' 
В Featured 
Deer Stone 4 
Feature 2 
GS 
William Fitzhugh, Editor, 
Jamsranjav Bayarsaikhan 
and Peter K. Marsh, 
Assistant Editors 
Feature 4 Feature 7 
Ashy Soil 
Feature 3 
Feature l 
= Horse head 
and vertebrea 
me Deer Stone Project 
Anthropological Studies in Mongolia 2002-200A 

TheD еег St one I roject 
thropologica! Studies in M°ng°lia 2002-2004 
William W. Fitzhugh, Editor 
Jamsranjav Bayarsaikhan, Assistant Editor 
Peter K. Marsh, Assistant Editor 
Published by: 
Arctic Studies Center 
National Museum of Natural History 
Smithsonian Institution 
Washington, D.C. 
National Museum of Mongolian History 
Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia 
2005 
■ ^\T Н s О NlAfy' 
DEC 14 2016 
UBRAft^ 
National Museum of Mongolian History, Ulaanbaatar. (photo: Fitzhugh) 
© 2005 by the Arctic Studies Center, National Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 37012, Smithsonian 
Institution, Washington D.C. 20013-7012, and National Museum of Mongolian History, Ulaanbaatar, 
Mongolia. All rights reserved. 
ISBN : 09673429-9-6; ISBN 13: 978-0-9673429-9-3 
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data: 
The Deer Stone Project: Anthropological Studies in Mongolia 2002-2004. / William W. Fitzhugh, editor, 
Jamsranjav Bayarsaikhan, assistant editor, and Peter K. Marsh, assistant editor, p. cm. 
Papers originally presented at a symposium and workshops in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, 2-4 June, 2004. 
Includes bibliographical references and index. 
ISBN-13: 978-0-9673429-9-3 (pbk. : alk. paper 
ISBN-10: 0-9673429-9-6 (pbk. : alk. paper) 
1. Darkhat (Mongolian people)—Implements—Congresses. 2. Darkhat (Mongolian people)—Domestic 
animals—Congresses. 3. Darkhat (Mongolian people)—Antiquities—Congresses. 4. Ethnology—Mongolia— 
Khovsgol Aimag—Congresses.. 5. Reindeer herding—Mongolia—Khovsgol Aimag—Congresses. 6. 
Deer in art—Congresses. 7. Stone carving—Mongolia—Khovsgol Aimag—Congresses. 8. Excavations 
(Archaeology)—Mongolia—Khovsgol Aimag—Congresses. 9. Khovsgol Aimag (Mongolia)—Antiquities— 
Congresses. I. Fitzhugh, William W., 1943- II. Bayarsaikhan, Jamsranjav. III. Marsh, Peter К. IV. Arctic 
Studies Center (National Museum of Natural History) V. Mongolyn Undesnii Tuukhiin Muzei. 
DS798.422.D37D44 2005 
931 —dc22 
2005037693 
Publication of this work has been made possible in part by grants from the Trust for Mutual Understanding 
and the Department of State Ambassador’s Fund, and production assistance from the American Center for 
Mongolian Studies. 
Volume design: Peter K. Marsh 
Cover design: Helena Sharp and Marcia Bakry 
Production editors: Peter Marsh and Helena Sharp 
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for 
Information Sciences - Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992. 
Printed in Mongolia by: A dm on 
Front cover: Ulaan Tolgoi Deer Stone Site, Hovsgol Aimag, Mongolia, and excavation map for Deer Stone 4 
excavation, (photo: W. Fitzhugh; illustration: H. Sharp); Back cover: 2004 Mongolian-American expedition 
with West Taiga Tsaatan (Dukha) at head of Evdt valley, 19 June, 2004. (photo: W. Fitzhugh) 
ii 
X! 
