the Karuo culture in eastern Tibet and the Qugong culture in central Tibet.

The Karuo Culture: Pioneers of Eastern Tibet

### Discovery and Geographic Context

The Karuo culture takes its name from the type site discovered near Qamdo in eastern Tibet. Located about 12 kilometers southeast of modern Qamdo city on the eastern bank of the Lancang River (Mekong), the Karuo site sits at an elevation of 3,100 meters above sea level. Covering approximately 10,000 square meters, this settlement was jointly excavated from 1978-1979 by Sichuan University and the Tibet Autonomous Region Cultural Relics Management Committee. The 1,800 square meters of excavated area revealed stone walls, house foundations, pathways, ash pits, stone platforms, and circular stone arrangements. Among the artifacts recovered were jade objects, stone tools, bone implements, pottery vessels, animal bones, and evidence of millet cultivation.

### Distinctive Cultural Features

Karuo pottery displays unique characteristics that help define this culture. All vessels were handmade from coarse sandy clay, primarily in gray and yellow hues, though some red and black pottery exists. Surface treatments included polishing, while decorations featured incised parallel lines, checkerboard patterns, lozenge motifs, and cord markings. The simple forms consisted exclusively of flat-bottomed vessels with minimal handles – mainly small-mouthed jars, high-necked jars, folded-belly basins, curved-belly basins, straight-walled basins, and bowls.

The stone tool assemblage presents an intriguing mix of technologies:
– Flaked stone tools dominated the collection
– Finely crafted microliths included distinctive boat-shaped, wedge-shaped, columnar, and conical microcores along with numerous microblades
– Ground stone tools and jade objects, though fewer in number, demonstrated advanced techniques like perforation and polishing

### Chronology and Development

Radiocarbon dating places the Karuo culture between approximately 3380-2400 BCE, spanning nearly a millennium. Excavators divided the site’s occupation into three phases:

1. Early Phase (3380-3296 BCE)
2. Middle Phase (3030-2850 BCE)
3. Late Phase (2580-2450 BCE)

Notable changes occurred over time:
– Flaked tools and microliths increased while ground stone tools decreased
– Pottery forms and decorations became simpler
– Architectural styles grew more uniform
– Economic focus may have shifted from agriculture toward pastoralism

### Subsistence Strategies

Analysis of tools and animal remains suggests a mixed economy:
– Agriculture: Stone hoes, spades, and knives indicate cultivation, with millet identified through botanical analysis
– Animal husbandry: Domesticated pigs were kept, though cattle remains couldn’t be conclusively identified as domesticated
– Hunting: Stone projectile points and balls were used to hunt various deer, antelope, and other game

The economic transition from early agricultural emphasis to later pastoral focus may reflect environmental changes that made farming more challenging over time.

### Architectural Achievements

Karuo’s builders demonstrated remarkable skill in creating three types of structures:
1. Round-bottomed pit dwellings (most common, 10-16 m²)
2. Semi-subterranean rectangular houses (11-16 m²)
3. Surface-level buildings (20-30 m², with one two-room structure reaching 70 m²)

Construction techniques evolved significantly:
– Early phases featured mainly wattle-and-daub walls
– Later phases introduced stone walls and plank construction
– Sophisticated flooring systems used layers of soil, gravel, and fired earth
– Post holes with stone bases indicate careful structural planning

### Regional Connections

The Karuo culture shows intriguing relationships with neighboring regions:
– Shared traits with cultures across the Hengduan Mountains in tool types and pottery decorations
– Possible influences from Yellow River cultures (Majiayao and Qijia) seen in certain stone tools and pottery styles
– The millet cultivation likely originated from contact with northern agricultural traditions
– Microlithic technology resembles North China traditions rather than European geometric microliths

The Qugong Culture: Central Tibet’s Neolithic Legacy

### Discovery and Geographic Range

The Qugong culture was identified through excavations at its namesake site north of Lhasa in the Lhasa River valley (elevation 3,685 m). Discovered in 1984 and excavated from 1990-1992, this 10,000 m² site yielded ash pits, burials, and rich artifact assemblages including stone tools, pottery, bone objects, and even a bronze arrowhead. Similar finds at Gongga County’s Changguogou and Qonggyai’s Bangga Village indicate this culture flourished throughout the middle Yarlung Tsangpo River valley.

