Bull. Tohoku Univ. Museum, No. 12, pp. 8–24, 2013
© by The Tohoku University Museum

Use-Wear Analysis on Palaeolithic Artifacts of Northern
Mongolia
GUNCHINSUREN Byambaa*, GLADYSHEV Sergey**, TABAREV Andrei**,
KANOMATA Yoshitaka*** and KHATSENOVICH Arina***Mongolian Academy of Sciences, (Institute of Archaeology), **Russian Academy of Sciences, (Institute of Archaeology),***Tohoku University, (Department of Archaeology) Japan ,corresponding author.
The present paper aims at understanding functions of Palaeolithic lithic tools excavated from
northern Mongolia. This study is the first challenge of traceological study in Mongolia. Objects ofuse-wear analysis are the Kharga-5 (Kharganyn-Gool-5) site and the Tolbor cache site. Because bothsites were partially excavated, we can’t reconstruct spatial uses at these sites by spatial analysis
of utilized tools. We can discuss here only about relationship between typological, technological,
and functional factors of lithic tools. The report of excavation of Kharga-5 site is being preparedby Russian Academy of Sciences now. Detail of the excavation will be described in that report.
Therefore, the paper is focused on the result of use-wear analysis.

EXPLANATION OF THE KHARGA-5 SITERESEARCH
The Kharga-5 site is located in the northern part ofMongolia (Selenge River basin, Kharganyn-Gool River).
Previous excavation at the Kharga-5 was undertaken in2012 during the new stage of multiyear archaeologicalproject of Russian and Mongolian specialists. More than 600
lithic artifacts were recovered stratigraphically.
There are two cultural layers belonged to Upper
Palaeolithic period (Khatsenovich 2012). The assemblageof the 3rd cultural layer comprises bladelets, burins, endscrapes, picks, notches, blades and cores. The assemblageof the 4 th cultural layer is composed of the same typesof tools in the 3 rd cultural layer. There is no apparent
difference in technological aspect between the 3rd and 4th
cultural layer. Therefore, functional aspect in each layer isimportant for evaluating distinction of cultural layers. Age ofcultural layer 3 and 4 is thought to have belonged to Final
Upper Palaeolitic period. Now some charcoal samples areanalyzed for AMS dating.
Lithic tools excavated from the cultural layer 3 are shownin Fig.1 and 2. Stone tools were mainly made of chert.
The source of chert is located several km away from the
Kharga-5 site. Many Palaeolithic artifacts are partly covered
with affix. Affixes are presented as dark tone in figuresof lithic artifacts. Ingredients of affix must be analyzed tounderstand mechanism of site formation process.
Assemblage of the cultural layer 3 comprises bladelets,

picks, end-scrapers ,burins, notches and a bladelet core(Fig.3). Composition of struck cherts is presented in
Tab.1.Blades and bladelets occupy a certain extent. Severalof the bladelets were retouched on a lateral side. Blank
flakes of burins and end-scrapers were not necessarily
elaborate blades. Notches and picks are typical tools in theassemblage.
The assemblage of the 4th cultural layer is composed of
the same types of tools with those of the 3rd cultural layer.
One difference is that blade cores are accompanied withthe assemblage. Three blade cores are contained in the 4th
cultural layer. Some blades were removed from these coresand finally blade cores were used repeatedly as hammer
stones (Fig.4). Striking traces are recognized on the surfaceof cores. Though it is difficult to know exactly the reason why
inhabitants change their function. The lack of hummer stone
in the situation is one of the possible reasons. The platformsof the bladelet cores are sometimes removed after removalof bladelets.
Picks excavated from the 3rd and 4th cultural layers weremade with unique technique as is shown in Fig.5. Six
picks were manufactured by the same method. Pointed tip
was formed by striking on its ventral face. Striking point isrecognized on its ventral tip. The removed face is positive
as is shown in these photos. Micro-flaking was causedon the edge of dorsal face. This type of pick has quite
unique characteristics that might have been discovered forthe first time in the Eurasia continent. Therefore, the pickshould be named “Kharga type pick” which has possibility

