Bull. Tohoku Univ. Museum. No. 19, pp. 51‒81, 2020© by The Tohoku University Museum

Use-wear analysis at the Gorbatka 3 and Ilistaya 1 sites in
the Russian Far East
Anatoly M. Kuznetsov1), Yoshitaka Kanomata2)* and Yosuke Aoki2)
1)

Far Eastern Federal University
Tohoku University* corresponding author
2)

Abstract: This paper aims at understanding not only the technologies and functions of lithic tools
but also site function at the Gorbatka 3 and Ilistaya 1 sites. One of the goals of our research isthe comparative evaluation of technology and function in the microblade industries between the
Russian Far East and the Japanese archipelago.
Regarding site functions, the use of end scrapers distinguishes these two sites. There were morethan twice the number of end scrapers at Gorbatka 3 than at the Ilistaya 1 site. In addition, 60% of
the end scrapers were utilized for hide scraping at Gorbatka 3, although 5.4% of end scrapers had
use-wear at the Ilistaya 1 site. Therefore, the hide scraping needed for longer stable settlements
was chiefly carried out at the Gorbatka 3 site. Ten times more boat-shaped tools were discovered
at Gorbatka 3 than at Ilistaya 1. They may be used as blanks for end scrapers in some cases. In
lithic assemblage, bipolar cores and microblade spalls were mainly excavated from the Ilistaya 1
site, not from Gorbatka 3. These differences characterize the site functions of the sites. Burins werecommonly used for bone/antler planing/whittling at both sites. Microblade removal and bone/antler
tool manufacture coexisted because of composite tool production. This activity was organized as abasic component in their subsistence technology and hunting strategy.

1. Introduction
The Gorbatka 3 and Ilistaya 1 sites in the Maritime
region were discovered by one of the authors, Anatoly
Kuznetsov, in 1977 (Kuznetsov 1992, 1996). These sites
were excavated in 1970s and 1980s. The Final Palaeolithic
artefacts were discovered at the Gorbatka 3 site in 1979,’82,’85, and ’86, and at the Ilistaya 1 site in 1978, ’87, ’88, and’89. The Gorbatka 3 site was re-excavated in 2003 but thematerials in 2003 were out of our research scope in thispaper.
From 19 April to 29 May 2019, use–wear research oflithic artefacts at the Gorbatka 3 and Ilistaya 1 sites was
carried out by the second author (Kanomata), who studied
many microblade industries in Japan from the viewpoint oflithic function. Technological analysis was also practiced
by the third author (Aoki), who is studying microblade
technologies in the northeastern region of the Japanesearchipelago. Therefore, one of the goals of our research isthe comparative evaluation of technology and function in
the microblade industries between the Russian Far Eastand the Japanese archipelago. In addition, the present

paper aims at understanding not only the technologies andfunctions of lithic tools but also site function at these sites. A
traceological approach is very useful for getting information
about what has happened at the site.

2. Experimental archaeology on local raw materials
in the Russian Far East
Concerning the use–wear analysis, there is a problem toface in this region because of absence of basic experimental
data. Since the main raw material here was local siliceous
tuff, which has several characteristics that are different fromsiliceous shale in the Japanese Islands, it is probable thatuse–wear traces on siliceous tuff also has characteristics
different from those on siliceous shale. Therefore, one of theauthors (Kanomata) carried out experiments about use wear
on local raw materials in the Russian Far East. Green andwhite siliceous tuff cobbles were collected from the riverbed
near Ustinovka sites on 18 May 2019. After that, replicatedlithic tools were manufactured at Far Eastern Federal
University, and use experiments were conducted from
20–28 May 2019. Shell, antler, cowhide, reed grass, wood,

52

Anatoly M. Kuznetsov, Yoshitaka Kanomata and Yosuke Aoki

Table11List
Listofofexperiments
experiments
Table
ExperimentOperation

Worked Material

1

saw

shell

dry

20

2

saw

shell

wet

3

saw

antlerdry

No.

Condition Minute Storoke/Minute

Figure No.

1803-1, 2, 3

15150

3-4, 5, 6

8

180

4

saw

antler

wet

5

400

5

scrapehide (cow)

raw

30

140

6

scrapehide (cow)

raw

30

130

2-10, 11, 12

7

sawplant (reed grass)

dry

15

-

1-4, 5, 6

8

sawplant (reed grass)

wet

15

150

1-1, 2, 3

9

scrapehide (cow)

dry

10

180

10

saw

wood

raw, dry

15

180

1-7, 8, 9

11

plane

wood

raw, dry

10

180

1-10, 11

12

saw

wood

raw, wet

15

180

12

13

scrapewood

raw, wet

10

180

14

scrapeantler

wet

10

180

15

cut

meat (cow)

raw

10

100

3-7, 816

cutmeat (cow)

raw

18

100

3-9

17

plane

bone (cow)

raw

15

100

2-4, 5, 6

18

plane

bone (cow)

raw

10

100

19

saw

bone (cow)

raw

5

180

20

saw

bone (cow)

raw

15

180

21

scrapehide (cow)

dry

30

180

2-9

22

cut

hide (cow)

dry

15

180

2-15

23

scrapesoft hide (cow)

