26
Documenta Praehistorica XLVIII (2021)
Introduction
Caches of various types of artefacts are one of the
most interesting and intriguing archaeological finds.
In many cases they are unpredictable, unexpected
and, very often, accidental, especially, when we are
dealing with the Stone Age period. While extreme-
ly spectacular, examples of lithic caches consisting
of highly elaborated bifacial points are known for
the Solutrean culture (Volgu) in Europe (Thévenot
et al. 2019), and for the Clovis (Anzick, Fenn, Richey-
Roberts etc.) in North America (Frison, Bradley
1999; Huckell, Kilby 2014). There are also many
manifestations of caching strategy in other parts of
the World (Eastern Europe, Near East, Mesoamerica,
Siberia, Central Asia and Far East). Chronologically
lithic caches are mostly connected with the Middle-
Late Palaeolithic and the Neolithic periods; they
illustrate special technological decisions both for
mobile and sedentary users, and, in terms of econo-
Knap & keep>
Late Palaeolithic-Neolithic caches, Far East
ABSTRACT – The tradition of lithic caches illustrates a special strategy of storing lithics which were
extracted from chaîne opératoire for some time to be kept/hidden in a special place with/without
subsequent return and use. For the Palaeolithic – Neolithic/Jōmon of the Far East (Russian part and
the Japanese Archipelago) within the frame of 35 000–2400 cal BP, this tradition demonstrates an
impressive multiplicity (more than 400 cases), high diversity, duration, dynamics, and local varia-
bility. Such an abundant source of data opens rich perspectives for detailed technological analysis,
functional interpretations, and interregional correlations, with analogies in the Stone Age cultures
of the Near East, Europe, and North America.
IZVLE∞EK – Tradicija depojev kamnitih orodij ponazarja posebno strategijo shranjevanja teh predme-
tov, ki so bili za nekaj ≠asa izvzeti iz operacijske sekvence z namenom, da se jih shrani/skrije na
posebnem mestu z/brez naknadne uporabe. Ta tradicija iz paleolitika-neolitika/obdobja Jōmon na
Daljnem vzhodu (del Rusije in oto≠je Japonske), ki je trajalo od 35 000 do 2400 pr. sed., ka∫e na im-
presivno ∏tevilo teh depojev (ve≠ kot 400), njihovo veliko raznolikost, trajanje, dinamiko in lokalne
posebnosti. Tako bogat vir podatkov nam odpira ∏irok vidik za podrobne tehnolo∏ke analize, razla-
ge o funkciji in medregionalne povezave z analogijami v kamenodobnih kulturah na Bli∫njem vzho-
du, v Evropi in v Severni Ameriki.
KEY WORDS – Far East; Late Palaeolithic; Neolithic; Jōmon; lithic caches; technology
KLJU∞NE BESEDE – Daljni vzhod; pozni paleolitik; neolitik; Jōmon; depoji kamnitih orodij; tehnologija
Odbij in shrani>
pozno paleolitski-neolitski depoji na Daljnem vzhodu
DOI> 10.4312\dp.48.7
Andrey V. Tabarev1, Darya A. Ivanova2, and Yoshitaka Kanomata 3
1 Division of Foreign Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Novosibirsk, RU
olmec@yandex.ru
2 School of Arts and Humanities, Far Eastern Federal University, Vladivostok, RU< nightliro@bk.ru
3 Graduate School of Arts and Letters, Tohoku University, JP< yoshitaka.kanomata.d8@tohoku.ac.jp
Knap & keep> Late Palaeolithic-Neolithic caches, Far East
27
me Region, Sakhalin Island, Kamchatka Peninsula)
and, especially, on Japanese Islands (from Hokkai-
do to Kyushu) significantly increased, and a con-
centrated focus on the archaeological collections
and reports of excavations allowed us to identify
data on numerous (more than 400) finds and fea-
tures of the Late Palaeolithic-Neolithic/Jōmon sites
which match the characteristics of a ’lithic cache’4.
This list includes only finds that are not related to
the burial context, and are not the part of burial
offerings.
On the one hand, such rich material requires detail-
ed technological use-wear analysis, classification and
contextual subdivision, regional and inter-regional
correlation. On the other, and the authors put a spe-
cial emphasis on this, it creates unique prerequisites
for the interpretation of behavioural attitudes (the
‘knap & keep’ strategy) within the economic and ri-
tual activities of hunter-gatherers-fishers. The follow-
ing overview of the caches in the Russian Far East
will be done in more detail, while for the caches on
Japanese Islands we will try to demonstrate the sta-
tistical data, contextual tendencies and local tech-
nological variabilities.
mical context, lithic caches are typical both for the
hunter-gatherer and agricultural societies.
So far, the data about lithic caches dated by the Pa-
laeolithic – Neolithic/Jōmon times on the territories
of the Russian Far East and the Japanese Archipe-
lago is presented only in a preliminary form in a se-
ries of articles. Most of these, with a very few excep-
tions (e.g., Dyakov 1997; Kanomata, Tabarev 2020),
are in the Russian and Japanese languages and not
known by a wide archaeological audience.