Use-Wear Analysis on Palaeolithic Artifacts of Northern Mongolia

94(675)
1(368)

2(418)
3(462)

5(677)

6(949-7)

8(999-6)

7(629)

10(734)9(229)

Scale=75%

Fig.1
excavatedfrom
fromculturalKharga-5site.
site.
Fig.1 Lithic
Lithic artifacts
artifacts excavatedtheculturallayer
layer33 ofof thethe Kharga-5

10

GUNCHINSUREN Byambaa, GLADYSHEV Sergey, TABAREV Andrei,
KANOMATA Yoshitaka and KHATSENOVICH Arina

2(737)

1(630-4)3(859-14)4(36)5(384)
Scale=66.67%(2/3)
Fig.2

Fig.2

Lithic artifacts excavated from the cultural layer 3 of the Kharga-5 site.

Lithic artifacts excavated from cultural layer 3 of the Kharga-5 site.

Use-Wear Analysis on Palaeolithic Artifacts of Northern Mongolia

1(551)

5(531)

11

4(798)

3(645)2(596)

6(539)

8(7580)9(1224-4)

7(584)

10(524)
Fig.3

Fig.3

Scale=75%

Lithic artifacts excavated from cultural layer 4 of the Kharga-5 site.
Lithic artifacts excavated from cultural layer 4 of the Kharga-5 site.

GUNCHINSUREN Byambaa, GLADYSHEV Sergey, TABAREV Andrei,
KANOMATA Yoshitaka and KHATSENOVICH Arina

122

X-5, 524

1
Scale=50%

X-5, 1003-2

2

1

X-5, 523

Scale=75%

Fig.4Fig.4
Cores
at theKharga-5
site.
Cores
at theKharga-5
site.

Horizon 1 (top soil)
Horizon 2
Horizon 3
Horizon 4
Horizon 5

Tab.1

Flakes Blades Bladelets Microblades Chunks Spalls Scales
55
4
3
2
3
2
8
55
6
5
1
1
2
10
299
56
44
2
26
12
55
251
34
32
3
41
26
26
11
3
1
0
0
1

Composition of struckat the Khaga-5
site.
Tab.1chart
Compositionof struckchert at the Khaga-5 site.

Technical splits
0
1
18
7
1

Use-Wear Analysis on Palaeolithic Artifacts of Northern Mongolia
to be recognized as one of the chronological and spatial
standards.

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE KHARGA-5
ASSEMBLAGE
One of the authors (Kanomata,Y.)showed case studies

675

13

of functional analyses of lithic artifacts excavated fromJapanese Palaeolithic sites (e.g. Kanomata 2004, 2010).
The same method is applied to Mongolian artifacts in thepresent paper. Systematic functional analysis was carriedout using high power microwear technique (Tohoku Univ.
method, e.g., Serizawa, Kajiwara and Akoshima 1982).
The method of use-wear analysis is ‘high power approach’(Keely 1980), what we call ‘Keely method’. Metallurgical

677
949-7

3

1

2

539

531
Scale=100%

1 Positive removed face

2 Positive removed face

3 Positive removed faceFig.5Characteristic
Characteristic
removaltechnique
technique on
site.
Fig.5
removal
onpicks
picksatatthe
theKharga-5
Kharga-5
site.

GUNCHINSUREN Byambaa, GLADYSHEV Sergey, TABAREV Andrei,
KANOMATA Yoshitaka and KHATSENOVICH Arina

14

↑
1

1: ﬂute like fracture

2

↑

418 ↑

2: ﬂute like fracture

↑
3

645

3: transverse fracture withhinge termination

4: transverse fracture with↑ 4

hinge termination
798

5
6

5: vertical striation on the ridge

↑

7
368
Scale=100%
6: vertical striation on the ridge

7: microﬂaking

Fig.6Use-wear
Use-wearretouched bladelets
bladelets at
site.
Fig.6
onon
retouchedatthe
theKharga-5
Kharga-5
site.