(Contents 
/Acknowledgements 
[_ist of figures vi 
1_ist of ~]~ables x 
Yreface by Rr. Ocbir 
Part |: (Conference f^eports 
1 ~Rbe R)eer 5t°ne Rreject: Exploring Rjortbern Mongolia 
and its /\rctic (Connections 
William W. Fitzhugh 
2 Tbe /Ancient /Art of Mongolian Reindeer Rierding 
Oi. Sukhbaatar 
3 RTamanistic Rjements in Mongolian R)eerR4one Art 
Jamsranjav Bayarsaikhan 
4 Rock Art f rom tbe R)arkbat~West Riovsgol Region 
T. Sanjmyatav 
3 R)urial Mounds in RJovsgol Aimag, Nortbern Mongolia: 
Rrelirmnary Results from 2003 and 2004 
Bruno Frohlich, Naran Bazarsad, and Baatartsogt 
6 R)ronze Age R)u rial Mounds in RJortbern Mongolia: RJ5e °f 
(315 in Identifying Apatial and Temporai Variation 
Eliza Wallace and Bruno Frohlich 
/ Tsaabug, Tsaabag, Asaatan: R tbno-R cology of Mongolia's 
Dukba Reind eerRjerders 
Paula T. DePriest 
8 R tbnograpby of tbe West Taiga ~Rsaatan Reindeer Rjerders 
Ts. Ayush 
7 Rourteentb (Rentury Mummified Rjuman Remains from tbe 
(3obi R)esert, Mongolia 
Naran Bazarsad, Bruno Frohlich, Natsag Batbold, and David Hunt 
3 
37 
4 i 
57 
99 
107 
121 
i О. (Comparative Analysis of /\\pine/Arctic Plants in Piovsgol i 55 
Province, Northern Mongolia 
Ts.Tsendeehuu 
i 1 . Mod ern Vegetation of the pjovsgo! (Region of Mongolia: I 55 
AP ossible )Cey to the Premise of the jce Age Mamm°th 
Ateppe of the Arctic 
Steven B. Young 
Yart 11: M useum Wor^sh op Reports 
І2 Workshop A ummaries - introduction j 61) 
Harriet F. Beaubien 
i 5 Archaeological (Conservation: (Collections (Care from 1 <?/ 
pield to Museum 
Harriet F. Beaubien 
1-4- Model-Maki ng and (Casting IS 5 
Paul Rhymer and Carolyn Thome 
1 5 Integrated Pest Management in Museums 1 7 1 
Jeremy Jacobs and Deborah Bell 
1 6 pield and Laboratory (Collections Management: 201 
Artifacts and pjuman Remains 
David R. Hunt 
1 7 P xcavation and Areatment of CAeletai Remains 2 1 1 
David R. Hunt 
Part I j j: /\rchaeological fAeld Reports 
1 8. Archaeological Reports from the 2004- fCeer Atone Preject 225 
Jamsranjav Bayarsaikhan, Ts. Odbaatar, and William W. Fitzhugh 
IV 
AA nowledgments 
The Smithsonian-Mongolian Deer Stone Project has conducted fieldwork in Mongolia since 
2002 and has issued two previous field reports. This report is the third and most comprehensive, 
documenting results of work to-date in a set of symposium papers, workshop reports, and 
archaeological field reports of the 2004 field season. It is therefore an appropriate venue to note 
the contributions made by so many people and institutions. 
The Deer Stone Project would never have taken place had Ed Nef of Inlingua School of Languages 
of Arlington, Virginia, not invited Steven Young and I to join his 2001 expedition to the little- 
studied Hovsgol/Darkhat region of northern Mongolia. Nef’s expedition and its visits to deer stone 
sites and its humanitarian mission to the Tsaatan (Dukha) reindeer herders provided the stimulus 
that launched the Deer Stone Project and brought together many of its scholarly team. Dooloonjin 
Orgilmaa and the Inlingua/Santis Foundation have also been instrumental in our work. We thank 
these organizers and friends, as well as our other research partners and the many students and 
assistants who accompanied our yearly projects. Their efforts are more specifically noted in the 
papers that follow. 
Special thanks are due to a large number of institutions: National Museum of Mongolian History, 
Mongolian Academy of Science and its Archaeology and Botany Institutes, Embassy of Mongolia, 
Trust for Mutual Understanding, United States Embassy in Mongolia, U.S. Department of State’s 
Ambassador’s Fund, and the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History and its Department 
of Anthropology and Arctic Studies Center, and the Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and 
Education. Private support has come from Ed Nef, Robert Bateman Arctic Fund, Robert Malott 
Foundation, and Alicia Campi. In Ulaanbaatar, we have had a strong partnership with the American 
Center for Mongolian Studies and the Mongolian National University. 
Our fieldwork has been facilitated by the Governor L. Damdinsuren of Hovsgol Aimag and various 
sum and village administrations. Countless herders, store-keepers, and children offered unforgettable 
Mongolian hospitality wherever we went. The Tsaatan have been especially generous in welcoming 
us in their villages and in their tents, and providing us with food, horses, reindeer, guides, and 
knowledge about their lands, lives, and culture. Our vehicle drivers, cooks, and local scholars from 
Muren, Ulaan Uul, and other towns gave us safe passage, fine meals, and expert local knowledge. 