dry

20

180

2-7, 824

scrapehide (cow) with hair

dry

10

150

25

cut

hide (cow) with hair

dry

10

180

cow meat, and cow bone were selected as object materials.
Twenty-five lithic tools were selected for these experiments.
The results of experiments were summed up in Table 1 andFigures 1-3.
So-called ‘corn gloss’ was observed on an experimental
flake, which was utilized to saw reed grass in a wet condition(Figs. 1-1 to 1-3). This polish is very bright, smooth, andshiny. It is accompanied with numerous dark pits and filledin striations that show the direction of operation. In a dry
condition, the use polish is not developed, as shown inphotos (Figs. 1-4 to 1-6).
Wood polishes were caused by several wood operations.
This polish is bright and smooth. Inner and outer contrasts
are as high as corn gloss. The shape of the polish looks
domed. In the case of sawing, parallel striations werelimitedly recognized, and the polish development areaconnects the parallel zone to the use edge (Figs. 1-7 to 1-9).
In contrast, the planing operation produced the same typeof polish with vertical striations. It is situated near the edge
(Figs. 1-10 to 1-12).

Additional
Information

1-13, 14, 15

add water

removal frombone

2-1, 2, 3

2-13, 14

Bone and antler workings often produce similar types ofpolish. Antler sawing in wet conditions produced polish thatis a little darker and rougher than corn gloss (Figs. 1-13 to1-15). So inner and outer contrast are not so high as corn
gloss. Raw bone sawing caused rugged polish with parallel
striations (Figs. 2-1 to 2-3). Planing activity produced thesame polish, accompanied by vertical striations (Figs. 2-4 to
2-6).
Dry hide scraping produced a rugged surface and roundedges with vertical striations (Figs. 2-7 to 2-9). In contrast,
the same activity in rawhide caused a less round edge and adarker polish (Figs. 2-10 to 2-12). It is characterized as dull,
low contrast, greasy, and lustrous. Cutting dry hide made asimilar polish with parallel striations (Figs. 2-13 to 2-15).
Dry shell sawing produced a flatter and higher contrast
polish with a severely high density of striations (Figs. 3-1
to 3-3). In wet condition, the same activity made a similar
polish (Figs. 3-4 to 3- 6).
Cutting raw meat caused the dullest polish (Figs. 3-7 to
3-9). Inner and outer contrasts are small, and striations areUse-wear analysis at the Gorbatka 3 and Ilistaya 1 sites in the Russian Far East

1 wet plant, saw, 15min., 200x

2 wet plant, saw, 15min., 200x

3 wet plant, saw, 15min., 200x

4 dry plant, saw, 15min., 200x

5 dry plant, saw, 15min., 200x

6 dry plant, saw, 15min., 200x

7 raw wood, saw, 15min., 200x

8 raw wood, saw, 15min., 200x

9 raw wood, saw, 15min., 200x

10 raw wood, plane, 10min., 400x

11 raw wood, plane, 10min., 200x

12 raw wood, saw, 15min., 200x

13 wet antler, saw, 5min., 200x

14 wet antler, saw, 5min., 200x

15 wet antler, saw, 5min., 200x

Use-wearpolishes
on experimental
lithic tools.
Fig.1Fig.1
Use-wearpolishes
on experimental
lithic tools.

53

54

Anatoly M. Kuznetsov, Yoshitaka Kanomata and Yosuke Aoki

1 raw bone, saw, 15min., 200x

2 raw bone, saw, 15min., 400x

3 raw bone, saw, 15min., 200x

4 raw bone, plane, 15min., 200x

5 raw bone, plane, 15min., 200x

6 raw bone, plane, 15min., 200x

7 dry hide, scrape, 20min., 200x

8 dry hide, scrape, 20min., 200x

9 dry hide, scrape, 30min., 200x

10 raw hide, scrape, 30min., 200x

11 raw hide, scrape, 30min., 200x

12 raw hide, scrape, 30min., 200x

13 dry hide, cut, 10min., 200x

14 dry hide, cut, 10min., 200x

15 dry hide, cut, 15min., 200x

Fig.2
Use-wearpolishes
on experimental
lithic tools.
Fig.2
Use-wearpolishes
on experimental
lithic tools.

Use-wear analysis at the Gorbatka 3 and Ilistaya 1 sites in the Russian Far East

1 dry shell, saw, 20min., 200x

2 dry shell, saw, 20min., 400x

3 wet shell, saw, 15min., 200x

4 wet shell, saw, 15min., 200x

5 wet shell, saw, 15min., 200x

6 dry antler, saw, 8min., 200x

7 raw meat cut, 10min., 200x

8 raw meat cut, 10min., 200x

9 raw meat cut, 18min., 200x55

Fig.3 Use-wear
onon
experimental
lithiclithic
tools.tools.
Fig.3
Use-wearpolishes
polishes
experimental
not clear.
As a result, use polish on siliceous tuff formed in a few
minutes with more than one hundred strokes per minute.
Though characteristics of use–wear polishes on siliceous tuff
are basically the same as those on siliceous shale in Japan(Akoshima & Hong 2017, 2018 etc.), they are somewhat
flatter and smoother than polishes on shale. Since thesedifferences are so small, the author could apply the methodof use–wear analysis in Japan.