It is noteworthy, however, that the first information
about the accidental find of a lithic cache (Naruka-
sanka) comes from as early as the second half of
19th century. According to the publication of Nobu-
taro Ono (Ono 1897)1, somewhere between 1865–
1867 and while digging an irrigation channel near
the villages Naruka and Sanka (Fukui prefecture),
local farmer Kanji Nozawa discovered a huge stone
axe (54cm) arranged upon two chipped pebbles and
about 30 arrow-points (Fig. 1.1–2)2.
The evidence of possible lithic caches in the Russian
Far East appeared in the archaeological literature
only in the 1950s and 60s due to the
later start of wide-scale field inves-
tigations in the region as a whole.
One of the first hints of caches is
connected with the finding of a large
leaf-shaped biface artistically made
from the local grey chert on Sakha-
lin Island3 – its length (32.5cm),
thickness (0.7cm), and sophisticated
technology of pressure flaking puts
this find on a par with the best Solu-
trean and Clovis (Paleoindian) bifa-
cial points. Note also the general mor-
phological similarity of the point
from Sakhalin with the points from
Narukasanka cache (Fig. 1.3).
Since these early discoveries the in-
formation on lithic caches in the Rus-
sian Far East (Amur Region, Mariti-
Fig. 1. 1,2 First publication and reconstruction of the Narukasan-
ka cache, Japan; 3 bifacial point, Sakhalin Island.
1 The detailed story about the Narukasanka cache, along with photos and drawings, was published in a special paper in late 20th
century (Matsui 1980).
2 If the dates (1865–67) are correct the cache in Japan was found even earlier than the famous Volgu cache in France (1874).
3 The artefact has no documentation, but with high probability was located within a destroyed archaeological site near Nogliki vil-
lage (Sakhalin Island) in the mid-1950s and could be dated to the Early Neolithic (11 000–9000 BP). Currently the biface is on
show in the Archaeological Museum, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Novosibirsk, Russia (Tabarev 2012).
4 The language aspect of the problem is also important: the Russian word ‘klad’ means “something very precious for the owner
and hidden, buried in the ground”. The term ’cache’ in the translations of Russian archaeological articles into English is in recent
use, and before this the authors preferred another word – ’hoard’ – for special finds of bronze or gold items. In the Japanese lan-
guage the English word ’cache’ is equivalent to ’Intoku Ikou’ and ’Heitan ikou’ (caching feature).
Andrey V. Tabarev, Darya A. Ivanova, and Yoshitaka Kanomata
28
Evidence of a caching strategy on the territory
of the Russian Far East
It would be logical to preface an overview of lithic
caches on the territories of the Russian Far East with
some information about similar complexes known
in Siberia and Mongolia. They confirm the very early
and wide geographical spread of this tradition.
Several finds were mentioned in the archaeological
literature devoted to the Palaeolithic of Kemerovo
District (Western Siberia) in 1960 – e.g., a complex
of 19 preforms and tools near Ail village, and a pos-
sible cache of eight tools near Shestakovo village
(Okladnikov 1968).
Another remarkable discovery was made during the
excavations of Tumulur site (Aldan River, Yakutia)5
in Strata IV within the Upper Palaeolithic context
belonging to Dyuktai culture. Eight lenticular bifaces
(from 7 to 13cm long) were located in a compact
cluster (20x25cm), and due to the absence of any
dwelling or hearth features the researchers interpret-
ed them as a possible cache (West 1996.197–198).
The first Palaeolithic cache with-
in a clear stratigraphic context
was found in Northern Mongolia
(the Tolbor river valley) in 2010
– it consists of 57 standard flakes
carefully piled in a shallow pit
(30x30cm), and could be con-
nected to the local hunting activi-
ties within the frame of 27 000–
17 000 cal BP (Gladyshev et al.
2011; Tabarev et al. 2013). Re-
cently, one more cache (11 core
preforms from local jasper) was
found in Southern Mongolia (Go-
bi) by a joint Polish-Mongolian
expedition and preliminary da-
ted by the Middle Palaeolithic
(Masojc 2019).
Directly on the territory of the
Russian Far East, several sites
with lithic caches of various type,
content, and location have been
recorded there (Fig. 2). The most
obviously interesting of these is
Novopetrovka-II, one in a series
of sites excavated in the Middle
Amur stream near Blagoveshchensk during the
1960s. These sites belong to the Novopetrovka Neo-
lithic culture (Novopetrovka ‘blade culture’) which
is dated by charcoal and charred remains on pottery
to between 12 600 and 10 800 cal BP (Derevianko
et al. 2020). The first cache was found on the floor
of dwelling #2 in a small pit (40cm in diameter), and
consists of seven blade cores with the negatives of
recent removals and one blank for the core (Fig. 3.1;
Derevianko 1970.42–44). Two more similar pits
with lithic caches (about 10cm deep and 35cm in
diameter) were described in dwelling #4 – both in-
cluded three blade cores each in the initial stage of
the exploration (Derevianko 1970.66–67).