Use-Wear Analysis on Palaeolithic Artifacts of Northern Mongolia
cultural layer artifact No.
384
630-4
675
677
949-7
859-14
999-6
3
629
737
368
462
418
229
735
36
524
1003-2
523
7580
539-8
531
4
584
551
596
798
645
1224-4

Tab.2

tool type
core
burin
pick
pick
pick
notch
end-scraper
end-scraper
notchbacked bladelet
backed bladelet
backed bladeletend-scraper
burin
notch
core
core
core
scraper
pick
pick
pick
backed bladelet
backed bladelet
backed bladelet
backed bladeletend-scraperutilized edge

polish type striation

facet
dorcal tip
dorcal tip
dorcal tip
notched edge
retouched edge
retouched edge
notched edge

15
information

D1

verticalbone/antler/ ivory

D2？

verticalbone/antler/ ivory

E2
E2
D1?
abrationverticalverticalverticaldiagonal

dry hide
dry hidebone/antler/ ivory
hafting trace?
impact fracture, hafting tracenotched edge
dorcal tip
dorcal tip

BB？
B

verticalvertical?
verticalused as a hammer stone
used as a hammer stone
used as a hammer stone
wood
wood
wood
impact fracture

retouched edge

E2?

vertical

impact fracture
impact fractureslight usage

Result of functional
analysis of lithic artifacts at the Khaga-5 site.
Tab.2 Results of functional analysis of lithic artifacts at the Khaga-5 site.

microscope is used to classify micro-wear polishes. Lithic
artifacts were observed by magnification between 100 and
400 times, mainly 200 times. The approach involves theobservation of use-wear both at macro and micro levels.
Morphological variable of the working edges were correlatedwith probable function.
Backed bladelets exhibit less distinctive polish patterns
compared to other formal tools (Tab.2). Functional analysis
revealed that most of the backed bladelets have beenutilized as projectile armatures. Several types of the impact
fractures were formed on tips of backed bladelets (Fig.61~4). Impact fractures are identified by the existence ofburin like fracture, flute like fracture, transverse fracture andspin-off fracture (Sano2009). These fractures were formed
after formation of retouch. There is no linear polish, althoughapparent impact fractures were formed. Hafting trace isrecognized on a backed bladelet (Fig.6-5~6). Abrasion
with vertical striation is formed on its dorsal ridge. Thesefeatures show that backed bladelets were used for hunting.
Retouched side is thought to have been set into the shaft.
D1 type polish is shown on a burin (Fig.7-1~3).
The polished surface accompanies vertical striation.
Characteristics of type D1 polish are smooth, flat and likemelting snow. In general, this polish type is called “bonepolish”. This use-wear of the burin is interpreted to haveformed as a result of scraping bone/ antler/ ivory according
to experimental tendency.
Different types of polishes (B and D1) accompanying withvertical striation are observed on two picks. B type polishwas strongly connected with wood working (Fig.7-5~6).This
polish is called “wood polish” generally. D1 type was related
to bone/ antler/ ivory working (Fig.7-7~8). Polished surface
was accompanied with micro-flaking on the edge of dorsal
tip. The most frequently utilized portion was the working
edge at the end between the positive removal face and thedorsal surface.
Three end-scrapers retain E2 type polish with verticalstriation on the distal end (Fig.8-1~3, Fig.9-3~4).
Characteristics of type E2 are rough, round and abrasive.
Because this polish type is strongly connected with dry hidescraping, it is called “hide polish” or “dry hide polish”.
A scraper (no.7580) retains B type polish on the baseedge (Fig.8-7~8). This tool is thought to have been used for
scraping wood.
A notch retains D1 type polish on retouched edge (Fig.
9-1~2). It is thought to have been used for bone/ antler/ ivory

GUNCHINSUREN Byambaa, GLADYSHEV Sergey, TABAREV Andrei,
KANOMATA Yoshitaka and KHATSENOVICH Arina

16

3

1

2
4

1: D1 type polish with vertical

2: D1 type polish with verticalstriation (x400)

striation (x200)

630-4
Scale=50%
3: D1 type polish with verticalstriation (x200)

6
5

5: B type polish with verticalstriation (x200)

7: D1 type polish with verticalstriation (x200)