3. Outline of the Gorbatka 3 and Ilistaya 1 sites
These sites are located on the terrace-like surfaces ofthe left bank of the Gorbatka River in the Russian Far East
(Fig. 4). Stratigraphy in the Ilistaya River area is basicallycomposed of light loam (whitish-greyish-yellow in color, 8 to
30 cm thick) in the upper layer and heavy loam (brownishblackish, 80 cm thick) in the lower layer. The most complete
stratigraphic sequence was discovered in a central part of

the Gorbatka 3 site. Because water-worn artefacts were
found at the Gorbatka 3 and Ilistaya 1 sites in the same
stratigraphy position, a kind of water effect was caused inthese sites. For example, stratigraphy at the Gorbatka 3 site
is composed of a first layer (humus, 8–15 cm thick, without
cultural remains), a second layer (greyish-white light loam,
10–25 cm thick, with numerous Palaeolithic artefacts and anumber of pot sherds of the Bronze and early Iron Ages), a
third layer (brown, brown-black, red-brown, and black heavyloams, 80 cm thick, with Palaeolithic artefacts), a fourth layer(yellow loam, 40–60 cm thick, without cultural remains), anda fifth layer (detritus mantle–basalt bedrock). The excavatedarea at the Gorbatka 3 site was 400 m2 in total. In addition,
Palaeolithic artefacts were contained in the second layer
and in ice-wedge deposits that crushed the upper part of
the heavy loam unit of the excavated area of 400m2 at theGorbatka 3 site.
Several radiocarbon ages were proposed in these sites.
The 14C date of the charcoal from light loam at Gorbatka

56

Anatoly M. Kuznetsov, Yoshitaka Kanomata and Yosuke Aoki

Ilistaya 1▲▲

Gorbatka 3

Vladivostok

Fig.4Map
MapofofGorbatka
3 andIlistaya
1 sitesFig.4
thetheGorbatka
3 andIlistaya
1 sites
3 is 2,590 ±85 BP (SOAN-1921), and the 14C date fromthe bottom of the dark heavy loam unit is 13,500 ±200 BP(SOAN-1922). In addition, the 14C date from the light loamat the Ilistaya 1 site is 7,840 ±60 BP (Ki-3163). Therefore,
the chronological position of lithic materials from these sites
would be between 7,840 ±60 and 13,500 ±200 BP, whichranges from the end of Pleistocene to the early Holocene.
Basic lithic assemblage was reported in an earlier article(Kuznetsov 1996). The number of total materials in theupper layer of the Gorbatka 3 site is 38,272, and 84% of
the total are flakes. The total number of the lower layer of
the Gorbatka 3 site is 6,238, and flakes occupied 77% of
the total. Lithic artefacts from the Ilistaya 1 site is 24,781,
and flakes occupied 87% of the total. In addition, there werenumerous blade cores and bipolar cores in these sites.
These lithic assemblages simply represent that these sites
were formed as lithic manufacture workshops. There wasno organic material in these sites except for some charcoal.
Therefore, it is impossible to reconstruct the utilization ofanimal and botanical resources at the site.

4. Research objects
The first aim of our research is to understand the actual
functions of lithic tools, especially burins and end scrapers,
at the Gorbatka 3 and Ilistaya 1 sites by the practice of
use–wear analysis. In these sites, the classification of
items between microblade core, burin, and end scraperis occasionally confused because simplified microblade
removal technologies were carried out to cope with theunsuitable size and form of their blanks, which weresometimes produced from a bipolar manufacture sequence.
In addition, the so-called “Togeshita-type” microblade coreand burin, the “Horoka-type” microblade core, the boatshaped tool, and the end scraper have similar technologicalsequences in some cases. Therefore, the preciseclassification of tool types needs to be constructed not only
from a technological perspective but also from a functional
aspect through microscopic observation. Concerned to raw
materials, silicified tuff, rhyolite, obsidian, chert, and jasper
were utilized in these sites. There was no local raw material
in these areas. Obsidian sources were in the upper partof the Ilistaya River valley. The relationships between raw
materials and lithic assemblages represent their foraging
strategies and raw material exploitations. Since the size andquality must have influenced lithic manufacture technologies,
each manufacturing sequence must be understoodaccording to differences in raw materials. Finally, the authors
propose a new insight to evaluate the chronological positionof the microblade industry in the Primorye region from theperspective of Northeast Asia, including northern China andthe Japanese archipelago.

5. Research procedure
The objects of this study are materials from the Gorbatka
3 and Ilistaya 1 sites excavated from 1978 to 1989. Chief
artefacts except for flakes and irregular cores were selectedby the previous studies. At the first step of our research, wecounted the number of stone tools in each box according to57

Use-wear analysis at the Gorbatka 3 and Ilistaya 1 sites in the Russian Far East
Table 2 Lithic assemblage at the Gorbatka 3 site
Tool

Bipolar

End

type

core

scraperNumber

321

180

Boat

Micro

Side

Blade shaped blade
tool
173

168

scrapercore
84

Retou Retou
Core Burin Flake Biface Cobble ched ched

64

blade ﬂake
59

45

26

13

9

9

MicroblMicro end/sideadeblade scraper

core

al

preform

7

5

3

Bifaci Bifac Bifac

3

Table
of of
lithictools
at the3 site 3 site
Table33Use
Usewearwear
lithictools
at Gorbatka
the Gorbatka
Tool type