The next evidence of caching is connected to the
Lower Amur region (near Khabarovsk), where since
the 1920s archaeologists have studied the sites of
the Osipovka culture. It was successively identified
as Palaeolithic, then Mesolithic, and – after the dis-
covery of early pottery – as the Initial Neolithic, and
dated between 14 200–9900 cal BP. Despite the long
history of exploration and representative archaeolo-
gical collections a data connected to the lithic cache
only appeared in 2015 in the course of the excava-
5 Tumulur site was discovered in 1964 and studied during 1964–1982. It is dated between 16 600–13 600 cal BP.
Fig. 2. Russian Far East. Sites with the caches listed in the text. 1 No-
vopetrovka-II; 2 Osinovaya Rechka 10; 3 Ustinovka IV; 4 Ustinovka
III; 5 Ushki I.
Knap & keep> Late Palaeolithic-Neolithic caches, Far East
29
tions at Osinovaya Rechka 10 site6. Three bifacial
artefacts (axes) were found stacked in a pile in the
very southeast part of the unit in layer 4 (Hashidu-
me et al. 2019.27, 36–37, Pl. 2). The context does
not point to any special pit or dwelling floor (Fig.
4.1–3).
Two examples of lithic caches are known in the Ma-
ritime Region. Both were recorded at the sites of the
Ustinovka group (complex) in the Zerkalnaya River
Valley. The sites are dated between 18 000–10 000
cal BP, and demonstrate the transition from the
Final Palaeolithic to Early Neolithic periods. In 1997
Vladimir I. Dyakov (Fareastern Federal University,
Vladivostok) published a short paper in English
about the excavations at the Ustinovka IV site with
a brief description of the compact complex (30x
30cm) of eight bifaces grouped around the biggest
one which, possibly, was set vertically. According
to the author, this complex was located between the
depressions of dwellings #1 and 3, although no pho-
tos or drawings have been presented which con-
firm this observation (Dyakov 1997.20). In a later
version, Dyakov clarified that the central biface
(10.3cm) was erected on a small ’pedestal’ with a
height of 6cm. He again gave no photos or figures
with the original position of the complex, but only
the plan of the unit and schematic drawings of only
seven (of eight) bifaces (Dyakov 2000.41–42, 193).
Unfortunately, there are no carbon dates for the sites
and its age (14 000–12 000 cal BP) is determined
solely based on analogies with neighbouring com-
plexes in Zerkalnaya River Valley.
Another location about 1.5km from Ustinovka IV
site, namely Ustinovka III, was discovered during
the early 1960s and excavated over several research
cycles. The last one was conducted by a joint Rus-
sian-Japanese expedition and took place from 1992–
1997. It was crowned with the discovery of the ear-
liest Neolithic pottery for the Maritime Region7.
Moreover, according to the related publications dur-
ing the 1995 field season in the northwestern part
of the unit specialists located in situ a concentration
(44x36cm) of lithics, including 171 flat flakes (11x8–
7x7cm) in a very dense context, which was inter-
preted as a “cache of flakes hidden in container,
possibly a kind of leather bag“ (Derevianko, Kono-
nenko 2003.68–69; Kononenko 2001.47). Unfortu-
nately, even in this case only a description, statisti-
cal data and an approximate drawing are available
to readers (Fig. 3.2).
A large cluster of multilevel settlements near Ushki
Lake on Kamchatka Peninsula has been under per-
manent archaeological research since 1961. All lev-
els (VII-I) vividly illustrate the development, evo-
lution, and peculiarities of the Final Paleolithic-Neo-
lithic cultures (various types of dwelling construc-
tions, burials with rich offerings, adornments, work-
ing areas, storage pits, etc.). In 1983 during the ex-
cavation of the entrance of sub-terranean dwelling
#9 (i.e. cultural complex of Level VI, 12 200–11 600
cal BP; Ponkratova, Chachula, and Clausen 2021)
at the Ushki I site, archaeologists met with a com-
pact set of 12 bifacial preforms for microblade cores.
They were made from local grey chert and techno-
logically are very similar to the microblade cores
explored in frames of the Yubetsu technique which
is typical for the Final Palaeolithic of the Japanese
Islands. These cores were described in several arti-
cles about Ushki I Site, but the exact context of the
feature became known only recently after the pub-
6 Osinovaya Rechka 10 was a part of multi-year joint Russian-Japanese archaeological project. There are two carbon dates for the
site: 11 150–10 930 cal BP and 13 094–12 952 cal BP.
7 The authors published two dates for Ustinovka III site – 10 500 (OSL) and 9305±31 BP (14C) (Kononenko 2001.46–47).
Fig. 3. Russian Far East. 1 Cache of cores at Novo-
petrovka II; 2 Cache of flakes at Ustinovka III.