4: Unused edge (x200)

6: B type polish with vertical531

striation (x400)

7,8

949-7
Scale=100%

8: D1 type polish with verticalstriation (x400)

Fig.7 Use-wear
Use-wear ofat theKharga-5
site. site.
Fig.7
oflithiclithicartifacts
artifacts
at theKharga-5

Use-Wear Analysis on Palaeolithic Artifacts of Northern Mongolia

4

1: E2 type polish with vertical629

striation (x200)

3 2

2: E2 type polish with vertical1

striation (x200)

Scale=100%

3: E2 type polish with vertical

4: Unused edge (x200)

striation (x200)
999-6

6
5
8

5: E2 type polish with vertical7

6: Unused edge (x200)

striation (x400)

7580
Scale=75%
7: B type polish with verticalstriation (x400)

8: B type polish with verticalstriation (x400)
Fig.8 Use-wear
Use-wear of
artifacts
at theKharga-5
site. site.
Fig.8
oflithiclithicartifacts
at theKharga-5

17

GUNCHINSUREN Byambaa, GLADYSHEV Sergey, TABAREV Andrei,
KANOMATA Yoshitaka and KHATSENOVICH Arina

18

2 1

737
1: D1 type polish with vertical

2: D1 type polish with verticalstriation (x400)

striation or a bright spot (x200)

431224-4
3: E2 type polish with vertical

Scale=50%

4: E2 type polish with verticalstriation (x200)

striation (x200)
Fig.9Use-wear
Use-wearlithicartifacts
artifacts at
site.
Fig.9
ofoflithic
atthe
theKharga-5
Kharga-5
site.

wood

bone/antler

Cultural layer 4

Cultural layer 3

hide

3

3

1

2

Fig.10Relative frequency of utilized materials at the Kharga-5 site.
Fig.10 Relative frequency of utilized materials at the Kharga-5 site.

scraping. Because feature of this polished surface is similar
to bright spot, it had possibility for having caused by PDSM
(post depositional surface modification).
Though a number of utilized lithic tools were found at the
Kharga-5 site, many of them retain traces of slight usage. In
other word, assemblage was mainly occupied by light work
tools.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FORM AND FUNCTION
OF LITHIC TOOLS
Tool types are functionally related with limited working tosome extent at the Kharga-5 site as below.
• Bladelet: for thrusting by hafting style• Burin: scraping bone/antler/ivory

Use-Wear Analysis on Palaeolithic Artifacts of Northern Mongolia• Pick: for graving/cutting bone/antler or wood
• End-scraper: for scraping hide
• Notch: for scraping bone/antler/ivory
Fig.10 presents the data of relative frequency on utilizedmaterials of lithic artifacts from the cultural layer 3 and 4
at the Kharga-5 site. In the cultural layer 4, wood working
is outstanding. In opposite, bone/antler/ivory working
occupies in a certain extent in the cultural layer 3. This
indicates that context of lithic usage was different in eachlayer. From the technological aspect, there is no apparent
difference between cultural layer 3 and 4, but it is probablethat two distinct functional contexts are suggesting two
different episodes. Because only small areas were alreadyexcavated, this hypothesis is regarded as the perspective
for further analysis.

EXPLANATION OF THE TOLBOR CACHE SITERESEARCH
In general, stone tool caching behavior was an activity tostore lithic resources in landscape. The Tolbor cache feature
was found in 2010 in the Tolbor river valley in the northernpart of Mongolia. This is the first Palaeolithic cache everfound in Mongolia. 57 big and middle size flakes were piled
up. The assemblage of cache comprises retouched flakes,
notches and flakes. There is no typical tool, chip and core.
The date of the cache belongs to LGM probably (25,00018,000BP).
Lithic artifacts excavated from Tolbor cache site are
exhibited in Fig.11. No.5 shown at the lowest on the left
side in Fig.11 is about 10 cm in length. Notched retouch isrecognized on each artifact. “Why were they formed such
shape?” This is the first problem to be understood fromfunctional aspect. Furthermore, “whether utilized tool was
contained or not?” is an important factor for evaluating themeaning of cache.