Artifact
no.
69
302
307
328

burin

Raw material
obsidiangreen
siiceous tuﬀ
chert
chert

Location of

independent

facet

use zoneleft(u&l)

burin facet-left(u&l)-

left and rightburin facet

left and rightleft facet

MicroﬂUse

aking

degreevertical-heavy

6-5,6,7

-

-

-

-

5-1

-

-

+

-

-

vertical-light

5-2,3,4Polish Striationbone/
antlerFigure366

obsidianleftburin facet-

vertical

-

light

6-1,2

1105

obsidianleftburin facet-

vertical-light

5-7,8,9,10

1182

obsidianleftburin facet-

vertical

-

-

6-8

1194

obsidianleftburin facet-

vertical

+

light

6-3,4

1977

obsidianleftburin facet-

vertical

-

light

7-1

vertical

-

light

7-4,5

3646

green
siliceous tuﬀ

leftburin facetbone/antler

B1-1-6

obsidian

left

-

-

-

-

-

-

B1-1-18

obsidianleftburin facet-

vertical-heavy

6-9,10,11

B1-1-29

chert

-

-

-

-

-

-

B1-1-34

obsidian

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

light

7-2,3

left(rightsmall)left

parallelB1-1-55 siliceous tuﬀ

leftburin facet?

&
vertical

113
139

agate
green
siiceous tuﬀ-

scraper edge ?hide

vertical-light

8-4,5,6,7-

scraper edge ?hide

vertical-light

10-9,10?

211

obsidian-

scraper edge

vertical-light

10-3,4

323

chert

-

scraper edge dry hide vertical

-

heavy

8-8,9,10,11,12

left and right scraper edge dry hide vertical

7-6,7,8

426

chert

-

heavy

431

chalsedony-

scraper edge

vertical

-

light

-

end

1220

obsidian-

scraper edge dry hide vertical

-

heavy

9-5,6,7

scraper1642

obsidian-

scraper edge

vertical

-

light

9-8,9

3644

siliceous tuﬀ-

scraper edge dry hide vertical

-

heavy

10-7,8B5-2-1chert-

scraper edge

vertical-light

7-9,10,11

B5-2-2chert-

scraper edge dry hide vertical

-

heavy

8-1,2,3B5-2-9chert-

scraper edge dry hide vertical

+

heavy

9-1,2,3,4

B5-2-42obsidian-

scraper edge?

vertical-light

9-10,11

B5-2-44

obsidian-

scraper edge?

vertical-light

10-1,2B5-2-65

obsidian-

scraper edge?

vertical-light

10-5,6

right

-

-

-

-

-

-

microblade
core

3605

green
siiceous tuﬀ

?
wood
hide

B1-1-1

obsidian

right

-

-

-

-

-

5-5,6

B1-1-2

obsidianleft and rightleft facet-

vertical

-

light

-

ial

ial

point knife tool
2

1

1

Ski
spall

Total

1 1174

58

Anatoly M. Kuznetsov, Yoshitaka Kanomata and Yosuke Aoki

raw material and tool type (Tables 2 and 4), and took photosof all the materials.
Then, lithic artefacts were selected for technological and
use–wear analyses. Microblade technologies were grasped
objectively by one of the authors (Aoki). A functional analysis
of lithic tools was conducted by another author (Kanomata)with a metallurgical microscope (Olympus BHM). The result
is summed up in Tables 3 and 5. We also made drawings oflithic artefacts needed for the analyses (Figs. 17 to 20).

6. Analyses at the Gorbatka 3 sitea. Technological analysis
In total, 1,174 lithic materials were selected from theGorbatka 3 site for this study. The assemblage of selectedmaterials at Gorbatka 3 is as follows (Table 2): bifacial
tools (N=17), bipolar cores (321), microblade cores (84),
microblade core preforms (3), blades (173), microblades(5), boat-shaped tools (168), burins (45), cores (59), endscrapers (180), end/side scrapers (3), side scrapers (64),flakes (26), cobbles (9), retouched blades (9), retouchedflakes (7), and a ski spall (1).
We looked at 84 microblade cores and three microblade
preforms. From the viewpoint of Japanese archaeologists,
microblade core types were composed of Togeshita (Figs.
16-4, 16-6, 20-7, 20-9, 20-11 and 20-13), Horoka (Figs.
16-9 to 16-11), wedge-shaped (Figs. 16-1 to 16-3, 20-1 to
20-4 and 20-6), and those made from blank flake without
a secondary retouch (Figs. 16-8, 16-10, 20-12 and 20-14).
The number of simple microblade removal technology is sooutstanding that we had a problem classifying microblade
cores from burins. This problem will be considered in acooperative analysis between technological and functional
studies. To be precise, the microblade core type should bestrongly related with a special chronological and regional
position. Therefore, we can point out similarities but should
reconstruct each microblade technology individually.
Average size of end scraper is 36.2 mm in length, 21.9mm in width, 8.86 mm in thickness (Figs. 17-16 to 17-25,
18-1 to 18-4, 21-14 to 21-23). The average edge angle is
69.3°. Average size of burin is 36.5 mm in length, 18.1 mm
in width and 6.7 mm in thickness (Figs. 17-1 to 17-24, 21-1
to 21-13). The average edge angle between burin facet andventral face is 97.9°.
The most frequently produced material are bipolar
cores (N=321). Small obsidian pebbles (from 3 to 6 cm
in diameter) were the main raw material for the bipolar
technique. They must have been taken from the Ilistaya
River gravel. The experimental workshop on the bipolar
technique was carried out in Tohoku University in November
2019. We will reconsider the characteristics of bipolar
technology at the Gorbatka 3 and Ilistaya 1 sites in the next