Andrey V. Tabarev, Darya A. Ivanova, and Yoshitaka Kanomata
30
lication of the photos and drawings from
the original field report (Fig. 5.1–3; Fedor-
chenko, Belousova 2020.314).
Thus, despite the small number and incom-
plete documentary support for all the finds
(exact provenience, detailed photos, and
drawings, etc.), the strategy of lithic caches
on the territory of the Russian Far East de-
monstrates a long technological tradition
and contextual/functional variability. There
are caches of preforms (cores, flakes) and
finished tools (bifaces, axes), caches in as-
sociation with dwelling constructions and
without it, technical (prosaic) caches kept
for further use, and caches of ritual arran-
gements.
Lithic caches in the Palaeolithic-Jō-
mon, Japanese Islands
In comparison with the continental part,
the archaeological data on the number of
lithic caches on the Japanese Archipelago
is impressive – even according to the pre-
liminary statistics for the Late Paleolithic-
Neolithic (Jōmon) period there is informa-
tion about at least 420 features. A total of
316 features at the sites and in the form
of separate complexes have clear prove-
nance and field documentation. This num-
ber will be used for the statistics8 in the
current study, and some major sites illus-
trated in the text are marked on the map
shown in Figure 6.
At least 13 caches are recorded in the ar-
chaeological literature and reports for the
Late Palaeolithic (35 000–16 000 cal BP) –
some of them are presented by concentra-
tions of tools (axes with polishing edges and trape-
zoidal flakes) (Hinatabayashi site, Nagano; Tsuchiya,
Tani 2000), but most of these finds consists of raw
material (obsidian in particular; Shirataki-Hattoridai
2 site, Hokkaido; Naoe, Suzuki 2007) or preforms
of cores (Onbara 1 site, Okayama; Fig. 7.1; Inada et
al. 2009), which correlates with the strategy of high-
ly mobile hunter-gatherers.
The amount of data on lithic caches increases signi-
ficantly in the subsequent period of the Stone Age
on the Japanese Islands – Jōmon (16 000–2400 cal
BP)9. Twenty-three cashes are known for the Inci-
pient Jōmon (16 000–10 000 cal PB) and 24 for the
Initial Jōmon (10 000–7000 cal PB). Climatic chan-
ges and the gradual transition to a sedentary way of
life are logically reflected in the evolution of the li-
thic technology and hunting gear. This is vividly il-
lustrated by the spectacular caches with artistically
made spear points (Fig. 7.2; Mikoshiba site, Sonoda
site; Hayashi et al. 2008; Tahira, Nohira 2004),
large bifacial cores and bifacial tool blanks (Nogawa,
Kashiwabara, Sendai-Uchimae, Iwase), and big pol-
ished and chipped axes (Fig. 7.3; Hinata Cave, Nana-
Fig. 4. Russian Far East. Osinovaya Rechka 10. 1 Position of
the cache; 2-4 tools from the cache.
8 In our article we prefer to use the data from multiple reports of the excavations.
9 Chronological frames for Jōmon and its sub-periods (Incipient, Initial, Early, Middle, Late, and Final) according to Omoto et al. (2010).
Knap & keep> Late Palaeolithic-Neolithic caches, Far East
31
tsuguri, Karasawa B site) found in the
southern, central, and, especially in the
northeastern parts of Honshu Island
(Sagawa, Suzuki 2006; Kanomata
2008; Hayashi et al. 2008; Nakamura,
Tsuiki 2008; Shimamuro et al. 2009).
Another group of caches is represented
by compact features with raw material
cobbles, preforms of cores and tools,
flakes, and instruments (arrowheads,
scrapers, knives, adzes, etc.) in special
pits directly in the dwellings or near the
living areas.
In the case of caches with polished axes
some specialists suggest their symboli-
cal meaning and connection with ritu-
al exchange by analogy with stone and
shell axes in Island Southeast Asia and
Oceania (Kaner, Taniguchi 2017.328).
In turn, large bifacial cores and points at-
tracted the attention of experts due to
the amazing similarity with the artefacts
in Clovis caches, and the discussion about
the origin of the latter in Solutrean tech-
nological complex in Western Europe
(Kornfeld, Tabarev 2009).
The significant shift to sedentism with the develop-
ment of large multi-dwelling settlements in the in-
land and, first of all, coastal areas, took place in the
Early Jōmon (7000–5400 cal PB). The number of
known lithic caches is growing (33), and the over-
whelming majority of them are connected with the
special pits in dwelling structures – e.g., specialized
caches of six adzes at the Minamitashiro site (Kago-
shima; Miei et al. 2005), caches with various tools
and blanks at the Karasuno-uwadai site (Akita; Shin-
kai et al. 2006) and the Ondashi site (Fig. 7.4; Ya-
magata; Sato et al. 1990), caches of flakes and raw
material (obsidian) at the Shutoyabayashi site (Naga-
no) (Kobayashi, Naoi 1982) and the Choshichiyachi
site (Aomori; Kurimura et al. 1982).