### Defining Characteristics

Qugong artifacts display distinct regional features:

Pottery:
– Predominantly gray-brown, black, and brown sandy wares
– Highly polished black pottery represents technical mastery
– Decorative techniques include polishing, engraved designs, incising, and punctate motifs
– Characteristic forms: single/double-handled jars, high-necked jars, large-mouthed jars, ring-foot bowls, stemmed cups, and round-bottomed bowls

Stone Tools:
– Mainly flaked implements: choppers, scrapers, points, and picks
– Rare ground stone tools include distinctive comb-shaped objects, adzes, knives, and toothed sickles
– Microliths account for only 3.2% of tools (vs. 10.8% at Karuo)

### Chronological Placement

Radiocarbon dates suggest Qugong flourished between approximately 2000-1500 BCE, making it later than Karuo. The culture’s emergence around 4000 years ago pushes back evidence for agriculture in central Tibet much earlier than traditional historical accounts suggested.

### Economic Foundations

Qugong’s economy combined several elements:

Agriculture:
– Numerous heavy chopping tools for land clearance
– Cutting tools likely used for harvesting
– Large grinding stones and handstones suggest grain processing (possibly barley)
– Pollen evidence indicates a wetter climate favorable for crops

Animal Husbandry:
– Domesticated yak (earliest known evidence), Tibetan sheep, and dogs
– Yak domestication represents significant local achievement
– Established the highland pattern of combined farming and herding

Hunting and Fishing:
– Abundant wild game remains: deer, musk deer, wild boar, wild ass
– Fishing evidenced by bone remains

### Technological Innovations

The Qugong culture demonstrated several advances:

Metallurgy:
– A cast bronze arrowhead (12.51% tin, 83.67% copper) dates to approximately 2000 BCE
– Sophisticated alloy composition suggests established metallurgical knowledge
– Likely local production based on similar jade arrowhead forms

Stone Tool Production:
– Advanced Levallois-like flaking techniques
– Specialized tools like toothed sickles and comb-shaped objects
– Efficient reuse of grinding stones by re-roughening surfaces

Pottery Technology:
– Hand-built with wheel finishing
– Innovative “polished design” technique created patterns through selective polishing
– High-fired black wares represent technical mastery

### Spiritual Life and Customs

Qugong’s material remains provide glimpses into early Tibetan beliefs:

Ritual Practices:
– Red ochre extensively used on tools (20% of artifacts)
– Special containers for pigment preparation
– Possible symbolic association with life and power

Animal Symbolism:
– Artistic representations of monkeys and birds
– Monkey imagery may relate to Tibetan origin myths
– Bird motifs possibly connected to later religious traditions

Sacrificial Practices:
– Intentional burials of complete dog and vulture skeletons
– Human sacrifices evidenced by carefully placed skeletons and modified skulls
– Ritual practices that may represent precursors to later Tibetan religious traditions

### Mortuary Practices

Qugong burial customs reveal social attitudes:
– Rectangular stone-lined graves
– Both primary (flexed) and secondary burials
– Individual and collective interments
– Grave goods including utilitarian pottery
– Average age at death: 24 years (based on limited sample)

Comparative Perspectives: Karuo and Qugong

While distinct in time and space, these two Neolithic cultures share some important connections:

Technical Traditions:
– Similar stone tool reduction strategies (Levallois-like techniques)
– Shared decorative motifs on pottery (lozenge patterns, incised designs)
– Jade working with polishing techniques

Economic Patterns:
– Both combined agriculture with animal husbandry
– Developed adaptations to highland environment
– Established foundations for Tibetan subsistence patterns

Cultural Differences:
– Karuo: earlier, eastern distribution, flat-bottomed pottery
– Qugong: later, central distribution, round-bottomed vessels
– Qugong shows more advanced metallurgy and pottery technology

Legacy and Modern Significance

These Neolithic cultures established foundations that resonate through Tibetan history:

Environmental Adaptation:
– Early development of barley cultivation suited to high altitudes
– Yak and sheep domestication created sustainable pastoral systems
– Settlement patterns optimized for plateau conditions

Technological Continuities:
– Stone architecture precedents for later Tibetan building
– Ceramic traditions that influenced subsequent pottery making
– Metallurgical knowledge that enabled Bronze Age developments

Cultural Foundations:
– Possible origins of Tibetan origin myths
– Early manifestations of ritual practices
– Artistic traditions with long-term influence

The discovery of Tibet’s Neolithic past has transformed our understanding of the region’s deep history. Rather than being a late-developing periphery, highland Tibet nurtured sophisticated cultures that adapted brilliantly to challenging environments. The Karuo and Qugong cultures demonstrate how Tibet’s early inhabitants laid the groundwork for the region’s distinctive civilization – making their story essential for understanding both Tibetan and Eurasian prehistory.