paper. Blade technology is characterized by the existenceof platform preparation retouch and crested ridge formation(Fig. 22). Relatively larger blades were produced in this site.
b. Use–wear analyses
There are several kinds of raw materials at the Gorbatka 3site. The quality and sustainability against post-depositionalsurface modification relate to how suitable the raw material
is for use–wear analysis. The most suitable raw material
is chert and/or chalcedony. Because their surface sustains
the original, worked material and the direction of operation
can be assumed. The second one is highly silicified green
tuff that worked material, and the direction of operation canbe also assumed. In the case of obsidian, the direction ofoperation can be assumed on a limited basis except fora few obsidian samples that kept their original surfaces.
The usual siliceous white/grey tuff that occupied the larger
portion of the raw materials is not suitable for use–wear
analysis because their original surfaces were completelychanged in the post-depositional modification. Rhyolite andandesite are commonly unsuitable for a use–wear analysis.
Therefore, our object materials were restricted.
In total, 15 utilized end scrapers and 11 used burins were
found at the Gorbatla 3 site by microscopic observation(Table 3). Then, 26 lithic tools with use wear became
objects of precise observation under a microscope from a
traceological viewpoint. The most utilized tool at the site was
the end scraper. The edge was used for scraping (N=10)
and worked material would be dry hide (N=6), hide (N=3),
and wood (N=1). Burins were chiefly utilized to whittle/plane(N=9). Only one worked material was assumed to be of thebone/antler variety (N=2). The use rate of the end scraper ishigher (60.3%), and that of burin is not as high (44%).
Figure 5-1 shows a photo of the edge of lithic artefact no.
302. This tool has three burin facets (Fig. 17-2) and no usewear on all these facets. Burin (no. 328) made from chert
has the D1-type of micro polish accompanied by verticalstriations (Figs. 5-2 to 5-4). This burin must have beenutilized for planing bone/antler.
Obsidian tools have unfamiliar striations in our researchexperience. Numerous striations composed of a line of pits
were recognized on the edge between the burin facet andthe ventral surface (Figs. 5-5 and 5-6). These traces musthave been caused by post-depositional effects. Usual use–wear striations on obsidian tools were as shown in thephotos (Figs. 5-7 and 5-8). On the base of this burin (no.
1105), wider striations were formed probably by hafting
activity (Figs. 5-9 to 5-11).
Striations composed by a line of pits were commonly
observed on burins nos. 366, 1194, 69, 1977, and b1-118 (Figs. 6-1 to 6-6, and 7-1). Such striations extend to the
opposite side of the burin facet (Figs. 6-9 to 6-11). No use–Use-wear analysis at the Gorbatka 3 and Ilistaya 1 sites in the Russian Far East

Fig.5 Use-wear on lithic tool at the Gorbatka 3 site.

59

60

Anatoly M. Kuznetsov, Yoshitaka Kanomata and Yosuke Aoki

Fig.6 Use-wear on lithic tool at the Gorbatka 3 site.

Use-wear analysis at the Gorbatka 3 and Ilistaya 1 sites in the Russian Far East

Fig.7 Use-wear on lithic tool at the Gorbatka 3 site.

61

62

Anatoly M. Kuznetsov, Yoshitaka Kanomata and Yosuke Aoki

Fig.8 Use-wear on lithic tool at the Gorbatka 3 site.

Use-wear analysis at the Gorbatka 3 and Ilistaya 1 sites in the Russian Far East

Fig.9 Use-wear on lithic tool at the Gorbatka 3 site.

63

64

Anatoly M. Kuznetsov, Yoshitaka Kanomata and Yosuke Aoki

Fig.10 Use-wear on lithic tool at the Gorbatka 3 site.