Middle Jōmon (5400–4300 cal PB) was the most
comfortable time in terms of climate and variety of
biological resources. This is confirmed by various
data on population growth, the number and size of
settlements along with the evolution of social com-
plexity. Therefore, despite the shorter than Initial
or Early Jōmon duration, Middle Jōmon presents in-
formation on about 137 lithic caches (more than
40% of the total amount) recorded all over the ter-
ritory of the Japanese Islands. The variety of caches
is connected to the multiplicity of activities of hun-
ters, gatherers and fishers, while it also corresponds
to local differences in raw material quality and avai-
lability. The tradition of caches of bifacial blanks and
tools continues in Northeastern Japan, e.g., a cache
of 29 items at the Tsukinoki site (Fig. 7.5; Aomori;
Ichimachida, Hatakeyama 1983), while the other
caches demonstrate the deposits of obsidian cobbles
(Obora site, Nagano; Ichizawa et al. 1987) or flakes
(Ota site, Akita; Yachi, Osanai 1991)10, adzes (Ka-
buttsuppara site, Yamanashi; Yamamoto, Imahuku
1992) or points (Ueshimizu 4 site, Hokkaido; Koshi-
da et al. 1991), or even special tool-kits, hidden in
clay vessels (Musashidai site, Tokyo and Tsukakoshi-
mukoyama site, Saitama; Sakazume et al. 1991).
The Late (4300–3200 cal PB) and Final (3200–2400
cal PB) Jōmon sub-periods are characterized by cold-
er temperatures, visible decrease in population and
a local fragmentation of cultural characteristics, and
more than 50% of all the Final Jōmon sites are in
northern Honshu. The lithic caching is confirmed by
Fig. 5. Russian Far East. Ushki I. 1 Position of the cache with
the microcores preforms; 2-3 drawings of the feature.
10 From several dozens to several hundred in each cache.
Andrey V. Tabarev, Darya A. Ivanova, and Yoshitaka Kanomata
32
66 examples at the Late and at least 20 at
the Final Jōmon sites from Kyushu in the
south to Hokkaido in the north. In terms of
content, lithic caches demonstrate the keep-
ing of raw materials and flakes (Komakino
site, Aomori; Kodama 2006), core preforms
and tool blanks (e.g., Ichinohara site, Ka-
goshima; Shigemasa et al. 2006), along
with caches of arrowpoints and axes/adzes
(Fig. 7.6; Fujiishi site Shizuoka, Ahyou 6 Ku
site, Iwate; Katsumata et al. 2012; Segawa
et al. 2000). Of special interest are caches
of neatly polished axes and chisels placed
as precious and prestige items in ceramic
vessels (Shudainojo site, Akita; Sugawara,
Yasuda 1992).
This review of the Palaeolithic – Jōmon lith-
ic caches clearly shows that these materials
are an extremely informative research base.
It is clear that the high acidity of far eastern
soils prevents the preservation of any orga-
nic materials in the caches (bone, antler, wood, etc.),
which could represent instruments for knapping and
pressure11, leather or bark containers for keeping
items, and, in some cases, burial contexts and burial
offerings. Despite this, lithic caches illustrate the
wide range of technological and behavioural aspects
of culture.
Conclusions and perspectives
The tradition of lithic caches in the Palaeo-
lithic – Neolithic of the Far East demonstra-
tes their multiplicity (more than 400 cases),
high diversity, duration, dynamics, and lo-
cal variability. As a historical phenomenon
it fully meets the longue durée model requi-
rements. In terms of archaeology, we are
dealing with the special strategy of storing
lithics which were extracted from chaîne
opératoire for some time to be kept in a
special place with/without subsequent re-
turn and use.
The further research perspective includes
three important directions. First of all, it is
necessary to study the ‘biography and ana-
tomy’ of lithic caches which suggest the
detailed technological analysis of the arte-
facts, dating of caching features, raw mate-
rial tracking, contextual data, and use-wear
study. The last method, for example, can help to fi-
gure out if some of the tools were in use right before
caching (Kanomata 2010).
Secondly, it is extremely important to understand
and interpret the functional division of lithic caches.
There are several theoretical approaches to this prob-
lem in the archaeological literature devoted to the
caches in the other regions of the world. For exam-
11 Such instruments are known, for example, for some Clovis caches (Anzick, Richey-Roberts) in North America (Clovis Caches 2014).
Fig. 6. Japanese Islands. Sites with caches illustrated in the ar-
ticle. 1 Onbara 1, Okayama; 2 Mikoshiba, Nagano; 3 Nanat-
suguri, Nagano; 4 Ondashi, Yamagata; 5 Tsukinoki, Aomo-
ri; 6 Ahyu 6 Ku, Iwate.
Fig. 7. Japanese Islands. Lithic caches. 1 Onbara 1, Palaeo-
lithic, preforms of cores; 2 Mikoshiba, Incipient Jōmon, bi-
facial points; 3 Nanatsuguri, Incipient Jōmon, axes; 4 On-
dashi, Early Jōmon, tools and blanks; 5 Tsukinoki, Middle
Jōmon, axes; 6 Ahyu 6 Ku, Late Jōmon, arrowpoints.