Adiyabold Namkhai has been singularly important as translator and coordinator since 2002. 
Finally, this publication could not have been prepared without the editorial assistance of J. 
Bayarsaikhan and formatting and coordination work of Peter Marsh. Translation services were 
provided by Solongo Chuluunbaatar. Helena Sharp provided production management, technical 
editing, and design. Marcia Bakry and Sharp worked up field maps and diagrams from field sketches, 
and designed the cover. Elizabeth Eldredge generously contributed her deer stone illustration 
drawings. Photography is by the authors of the papers they appear in unless otherwise attributed. 
v 
List of Г« ures 
Fig. no. 
Fig. 1.1 
Fig. 1.2 
Fig. 1.3 
Fig. 1.4 
Fig. 1.5 
Fig. 1.6 
Fig. 1.7 
Fig. 1.8 
Fig. 1.9 
Fig. 1.10 
Fig. 1.11 
Fig. 1.12 
Fig. 1.13 
Fig. 1.14 
Fig. 1.15 
Fig. 1.16 
Fig. 1.17 
Fig. 1.18 
Fig. 1.19 
Fig. 1.20 
Fig. 1.21 
Fig. 1.22 
Fig. 1.23 
Fig. 1.24a 
Fig. 1.24b 
Fig. 1.25 
Fig. 1.26 
Fig. 1.27 
Fig. 1.28 
Fig. : 2.1 
Fig.; 3.1. 
Fig.: 3.2 
Fig.: 3.3 
Fig. 3.4 
Fig. 3.5 
vi 
Description 
Map of field location. 
Expedition entering the mountains with Tsaatan west of Soyo. 
Ancient and modem Alaskan Eskimo art motifs. 
Human-animal spirit engraving on harpoon winged object. 
Open-work ivory carving from Ekven site, Chukotka, and Alaskan Ipiutak bone ornament. 
Bronze bird-man image from Yamal, Western Siberia. 
Deer stone engraving of spirit maral (Asian Elk) with water bird beak or bill. 
19"' century Bering Sea Eskimo harpoon socket-piece with predator helping spirit carving. 
Ipiutak spirit sucking tube from Ipiutak site, Alaska. 
(a) Deer Stone 1 at Ulaan Tolgoi (Erkhel) site and (b) Ushkiin Uver deer stone. 
Distribution of deer stone sites in Mongolia. 
Distribution of West and East Taiga Tsaatan (Dukha) in Darkhat-Hovsgol region. 
Melting pingo in Hovsgol aimag in 2001. 
Tsaatan (Dukha) reindeer-herders in Menge Bulag tundra camp. 
Ushkiin Uver deer stone site. 
Sanjmyatav inspects vandalized Iron Age rock art site at Tolijgii Boom, Soyo. 
Late prehistoric hearth in Upper Level at Soyo 1. 
Neolithic level excavation map of Soyo 1, Feature 3. 
Testing the pit feature at Menge Bulag 1. 
Ulaan Tolgoi Deer Stone 5 trench, 2002. 
Ulaan Tolgoi circular cremation feature, 2002. 
Ulaan Tolgoi deer stone site, 2003. 
Excavation map of Ulaan Tolgoi DS-4 area. 
Excavations at Ulaan Tolgoi Deer Stone 4, 2003. 
Feature 2 east-facing horse head burial at Ulaan Tolgoi DS-5. 
Deer Stone 4 with one of several pecking stones. 
2002 team members collecting bones from looted khirigsuur at Ulaan Tolgoi. 
Erkhel Lake granite quarry. 
Shamanistic equipment from Angarkhai Hill cache, Sumber, Arbulag sum. 
Rock art displaying a reindeer herder with a long hunting spear. 
Pazyryk body tattoo decoration. 
Typical deer images on deer stones. 
The handle of a shaman drum on display at the National Museum of Mongolian History. 
The interior of a shaman drum at NMMH. 
The handle and drum beater of the Akhanghai Mountain shaman drum. 
Fig. 3.6 
Fig. 3.7 
Fig. 4.1 
Fig. 4.2 
Fig. 4.3 
Fig. 4.4 
Fig. 4.5 
Fig. 4.6 
Fig. 4.7 
Fig. 4.8 
Fig. 5.1 
Fig. 5.2 
Fig. 5.3 
Fig. 5.4 
Fig. 5.5 
Fig. 5.6 
Fig. 5.7 
Fig. 5.8 
Fig. 5.9 
Fig. 5.10 
Fig. 5.11 
Fig. . 5.12 
Fig. 5.13 
Fig. 5.14 
Fig. 5.15 
Fig. 5.16 
Fig. 5.17 
Fig. 5.18 
Fig. 5.19 
Fig. 5.20 
Fig. 5.21 
Fig. 5.22 
Fig. 6.1 
Fig. 6.2 
Fig. 6.3 
Fig. 6.4 
Fig. 7.1 
Fig. 7.2 
Fig. 7.3 
Fig. 7.4 
Fig. 7.5 
Fig. 7.6 
Fig. 7.7 
Shamanic figure from Bayan Ulgii. 