Use-wear analysis at the Gorbatka 3 and Ilistaya 1 sites in the Russian Far East
wear polish is recognized accompanying these striations.
It would be related to post-depositional effects and the use
degree of each tool. A relatively apparent polish was foundon the burin edge of no. 1182 (Fig. 6-8). Vertical and density
striations were formed on the light and flat micro polish. Thiskind of polish is usually formed by the contact with a hardmaterial such as bone/antler.
Use-wear on silicified tuff has similar characteristics. The
distribution of polish was limited on the edge between theburin facet and the ventral face. Striations were basicallyvertical to the edge. The polish profile is principally flat withminute, dense striations (Figs. 7-2 to 7-5). These burins
might have been used for planing bone/antler.
An end scraper with two burin facets was excavatedfrom the Gorbatka 3 site. It is difficult to classify whether
this was a burin or an end scraper. Despite the absence of
use wear on the burin facets (Fig. 7-6), a well-developed
polish with vertical striations was recognized on the distal
end of the scraper edge (Figs. 7-7 and 7-8). Micro polish is
characterized by the existence of numerous micro pits, arough surface, and a round profile. This polish (the E2-type)has a strong relationship with dry hide working.
End scrapers were generally utilized for scraping hide.
In case of end scrapers made from chert, silicified tuff, andchalcedony, the E2-type of micro polishes were situatedon the distal end of scraper edges (Figs. 7-9 to 7-11, 8-1 to
8-12, 9-3, 9-4, 10-7 to 10-10). This polish type is generally
caused by scraping dry hide. Abrasive wear and bright spots
were occasionally formed on the base and the middle oflateral edges (Figs. 8-4 to 8-9, 9-1 and 9-2).
Vertical striations were often recognized on the use edgeof obsidian end scrapers (Figs. 5-10, 5-11, 6-1 to 6-4).
Striations were sometimes composed of continuous pits.
Abrasive polish accompanying numerous pits were foundon several end scrapers (Figs. 9-5, 9-6, 10-5 and 10-6).
This is an E-type of polish that is basically caused by thecontact with hide/leather. Round and bright polish is foundon the edge of end scraper no. 1642 (Figs. 9-8 and 9-9).
Since distribution of the polish is limited near the edge,
and its border is clearly lined, this polish is regarded as a
B-type, usually caused by woodworking. In addition, verticaland narrow striations in the polish on this scraper would
be utilized for scraping wood. Wide and apparent striations
were crossed on the base of some end scrapers (Fig. 9-7).
Such traces would be caused by hafting activities.
47 microblade cores (56% of the total) also became
objects of precise observation under a microscope. 15 ofthem were unsuitable for the analysis because of the postdepositional surface modification. 34 microblade cores haveno use-wear on their expected use edges. That is to say,microblade cores weren’t utilized basically and had a role
limitedly for microblade manufacture.

65

7. Analyses at the Ilistaya 1 sitea. Technological analysis
In total, 1,406 lithic materials were selected from theIlistaya 1 site for this study. The assemblage at the Ilistaya
1 site is as follows (Table 4): bifacial tools (N=36), bipolar
cores (596), and microblade cores (72), microblade core
preforms (15), cores (3), blades (11), microblades (41),boat-shaped tools (16), burins (52), burin spalls (22), endscrapers (68), a pointed scraper (1), side scrapers (53), drills(4), flakes (179), pebbles (6), chunks (122), a perforated
flake (1), a hummer stone (1), retouched flakes (16), firstspalls (47), ski spalls (43) and an unifacial tool (1).
We observed 72 microblade cores and 15 microblade
core preforms. Although microblade technologies in Ilistaya
1 were basically similar to those in Gorbatka 3 site, theHirosato-type of microblade core was absent from this site.
Microblade cores were typologically composed of Horoka(N=20) (Figs. 23-9, 23-12, 24-1 and 24-2), Togeshita (N=3)(Figs. 23-1 and 23-4), wedge-shaped (N=12) (Figs.23-2, 233, 23-5, 23-7, 23-8, 23-10 and 23-11), and simple flake blank(N=36). Although wedge-shaped microblade cores wereregarded as cores made using the Yubetsu technique insome previous papers (Pantukhina 2007 etc.), we regarded
it as one of the final shapes using Fukui technique known in
Kyushu island around 15,000 calibration BP. We recognizedretouching on the platform at the top of the microblade
removal face and removal of core tablets to renew theplatform on such cores.
Compared to the assemblage at the Gorbatka 3 site,
there are larger number of bipolar cores, microblade core
preforms, and microblade spalls (first and ski spalls). In
contrast, the numbers of end scrapers and boat-shaped
tools at Ilistaya 1 were smaller than those at the Gorbatka
3 site. It must be reflected by the difference in site function
and/or distance from raw material sources.
Average size of end scraper is 35.9 mm in length, 24.5mm in width and 8.68 mm in thickness (Figs. 19-14 to 19-16,
24-3 to 24-16). Average edge angle of end scraper is 70.3°.
Average size of burin is 34.4 mm in length, 17.7 mm in widthand 6.8 mm in thickness (Figs. 19-2, to 19-16, 24-17 to 2419). Average edge angle between burn facet and ventral
face is 98.3°.
b. Use–wear analysis
In total, 37 end scrapers, 22 burins, and a utilized
retouched flake became objects of the analysis from a
traceological viewpoint under a microscope at the Ilistaya 1
site. Then, 15 lithic tools (two end scrapers, 12 burins, and a
retouched flake) with use-wear were recognized. Therefore,
the most utilized tool was the burin at this site (use rate =48%). Despite the discovery of numerous end scrapers, they

66

Anatoly M. Kuznetsov, Yoshitaka Kanomata and Yosuke Aoki

Table
Lithicassemblage
assemblageat atIlistaya
1 siteTable 44 Lithic
thetheIlistaya
1 siteTool type

BipolarIlistaya1

core

Microbla

Flake Chunk

596

176

122

72

Retouch

3

68

53

Burin

First

Ski

Micro

spall spall blade

52

47

43

Bifacial Hummer Perforated Pointed Unifaci

MC
4

Side

de core scraper scraper

Tool type Drill Core ﬂake from
Ilistaya1

End

tool

stone

ﬂake

scraper

al tool

1

1

1

1

1

3

Biface

41

23

Burin
spall
22

Boat
shapedRetouched

tool
16

ﬂake
16

Microblade core Bladeperform
15

11

Bifacial
point
6

Bifacial
Pebblepoint
preform

6

6

Total
1406

Table
lithictools
at the1 site1 site
Table55Use
Usewearwearofoflithictools
at Ilistaya
the Ilistaya
Tool type