Knap & keep> Late Palaeolithic-Neolithic caches, Far East
33
ple, some researchers working with the materials
of Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) in the eastern Me-
diterranean distinguish ’deposits’ (dépôts) composed
of a series of homogenous items, ’reserve’ (réserve)
comprising a wider, heterogeneous set of selected
preforms, and ‘caches’ as a whole package hidden
for a specific (secret, ritual, ceremonial) reason (Ast-
ruc, Ibáñez, and Gonzalez-Urquijo 2003.70). Ac-
cording to another model with the subdivision into
functional (stocks) and symbolical (caches) mean-
ings, stock includes ’deposits’, ’reserves‘ and ’hoards’
(Barzilai, Nigel Goring-Morris 2007.280). The term
’cache’, for many scholars, is connected to various
forms of ritual or ceremonial activities. For example,
caches of highly elaborated obsidian bifaces or pris-
matic blades in the Maya area (Mesoamerica) may
be ’dedicatory caches’ (prior the construction of any
sacred building or temple), or ’intrusive caches’
(placed into the existing structure). Both types of
caches were prepared for special occasions and with
final destination without return (Kunen, Galindo,
and Chase 2002). Any of these approaches and mo-
dels could be useful for the functional division of the
far eastern lithic caches.
Third, it may be very interesting and productive to
correlate the data on the far eastern region with the
neighbouring territories, such as the Korean Penin-
sula, where the information of lithic caches is still
waiting for the study (Seong 2015), and with the
other regions of the world (Near East, Europe, etc.).
Recent experience of the comparisons of the Clovis
Paleoindian in North American caches, and Solutrean
Volgu biface cache in France (Kilby 2018) fully de-
monstrates the promise of this approach, so the fur-
ther study of the ’knap & keep’ strategy awaits intri-
guing continuation.
The authors are deeply grateful to Dr. T. Tsutsumi
(Asama Jomon Museum, Japan) and Dr. D. Kilby (Te-
xas State University, USA) for the chances to observe
some important archaeological collections, for advice
and priceless comments on the topic of lithic caches.
The research was supported by the Russian Scientific
Foundation (Project #19-18-00003 “Neolithic Civiliza-
tions of Eurasia: Jomon, Japanese Archipelago – Ori-
gin, Early Stage, Local Peculiarities”).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
References
∴
Astruc L., Ibáñez J. J., and Gonzalez-Urquijo J. 2003. “Dé-
pôts”, “réserves” et “caches” de matériel lithique taillé au
Néolithique précéramique au Proche-Orient: Quelle ges-
tion de l’outillage? Paléorient 1: 59–78.
https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.2003.4754
Barzilai O., Nigel Goring-Morris A. 2007. Bidirectional
Blade and Tool Caches and Stocks in the PPNB of the
Southern Levant. Systèmes techniques et communautés
du Néolithique précéramique au Proche-Orient: 277–
294.
Derevianko A. P. 1970. Novopetrovskaya kul’tura Sred-
nego Amura. Nauka. Novosibirsk. (in Russian)
Derevianko A. P., Kononenko N. A. 2003. Foraging Popu-
lation of the Sea of Japan during the Late Pleistocence
– Early Holocene. Institute of Archaeology and Ethno-
graphy. Novosibirsk.
Derevianko A. P., Nesterov S. P., Tabarev A. V., +4 authors,
and Matsuzaki H. 2020. Novopetrovka III-an Early Neoli-
thic Site in the Western Amur Basin and Its Chronology.
Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia
4: 57–66.
https://doi.org/10.17746/1563-0110.2020.48.4.057-066
Dyakov V. 1997. The Oldest Habitation Site on the West
Coast of the Sea of Japan. Current Research in the Pleis-
tocene 14: 20–21.
Fedorchenko A. Yu., Belousova N. E. 2020. Upper Palaeo-
lithic of Kamchatka: the main research results of the 1980s
– early 1990s and current problems at the present stage.
Stratum plus 1: 305–339.
Frison G., Bradley B. 1999. The Fenn Cache, Clovis
Weapon and Tools. One Horse Land & Cattle Co. Santa
Fe, NM.
Gladyshev S., Popov A., Tabarev A., Olsen J. W., and Gun-
chinsuren B. 2011. First Known Paleolithic Cache in Mon-
golia. Current Research in the Pleistocene 28: 58–60.