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE TOLBOR CACHEASSEMBLAGE
Objects of use-wear analysis were selected byrecognizing micro-flaking under low power observation.
Four artifacts retain use-wear traces on retouched edges(Fig.12, Tab.3). It is practically difficult to identify the precise
worked material when polish did not develop because of
its short term usage. All the polish is recognized as type B.
And all of them are used slightly. In other word, they arelight work tools. Directions of striations are chiefly verticaland parallel. These use-wear patterns insist that some lithic
tools were used for wood scraping or cutting. It is supposedthat notched retouch was formed to have made utilizededge. In the case of the Tolbor Palaeolithic cache on open
site, some used lithic tools were contained in the cachefeature accompanying with many unused flakes. This isvery important fact for understanding the meaning of cache.
Cache was supposed to have been constructed for repetitive
occupation.
Similar cache features were discovered in NortheasternJapanese archipelago, for example, pit 2 at the Nogawa
site (Kanomata 2010). Location of the site is measured at a
distance of 40 km from the nearest source of stone material.
In pit feature 2, seven scrapers, a spatula shaped tool andabout 40 flakes were piled up inside. The average weight offlakes in pit 2 is about 33 g. Sizes of flake are suitable formaking tools as scrapers. Functional analysis revealed that
3 lithic tools were utilized. The cache is thought to have kept
for repetitive occupation accompanying by organized system
of mobility strategy over the landscape. Cache pit 2 at the
Nogawa site has similar characters to the Tolbor cache.

FURTHER PROSPECTS
The results of microwear analysis conducted in this study
bring a new understanding of relationship between form andfunction of lithic tool of northern Mongolia.
The paper present a case study analyzed from theartifact No.
tool typeutilized edge
polish type striation information54
notch
notcged edge
B?
vertical
wood?
22
notch
notcged edge?
vertical?
12
notch
unused29
notch
notcged edge
B?
verticalwood?
7
retouched flake retouched edgeBparallel
wood
44
notch
un-usedTab.3 Result of functional analysis of lithic artifacts at the Tolbor Palaeolithic cache site.
Tab.3

19

Result of functional analysis of lithic artifacts at the Tolbor Palaeolithic cache site.

20

GUNCHINSUREN Byambaa, GLADYSHEV Sergey, TABAREV Andrei,
KANOMATA Yoshitaka and KHATSENOVICH Arina

1(07)
2(12)

3(22)
4(54)

5(29)

6(44)

Fig.11 Lithic artifacts excavated from the Tolbor cache site.
Fig.11 Lithic artifacts excavated from the Tolbor cache site.

Scale=50%

Use-Wear Analysis on Palaeolithic Artifacts of Northern Mongolia

K1/07

1: B type polish (x400)
1

2: abrasion with parallel3

3: B type polish with parallel2

4: B type polish (x400)

K1/22

striation or bright spots (x200)

47striation (x200)

5

6

5: B type polish with verticalstriation (x200)

striation (x400)

K1/29

7: B type polish with verticalstriation (x200)

6: B type polish with vertical

8: B type polish with vertical

8

K1/54

Scale=50%

striation (x400)

Use-wearof artifacts
lithic artifacts
at theTolbor
Fig.12Fig.12
Use-wearof lithic
at theTolborcachecachesite. site.

21

22

GUNCHINSUREN Byambaa, GLADYSHEV Sergey, TABAREV Andrei,
KANOMATA Yoshitaka and KHATSENOVICH Arina