Palate-shaped pentagonal figure. 
Tolijgii Boom rock art site near Soyo in 2002. View to west. 
Tolijgii Boom site with defaced panel showing water bird. 
Tolijgii Boom site showing defaced panel with a human insidea field of dots. 
Tolijgii Boom site showing a person outside a field of dots. 
Bichigt Bulag rock art panel with hunting scenes and dots. 
Narangiin Bulag rock art panel with field of dots and people. 
Ider River cave. 
Human figure in Ider Cave. 
Areas of 2003 and 2004 research. 
Ulaan Tolgoi Class III mound with circular fence. 
Ulaan Tolgoi Class I mound with squared fence. 
Five of 14 deer stones located at Ushkiin Uver. 
The two most common expressions of khirigsuur: mounds with circular or square fences. 
Three small mounds at Class I mound at Ulaan Tolgoi. 
Matt Gallon recording points on Class II burial mound at Ulaan Tolgoi. 
Class I mounds on the flat steppe southeast of Ulaan Tolgoi deer stone complex. 
Class III mound with squared fence and standing comer stones. 
Mound no. 20 at Ulaan Tolgoi. 
Four squared and two circular mounds at Ulaan Tolgoi. 
Small mound feature, Soyo mound no. S04-40 north of the Khugiin Gol River. 
Slab burial at Ulaan Tolgoi (Mound E03-29). 
Small chamber added to the external part of center mound (Mound E03-30). 
Landsat image of Soyo area. Areas А, В & C enlarged in Figures 16, 17 & 18. 
Soyo area A. Four clusters of mounds all located on southern hill sides. 
Soyo area B. Class I mounds (white circles) clustering around the Khugiin Gol River. 
Soyo area C. Two clusters of mostly Class I and II mounds. 
Ulaan Tolgoi research area. 
Ulaan Tolgoi Area A. 
Mounds located about 5 km west of the Ushkiin Uver deer stone complex. 
Landsat image depicting area between Erkhel Lake and Ushkin Uver. 
Class I mounds (located on the flat steppe) at Soyo. 
Three of the five deer stones at Ulaan Tolgoi. 
Soyo area A depicting large concentration of mostly Class III mounds. 
Landsat image (a) and map (b) showing the distribution of Class I, II, and III mounds. 
Map of Mongolia showing the location of Tsaatan reindeer herding. 
Tsaatan reindeer herders examining a bear skull, near Ulaan Taiga, August 2003. 
Tsaatan reindeer uses and products. 
Tsaatan shelters. 
Reindeer and cows on the summer pasture at Menge Bulag. 
Tsaatan children riding reindeer in the fall pasture. 
Plants used by Tsaatan. 
Fig. 7.8 
Fig. 7.9 
Fig. 7.10 
Fig. 8.1 
Fig. 8.2 
Fig. 8.3 
Fig. 8.4 
Fig. 8.5 
Fig. 8.6 
Fig. 8.7 
Fig. 8.8 
Fig. 8.9 
Fig. 8.10 
Fig- 8.11 
Fig. 8.12 
Fig. 9.1 
Fig. 9.2 
Fig. 9.3 
Fig. 9.4 
Fig. 9.5 
Fig. 9.6 
Fig. 9.7 
Fig. 9.8 
Fig. 9.9 
Fig. 9.10 
Fig. 9.11 
Fig. 9.12 
Fig. 9.13 
Fig. 9.14 
Fig. 10.1 
Fig. 10.2 
Fig. 10.3 
Fig. 10.4 
Fig. 10.5 
Fig- 10.6 
Fig. 10.7 
Fig. 10.8 
Fig. 10.9 
Fig. 10.10 
Fig. 10.11 
Fig. 10.12 
Fig. 10.13 
Fig. 13.1 
viii 
Urts poles standing in a winter camp with larch and pine trees. 
Evidence of forest fire on a larch stand. 
Reindeer does and calf in the spring pasture. 
Equipment and rope for reindeer herders. 
Reindeer herders have recently begun to herd other livestock. 