Hashidume J., Shevkomud I. Y., Uchida K., Kato H., and
Naganuma M. 2019. Paleoenvironmental changes and
Human behavior during the Terminal Plesitocene in
the Lower Amur River Basin. Vol. 4: Excavations at the
Andrey V. Tabarev, Darya A. Ivanova, and Yoshitaka Kanomata
34
Oshinovaya Rechka 10 site (2015). The Niigata Prefectu-
ral Museum of History. Nigata. (in Japanese)
Hayashi S., Maruyama S., Inada T., +16 authors, and Keally
C. T. 2008. Mikoshiba. Shinmae Shoseki Publishing Cen-
ter. Nagano. (in Japanese)
Huckel B. B., Kilby D. J. B. 2014. Clovis Caches: Recent
Discoveries and New Research. University of New Me-
xico Press. Albuquerque.
Ichimachida T., Hatakeyama N. 1983. Matsubara, Jinba-
kawahara and Tsukinoki sites. Aomori Prefecture Archa-
eology Center. Aomori. (in Japanese)
Ichizawa H., Otake N., Komatsu H., +7 authors, and Mo-
mose H. 1987. Okubo-B, Kudaribayashi, Nishibayashi-A,
Obora, Zentana-A, Zentana-B (Hakusan), Nakajima-A,
Nakajima-B, Yanagaito Sites. Nagano Prefecture Archaeo-
logy Center. Nagano. (in Japanese)
Inada T., Yamamoto M., Mitsuishi N., +7 authors, and Ha-
yashi S. 2009. Onbara 1 Site. Onbara Sites Research As-
sociation. Okayama. (in Japanese)
Kaner S., Taniguchi Y. 2017. The Development of Pottery
and Associated Technological Developments in Japan, Ko-
rea, and the Russian Far East. In J. Habu, P. Lape, and J.
Olsen (eds.), Handbook of East and Southeast Asian Ar-
chaeology. Springer. New York: 321–345.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6521-2_22
Kanomata Y. 2008. Study of the large-sized bifacial stone
core group excavated in the Northeast Honshu. Palaeo-
lithic Archaeology 70: 59–70. (In Japanese)
2010. Functional analysis of stone tools put into the
cache-pit at Nogawa site from the final stage of the Ple-
istocene. Journal of the Japanese Archaeological As-
sociation 30: 47–64. (in Japanese)
Kanomata Y., Tabarev A. 2020. A newly discovered cache
of large biface lithics from northern Honshu, Japan. Anti-
quity 94(374): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2020.28
Katsumata N., Mibu R., and Sugiyama K. 2012. Fujiishi
Site III. Shizuoka Prefecture Archaeology Center. Shizu-
oka. (in Japanese)
Kilby J. D. 2018. A North American Perspective on the
Volgu Biface Cache from Upper Paleolithic France and
its relationship to the “Solutrean Hypothesis“ for Clovis
Origins. Quaternary International 515: 197–207. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2018.06.019
Kobayashi Y., Naoi M. 1982. Shuto-yashiki. Shiojiri City
Education Board. Shiojiri. (in Japanese)
Kodama T. 2006. Komakino Site IX. Aomori City Educa-
tion Board. Aomori. (in Japanese)
Kononenko N. A. 2001. Ecology of cultural dynamics of
archaeological sites in the Zerkalnaya River valley at the
Terminal Pleistocene – Early Holocene (the Ustinovka
Complex, Russian Far East). Archaeology, Ethnology and
Anthropology of Eurasia 1: 40–59.
Kornfeld M., Tabarev A. 2009. The French Connection? Or
is It? Current Research in the Pleistocene 26: 90–92.
Koshida K., Nishida S., Tachikawa T., +4 authors, and Na-
waki T. 1991. Kamishimizu 4, Kyoei 2 and Kyoei 3 Si-
tes. Hokkaido Archaeology Center. Ebetsu. (in Japanese)
Kunen J. L., Galindo M. J., and Chase E. 2002. Pits and
bones: Identifying Maya ritual behavior in the archaeo-
logical record. Ancient Mesoamerica 13: 197–211.
Kurimura T., Sakagawa S., Fujita R., Muraki J., and Ube
Y. 1982. Excavation Report of Choshichiyachi Site. Ha-
chinohe City Education Board. Hachinohe. (in Japanese)
Masojc M., Szykulski J., Gunchinsuren B., Odsuren D., Wi-
niarska-Kabacinska M., and Szmit M. 2019. A Levalloisian
jasper cache from the Arts Bogdyn Nuruu massif in the
Gobi Altai Mountains, southern Mongolia. Comptes Ren-
dus Palevol 18: 479–491.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2019.02.003
Matsui M. 1980. A group of stone implements from the
Narukasanka Site, Fukui Prefecture. Rokuseyama kofun
gun. Fukui ken maizō bunkazai chōsa hōkoku 4: 155–
180. (in Japanese)
Miei H., Hirakiba H. Fukunaga S. and Ishiharada T. 2005.