viewpoints of typological, technological, and functional
aspects. The study of Kharga-5 site and Tolbor cache siteis the first challenge of use-wear analysis in Mongolia.
Because the 2nd term excavation will be held in 2013 at
Kharga-5 site, the further analysis of new artifacts is hoped.
When it becomes clear the distribution of concentrated
artifacts, we can discuss about distribution of used tools
and site structure. Moreover, it is expected to be understood
relationship between lithic tool functions and accompanying
organic materials. This information is helpful for us toreconstruct relationship between lithic tools and usedmaterials precisely. It is better that experimental program iscarried out based on the environmental resources that would
have been available at the Kharga-5 site.
In addition, it is hoped to apply the theoretical concept of“technological organizations” (Binford 1979) to the openair occupation at the Kharga-5 site, from the viewpoints of
microwear and site structure. Functional study will provide
insight info spatial utilization and site formation process.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Thanks are to all participants at the cooperative project inMongolia in 2012. From the Russian side the researches aresupported by Russian Foundation of Humanities № 13-2103002 a(m) and Russian Foundation for Basic Researches
N 12-06-00037a and # 12-06-31212. From the Japaneseside the research is supported by foundation of Grants-inAid for Scientific Research, Japan Society for the Promotionof Science (No. 23720376).

REFERENCES
Akoshima, K. (1989) Use-wear of stone tools. New Science Co. (inJapanese)
Binford, L. R. (1979) Organization and formation processes: Looking
at curated technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research,
vol.35(3), pp.255-273.
Gladyshev, S. A., J. W. Olsen., A. V. Tabarev and A. J. T. Jull (2012)
The Upper Paleolithic of Mongolia: Recent finds and new
perspectives. Quaternary International, XXX, pp.1-11
Kanomata, Y. (2004) Hafting and function of microblades in Japan:
Based on an analysis of materials from Araya site and Point C,
Tachikarusyunai V site. Journal of the archaeological society of
Nippon, vol.88, no.4, pp.1-27. (in Japanese)
Kanomata, Y. (2010) Functional analysis of stone tools put
into the cache-pits at Nogawa site from the final stage of
the Pleistocene. Journal of the Japanese Archaeological
Association, vol.30, pp.47-63. (in Japanese)
Keeley, L. H. (1980) Experimental Determination of stone tool Uses.
University of Chicago Press.
Khatsenovich, A. (2012) The Excavations of Multilevel Paleolithic
Site Kharganyn-Gool-5 in 2012 (Northern Mongolia). In:
Problems of Archaeology, Ethnography, and Anthropology ofSiberia and Neighboring Territories. Institute of Archaeology
and Ethnography Press, Novosibirsk. Vol.XVIII, pp.146-150. (inRussian).
Serizawa, C., Kajiwara, H. and K. Akoshima. (1982) Experimental
study of microwear traces and its potentiality. Archaeology andNatural Sciences, vol.14, pp.67-87. (in Japanese)Use-Wear Analysis on Palaeolithic Artifacts of Northern Mongolia

23

日本語解説

モンゴル北部の旧石器時代資料の使用痕分析
グンチンスレン , B.*, グラディシェフ , S. **, ターバレフ , A.**, 鹿又喜隆 ***, カテノビッチ , A.*** モンゴル科学アカデミー , ** ロシア科学アカデミー , *** 東北大学

はじめに
本論は、北部モンゴルで発掘された旧石器時代の石器の機能的理解を目的としている。そして、本研究はモンゴル
における石器機能研究の最初のチャレンジである。使用痕分析では、カーガ 5 遺跡およびトルボル・キャッシュ遺跡を対象とした。いずれも、部分的に調査された遺跡であるため、使用された石器の空間分析によって遺跡内の空間利用を復元することは難しい。ここでは、石器の型式学的、
技術学的、機能的要素間の関係について議論したい。なお、発掘調査全体の概要は、近々ロシア側から報告される予定である。

た。突端部は、腹面の先端部への加撃によって形成されている。しかも、その剥離面は写真の通り、ポジティブ面である。微小剥離痕が突端部の背面側に認められる。この特徴的器種は、これまでに発見されておらず、「カーガ型ピック」と呼称したい。