ArtifactRawno.

material

B5-1-1siliceous

Location Independent

Microﬂak

Use

ing

degreevertical-light

11-5,6bone/antler

vertical

-

light

11-1

?bone/antler

vertical-light

11-7,8bone/antler

parallel-heavy

11-2,3,4

PolishStriationburin facet?bone/antler

leftburin facet

leftburin facetof facetuse zoneleft

Figuregreen
tuﬀ
B5-1-5

chert
green

B5-1-6siliceous
tuﬀ

burin

end
scraper
retouced
ﬂake

tip of burin

B5-1-7

chert

left

B5-1-8

obsidianleftburin facet-

vertical-light

12-1,2B5-1-9obsidianleftburin facet-

vertical-heavy

12-3,4B5-1-10 obsidian

leftburin facet-

vertical-light

12-5,6,7,8

B5-1-11 obsidian

leftburin facet-

vertical-light

12-9,10B5-1-13 obsidianrightburin facet-

vertical-light

13-1,2B5-1-14 obsidianrightburin facet-

vertical-light

13-3,4B5-1-15 obsidianrightburin facet-

vertical-light

13-5,6B1-2-22

jasperleftburin facet?bone/antler

vertical-light

11-9,10B4-3-31 obsidian-

scraper edgehide

vertical+light

13-9,10B4-3-33-

scraper edge

dry hidevertical-light

13-7,8wood

vertical-light

14-1,2,3,4

chert

facet

broken face
B4-5-1agate-

like burin
facet

were seldom used in the site (use rate = 5.4%). Comparedwith the Gorbatka 3 site, the absence of end scraperutilization is the most apparent feature at the Ilistaya 1 site.
Figure 11 shows use traces of burins made of chert,
green siliceous tuff, and jasper. It is possible to distinguishthe micro-polish type on the burins made from these raw
materials. Use–wear polish is commonly flat and bright withvertical and narrow striations (Figs. 11-1, 11-5 to 11-10).
They would be used for whittling/planing bone/antler. A burinwith a sharp edge of burin facet was utilized for cutting/sawing bone/antler (Figs. 11-3 and 11-4).
Figure 12 shows use wear on obsidian burins at theIlistaya 1 site. In the case of obsidian, micro-polish is notapparent because of post-depositional effects and developed
striations. Vertical striations were commonly observed on
the edge between the burin facet and the ventral face (Figs.
12-2 to 12-10, 13-1 to 13-6). Micro-polish was recognized
to a limited extent on the edge of a better condition (Fig.
12-1). Hafting traces as wide striations and abrasion wereoccasionally formed on the base of the burin (Fig.12-8).
The E2-type of polish was recognized on the use edge ofan end scraper (Figs. 13-7 and 13-8). This would have beenused for scraping dry hide. Vertical striations were formedon the edge of an obsidian end scraper (Figs. 13-9 and 13-

Use-wear analysis at the Gorbatka 3 and Ilistaya 1 sites in the Russian Far East

Fig.11 Use-wear on lithic tool at the Ilistaya 1 site.

67

68

Anatoly M. Kuznetsov, Yoshitaka Kanomata and Yosuke Aoki

Fig.12 Use-wear on lithic tool at the Ilistaya 1 site.

Use-wear analysis at the Gorbatka 3 and Ilistaya 1 sites in the Russian Far East

Fig.13 Use-wear on lithic tool at the Ilistaya 1 site.

69

70

Anatoly M. Kuznetsov, Yoshitaka Kanomata and Yosuke Aoki

Fig.14 Use-wear on lithic tool at the Ilistaya 1 site.
10). This was also used for scraping activity.
A retouched flake has a broken face like a burin facet.
Since this edge has a B-type polish (Figs. 14-1 and 14-2),
this would have been used for planing wood. The other edge
with retouch has a D1-type polish with vertical striations.
This edge would be used for whittling/planing bone/antler.
This was a multi-function tool.