Minamitashiro Site. Kagoshima Prefecture Archaeology
Center. Kagoshima. (in Japanese)
Nakamura Y., Tsuiki H. 2008. Nanatsuguri Site: Excava-
tion of a Late Palaeolithic and Early Jomon Site. Shina-
no town Education Board. Shinano. (in Japanese)
Naoe Y., Suzuki H. 2007. Shirataki Sites 7. Hokkaido Ar-
chaeology Center. Ebetsu. (in Japanese)
Okladnikov A. P. 1968. Stranica iz zhizni paleolitiches-
kogo mastera: klad kamennyh izdelij u pos. Ail (s. Kuze-
deevo). Iz istorii Sibiri i Altaya. Barnaul: 58–70. (in Rus-
sian)
Omoto K., Takeishi K., Nishida S., and Fukui J. 2010. Ca-
librated 14C ages of Jomon sites, NE Japan, and their sig-
nificance. Radiocarbon 52: 534–546.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200045574
Knap & keep> Late Palaeolithic-Neolithic caches, Far East
35
Ono N. 1897. A large stone spearhead and elaborate
stone arrowheads. Anthropological Society of Tokyo 13:
51–53. (in Japanese)
Ponkratova I. Y., Chachula J., and Clausen I. 2021. Chro-
nology and environmental context of the early prehisto-
ric peopling of Kamchatka, the Russian North Far East.
Quaternary Science Reviews 252: 106702.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2020.106702
Sagawa M., Suzuki M. 2006. Lithic Assemblage from the
Western Terrace of the Hinata Caves. Vol. I. Spear Point
Workshop in the Incipient Jomon. Tohoku Gakuin Univer-
sity, Board of Education. Takahata-machi, Yamagata Pre-
fecture. Ukitami Fudoki-no-oka Archaeology Museum. (in
Japanese)
Sakazume H., Hayakawa I., Kawachi K., Tokieda K., and
Ogawa N. 1996. Musashi-kokubunji temple western area:
Musashidai site 3. Tokyo Metropolitan Huchu Hospital
Sites Research Association. Tokyo. (in Japanese)
Sato S., Nagahashi I., Sasaki Y., Sato M., and Karube H.
1990. Excavation Report of Ondashi Site. Yamagata Pre-
fecture Archaeology Center. Takahata. (in Japanese)
Segawa T., Obara S., and Takahashi S. 2000. Excavation
Report of Ahyou site Loc. 6, V. Towa Town Education
Board. Towa. (in Japanese)
Seong C. 2015. Diversity of Lithic Assemblages and Evo-
lution of Late Palaeolithic Culture in Korea. Asian Per-
spectives 1: 91–112.
https://doi.org/10.1353/asi.2015.0004
Shigemasa M., Migaki K., Terahara T., and Morita I. 2006.
Ichinohara Site Loc. 5. Kagoshima Prefecture Archaeo-
logy Center. Kagoshima. (in Japanese)
Shimamuro O., Toya K., Tanaka K., Nakamura Y., Mochi-
zuki A., and Tsutsumi T. 2009. Kokajihara Site Karasa-
wa B Site: Transitional Lithic Industries of the Termi-
nal Upper Palaeolithic to the Incipient Jomon. Archeo-
logical Monographs. Shimae Shoseki Publishing Center.
(in Japanese with English summary)
Shinkai K., Yoshikawa T., and Chiba F. 2006. Karasuno-
uwadai Site. Akita Prefecture Archaeology Center. Akita.
(in Japanese)
Sugawara T., Yasuda T. 1992. Mujinazaki B, Shudai-no-
jo Sites. Akita City Education Board. (in Japanese)
Tabarev A. V. 2012. Dal’nevostochnaya al’ternativa (esh-
che raz o putyah i vremeni pervonachal'nogo zaseleniya
amerikanskogo kontinenta). Rossijskij arheologicheskij
ezhegodnik 2: 103–147.
Tabarev A. V., Gillam J. C., Kanomata Y., and Gunchisuren
B. 2013. A Paleolithic Cache at Tolbor (Northern Mongo-
lia). Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eura-
sia 3: 14–21.
Tahira Y., Nohira Y. 2008. Sonoda and Ozono Sites. Na-
katane Town Education Board. Nakatane. (in Japanese)
Thévenot J.-P., Affolter J., Almeida M., +5 authors, and
Teurquety G. 2019. Les silex solutréens de Volgu (Ri-
gny-sur-Arroux, Saône-et-Loire, France). Un sommet
dans l’art de la “pierre taillée”. Revue archéologique de
l’Est. Supplmént 48. Société archéologique de l’Est de la
France. Dijon.
Tsuchiya T., Tani K. 2000. Hinatabayasih B, Hinataba-
yashi A, Nanatsuguri, Ohira B Sites, 15, Paleolithic Pe-
riod. Nagano Prefecture Archaeology Center. Nagano. (in
Japanese)
West F. H. 1996. American Beginnings. The Prehistory
and Palaeoecology of Beringia. The University of Chica-
go Press. Chicago.
Yachi K., Osanai T. 1991. Ota Site. Akita Prefecture Archa-
eology Center. Akita. (in Japanese)
Yamamoto S., Imahuku R. 1992. Kabuttsuppara Site. Ya-
manashi Prefecture Archaeology Center. Yamanashi. (in
Japanese)