２．カーガ 5 遺跡における石器機能分析

著者の一人は、日本の旧石器時代遺跡において機能研究に関する事例研究を継続的に行ってきた（鹿又 2004、2010など）。本論では、同様な方法をモンゴルの遺物に応用した。
システマティックな分析は高倍率の金属顕微鏡を用いて行われた（東北大学使用痕研究チームの方法、例：芹沢・梶原・
１．カーガ 5 遺跡の調査の概要
阿子島 1982）。この方法は、高倍率法、いわゆる「キーリー・
メソッド」と呼ばれる（Keely1980）。100 ～ 400 倍、主にカーガ 5 遺跡は、モンゴル北部のセレンゲ川流域（支流
200 倍の倍率で使用痕光沢面の分類が行われた。
のカーガ川流域）に位置する。2012 年にロシア・モンゴル
小石刃は、他の典型的なトゥールに比べてポリッシュの考古学プロジェクトによる試掘調査で発見された。後期旧発達が弱く、被加工物を推定できるような使用痕のパター
石器時代に属する 2 つの文化層があり、第 3・4 文化層ともンが見出せなかった。ただし、衝撃剥離痕（Sano2009）がに、背付き小石刃や彫刻刀形石器、エンド・スクレイパー、 多く確認され (Fig.6)、狩猟活動に使用されたものが多いこ
ピック、ノッチ、石刃、石核などで構成される（Khatsenovichとが明らかになった。これらの剥離痕は、二次加工の形成2012）。2 つの文化層間に明確な技術的相違は認められな後に生じている。また、背面の稜線上に直交の線状痕を伴い。したがって、それぞれの機能的側面は文化層区分の評
う摩耗が確認され、これは着柄痕と推定された。これらの価の点でも重要である。両文化層とも、後期旧石器時代終使用痕の特徴は、背付き小石刃が狩猟具として使用された末に属すると考えられる。第 3 文化層から出土した石器はことを示している。二次加工側が柄に装着されたと考えら
Fig.1・2 に、第 4 文化層の石器は Fig.3 に示した。また、素れる。
材剥片の組成を Tab.1 に示した。石器は主にチャート製で
彫刻刀形石器には、直交の線状痕を伴う D1 タイプのポあり、その原産地はカーガ 5 遺跡から数 km 離れている。 リッシュが確認された（Fig.7-1~3）。D1 タイプのポリッシュ
石器の多くは付着物に覆われているが、この付着物がどのの特徴は、平滑で、融けた雪のような表面である。このポリッような成分から成るものかは不明である。2 つの文化層の違シュは、骨・角・象牙のスクレイピングで生じる。
いのひとつは、第 4 文化層にのみ石刃核が伴う点である。32 点のピックには、B タイプ（Fig.7-5~6）や D1 タイプ
点の石刃核は、石刃剥離が終わった後に、ハンマーストー （Fig.7-7~8）などのポリッシュタイプが認められた。ポリッンに転用されている（Fig.4）。繰り返された敲打の痕跡が石シュはいずれも直交の線状痕を伴う。B タイプは木の作業と核の表面に残される。小石刃の石核（Fig.3-15）には、打面
強く結び付く。背面先端部の縁辺にはポリッシュと共に微再生がみられる。また、2 つの文化層からはピックが発見さ小剥離痕もみられる。最も高率で使用された刃部は、このれている（Fig.5）。6 点のピックは、共通の製作法で作られ背面先端部であろう。

24

GUNCHINSUREN Byambaa, GLADYSHEV Sergey, TABAREV Andrei,
KANOMATA Yoshitaka and KHATSENOVICH Arina

3 点のエンド・スクレイパーは、直交の線状痕を伴った E2 タイプのポリッシュが認められた（Fig.8-1~3, Fig.93~4）。E2 タイプは、粗い丸くなった摩耗面を示し、乾燥皮の作業に強く結び付く。1 点のスクレイパーには、B タイプのポリッシュがその基部側に認められた（Fig.8-7~8）。
ノッチ 1 点には、直交の線状痕を伴った D1 タイプのポリッシュがその二次加工部に確認された（Fig.9-1~2）。ただし、このポリッシュの特徴は、埋没後表面変化（postdepositional surface modification）の一種と考えられる輝班（bright spot）の特徴にも類似している。
このように多くの石器に使用痕が確認されたが、そのほとんどは使用度が低かった。