8. Considerations
Technological approaches at these sites presented us withsome criteria to distinguish between microblade cores (of theHirosato and Tougeshita-types) and burins. When a blank is
a flake or blade, they sometimes have similar morphologicalcharacteristics (Fig. 15). The angle between the ventral face
and the burin facet (microblade removal face, in the caseof a microblade core) is one of the most important criteria.
The average angle of the microblade core is 135.5° and thatof the burin is 97.9° at the Gorbatka 3 site. The edge angleof burins at Ilistaya 1 site is 98.3°on average. The second
criterion is the position of the burin facet and the microblade
removal face. The facet of the burin is situated on the leftshoulder of a blank flake/blade. In contrast, the microblade
removal face is basically located on the right shoulder ofthe blank flake/blade. From a functional aspect, there is nouse-wear on the microblade removal face. Traces of use arefound a half of burin facets.
Short and thick flakes were used for the microblade coreand end scraper blanks. Since both the scraper edge andthe microblade removal face are situated on the distal endof the blank, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between
the microblade core (Horoka-type) and the end scraper.
From a technological aspect, microblades were removedby the pressure technique, and end scraper edges wereretouched by direct percussion with organic hummers. The
angle between the microblade removal face and the ventral
face of a blank flake is about 50°on average. In contrast,
the edge angle of end scrapers is around 70° on average.
Functionally, there is no use-wear on the edge of microblade
cores. More than a half of the use edges of end scrapers
have use-wear. Through these approaches, microblade
cores, burins, and end scrapers were correctly categorized.
Regarding site functions, the use of end scrapers
distinguishes these two sites. There were more than twice
the number of end scrapers at Gorbatka 3 (N=180) thanat the Ilistaya 1 site (N=68). In addition, 60% of the end
scrapers were utilized for hide scraping at Gorbatka 3,
although 5.4% of end scrapers had use-wear at the Ilistaya
1 site. Therefore, the hide scraping needed for longer
stable settlements was chiefly carried out at the Gorbatka
3 site. Ten times more boat-shaped tools were discovered
at Gorbatka 3 than at Ilistaya 1 (Fig. 24-22). They may be
used as blanks for end scrapers in some cases. In lithic
assemblage, bipolar cores and microblade spalls weremainly excavated from the Ilistaya 1 site, not from Gorbatka
3 (Figs. 24-21, 24-23 and 24-24). These differencescharacterize the site functions of the sites. Burins werecommonly used for bone/antler planing/whittling at bothUse-wear analysis at the Gorbatka 3 and Ilistaya 1 sites in the Russian Far East
use wearedge angle 98°

no use wear⇔

edge angle 135°

burin

wider
↓

↓

↓

↓

right shoulder↓

left shoulder

71⇔

microblade core

wider

⇔
end scraper

use wearedge angle 70°

microblade coreno use wear
edge angle 50°

Fig.15 Characteristics
of burins,
end scrapers
and microblade
cores and microblade coresFig.15Characteristics
of burins,
end scrapers
sites. Microblade removal and bone/antler tool manufacture
coexisted because of composite tool production. This activity
was organized as a basic component in their subsistence
technology and hunting strategy.

Acknowledgement
We would like to express our sincere appreciation to Dr.
A. N. Popov (Far Eastern Federal University) for unique
opportunity to observe the collections of artefacts at theArchaeology Laboratory in Far Eastern Federal University.
Special thanks are due to our Russian colleagues, B. V.
Lazin and M. K. Rudenko (Far Eastern Federal University).
Researches were supported by Grant-in Aid for Scientific
Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of
Science (No. 16KK0020) and Research Funds for DIARE(Division for Interdisciplinary Advanced Research and

Education) doctoral course students, Tohoku University.

References
Akoshima K. and H. Hong 2017 Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT(3): Microwear Polish (1). Bulletin of the Tohoku University
Museum, no. 16, pp. 69-86
Akoshima K. and H. Hong 2018 Standard use-wear chart of TUMRT(4): Microwear Polish (2). Bulletin of the Tohoku University
Museum, no. 17, pp. 115-138
Kuznetsov A.M. 1992 Late Palaeolithic of the East-Southern
Primorye (in Russian). Vladivostok Far Eastern University
Press
Kuznetsov A. M. 1996 Late Palaeolithic sites of the Russian
Maritime Province Primorye. American Beginnings: Prehistory
and Palaeoecology of Beringia. (edited by F. H. West) pp.267282 The University of Chicago Press.
Pantukhina I. 2007 The Role of Raw Material in Microblade
Technology at Three Late Palaeolithic Sites, Russian Far East.
Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association Bulletin, 27, pp. 144-153

72

Anatoly M. Kuznetsov, Yoshitaka Kanomata and Yosuke Aoki

Fig. 16 Lithic tools excavated from the Gorbatka 3 siteUse-wear analysis at the Gorbatka 3 and Ilistaya 1 sites in the Russian Far East

Fig. 17 Lithic tools excavated from the Gorbatka 3 site

73

74

Anatoly M. Kuznetsov, Yoshitaka Kanomata and Yosuke Aoki

Fig. 18 Lithic tools excavated from the Gorbatka 3 siteUse-wear analysis at the Gorbatka 3 and Ilistaya 1 sites in the Russian Far East

Fig. 19 Lithic tools excavated from the Ilistaya 1 site

75

76

Anatoly M. Kuznetsov, Yoshitaka Kanomata and Yosuke Aoki

Fig. 20 Lithic tools excavated from the Gorbatka 3 siteUse-wear analysis at the Gorbatka 3 and Ilistaya 1 sites in the Russian Far East

Fig. 21 Lithic tools excavated from the Gorbatka 3 site

77

78

Anatoly M. Kuznetsov, Yoshitaka Kanomata and Yosuke Aoki

Fig. 22 Lithic tools excavated from the Gorbatka 3 siteUse-wear analysis at the Gorbatka 3 and Ilistaya 1 sites in the Russian Far East

Fig. 23 Lithic tools excavated from the Ilistaya 1 site

79

80

Anatoly M. Kuznetsov, Yoshitaka Kanomata and Yosuke Aoki

Fig. 24 Lithic tools excavated from the Ilistaya 1 siteUse-wear analysis at the Gorbatka 3 and Ilistaya 1 sites in the Russian Far East

Fig. 25 Lithic tools excavated from the Ilistaya 1 site81