かどうかも、キャッシュの意味を評価する上で重要である。

５．トルボル・キャッシュ遺跡の機能研究

幾つかの石器はその二次加工部に使用痕を残していた（Fig.12, Tab.3）。ポリッシュは全て B タイプに分類される。
また、使用痕はすべて微弱であった。いいかえれば、これらの石器は軽度に使用された道具と言える。ポリッシュに伴う線状痕は、直交が主体であり、平行もみられた。このような使用痕のパターンから、幾つかの石器は木の削りや切断に使用されたと推定される。また、ノッチ加工は、刃部作出の意図で形成されたと考えられる。開地遺跡である
トルボル・キャッシュ遺跡では、使用された石器が、多くの未使用の石器とともに貯蔵されている。この点は、キャッ３．石器の器種と機能の関係
シュの意味を理解する上で重要である。
これに類似した遺構は、日本列島の東北部にみられる。
カーガ 5 遺跡では、各種の器種が、下記のようなある程
例えば、宮城県野川遺跡が該当する（鹿又 2010）。野川遺度限定された機能と関連する。
跡の立地は、石材原産地から約 40km 離れている。ピット
・小石刃：着柄状態での刺突
2 では、7 点のスクレイパーや 1 点の箆状石器とともに、約・エンド・スクレイパー：皮なめし
40 点の剥片類が土坑の中に集積されていた。剥片類の平均・ノッチ：骨・角・象牙のスクレイピング
重量は 33g である。これは、スクレイパーを作るのに丁度・ピック：骨・角・象牙あるいは木の溝切り良いサイズである。機能研究の結果、3 点の石器が使用され・彫刻刀形石器：骨・角・象牙のスクレイピングていた。つまり、このキャッシュには、トゥールと多くのFig.10 は、カーガ 5 遺跡の第 3・4 文化層別の被加工物の割合を示している。第 4 文化層では、木の作業が目立つ。 未使用の石器が、移動戦略における回帰的居住のために確保されたと考えられる。トルボル・キャッシュ遺跡も同じ
一方、第 3 文化層では、骨・角・象牙が一定の割合を占め役割を果たしていたと推定される。
ている。これは、石器使用のコンテクストが 2 つの文化層で異なっていたことを示している。技術的側面では、2 つの文化層に明確な相違がみられないが、機能面ではコンテク
課題と展望
ストが異なる可能性が指摘できる。しかしながら、調査区
は狭く、この仮説は、今後の分析によって証明されるべき使用痕分析の結果によって、石器の形態と機能の関係にものだ。
新たな理解がもたらされた。本論は、型式的、技術的、機４．トルボル・キャッシュ遺跡の調査の概要
石器の兵站（キャッシュ）行動は、景観に石器資源を貯蔵する行為である。トルボル・キャッシュ遺跡は、2010 年に、モンゴル北部のトルボル川流域で発見された。これは、モンゴルでは最初に発見された旧石器時代のキャッシュ遺構である。57 点の中型サイズ以上の剥片が集積されていた。
キャッシュの組成は、二次加工ある剥片とノッチ、それに剥片である。定型的なトゥールは認められす、また砕片や石核も無かった。その年代は、最終氷期最寒冷期（LGM）に相当すると予想される。トルボル・キャッシュ遺跡出土
石器を Fig.11 に示した。左側下段の石器の長さが約 10㎝であり、このサイズの石器が多い。ノッチ加工がそれぞれの石器に確認されるが、そのような形態が作られた理由は不明である。この点は、機能的側面から理解すべき最初の課題である。さらに使用された石器がキャッシュに含まれた能的観点で分析された事例研究である。カーガ 5 遺跡とト
ルボル・キャッシュ遺跡の研究は、モンゴルでは最初の使用痕分析の実例となった。カーガ 5 遺跡の第 2 次発掘調査
が 2013 年に実施される予定であり、さらなる分析が期待される。その後に、初めて使用された石器の分布に基づいて遺跡構造を議論することができるだろう。さらに、使用された石器と、被加工物となった有機質資料の関係についても検討することが望まれる。また、使用痕と遺跡構造の観点から、カーガ 5 遺跡を対象とした「技術組織（technologicalorganization）(Binford 1979)」概念の応用も期待される。機能研究は、空間利用や遺跡構造の理解への見通しを示してくれる。