Tsaatan children riding reindeer to herd cows. 
Reindeer transportation. 
A Tsaatan child's reindeer saddle. 
A community settled in 2-3 urts. 
Inside an urts. 
The interior of an urts. 
Preparing breakfast. 
Some types of foods made from reindeer milk. 
An ongon-sakhiul of a reindeer herding family. 
The reindeer herder shaman, Suyun. 
Location of Hets Mountain Cave. 
Survey team. 
Hets Mountain area. 
Natsag Batbold entering the second tunnel. 
Lateral section of cave. 
Cave viewed from western end. 
N. Batbold and T. Amgalantugs mapping cave. 
Horizontal view of cave. 
Group 1 human remains. 
Group 1 human remains. 
Forty year-old woman with fractured neck. 
Facial view of forty year-old woman seen in Figure 9.11. 
Sampling material for dating purposes. 
Buddhist lama explaining paraphernalia. 
Areas covered in the research study. 
Jamso riverside environment where Phyllodoce coerulla grows. 
Phyllodoce coerulla, the new species of Mongolian flora found in Hovsgol. 
Saussurea dorogostaiskii, relic vegetation from glacial period, Jamso riverside, 2002. 
Caragana jubrta, relic vegetation from near Evt Mountain pass, 2002. 
Allium altaicum L., relic vegetation from the period of glaciation. 
Ledum palustre vegetation found in taiga while flowering. 
Rhodendron amreum, very rare vegetation in taiga near Uhert Mountain pass, 2001. 
Adonis mongolica, a very rare herb in taiga, near Toom Mountain pass, 2001. 
Equisetum, a main diet plant eaten by reindeer, called by Tsaatan, jaad. 
Bayandalai’s wife, Tsetsgee, with her son, 2002. 
Steven Young with Mongolian students at Tsaatan camp at Menge Bulag, 2001. 
Summer tundra pasture at Menge Bulag, 2001. 
Blocklift sequence. 
Fig. 13.2 
Fig. 13.3 
Fig. 13.4 
Fig. 13.5 
Fig. 13.6 
Fig. 13.7 
Fig. 13.8 
Fig. 14.1 
Fig. 14.2 
Fig. 14.3 
Fig. 14.4 
Fig- 18.1 
Fig. 18.2. 
Fig. 18.3 
Fig. 18.4 
Fig. 18.5 
Fig. 18.6 
Fig. 18.7 
Fig. 18.8 
Fig. 18.9 
Fig. 18.10 
Fig. 18.11 
Fig. 18.12 
Fig. 18.13 
Fig. 18.14 
Fig. 18.15 
Fig. 18.16 
Fig. 18.17 
Fig. 18.18 
Fig. 18.19 
Fig. 18.20 
Fig. 18.21 
Fig. 18.22 
Fig. 18.23 
Fig. 18.24 
Fig. 18.25 
Fig. 18.26 
Fig. 18.27 
Fig. 18.28 
Fig. 18.29 
Fig. 18.30 
Fig. 18.31 
Fig. 18.32 
A block-lifted deposit of fragile beads and bracelets. 
Fragile animal bones being faced with tissue in preparation for lifting. 
Reassembled ceramic vessel with minor fills and customized storage mount. 
Small metal artifacts, bagged and stored in a container with desiccated silica gel. 
Monitoring the salt levels during desalination of ceramic sherds. 
Fragile skeletal remains stored for protection in customized housing. 
Steatite seal with a silicone rubber mold. 
Cast of the deer stone in the National Museum of Mongolian History. 
Shopping at Ulaanbaatar market for model-making materials. 
Workshop participants examining deer stone mold. 
Paul Rhymer demonstrating molding and casting at the workshop 
Soyo 1, Feature 3 excavation in 2004. View north toward Khugiin Gol River. 
Soyo 1, Feature 3 south wall soil profile in Squares 3 and 4. 
Soyo 1, Feature 3, west wall profile of Square 4. 
Soyo 1, Feature 3, south wall profile of Square 5. 
Soyo 1, Feature 3, east wall profile of Square 5. 
Soyo 1, Feature 3, west wall profile of Square 5. 
Soyo 1, Feature 3 excavation map for Squares 1-5. 
Soyo 1, Feature 3, Square 3artifacts. 
Soyo 1, Feature 3, Square 3 artifacts. 
Soyo 1, Feature 3, Square 3 biface points no. 21, 22. 
Soyo 1, Feature 3, flint artifacts from Square 4. 
Soyo 1, Feature 3, ceramic artifacts from Square 5. 
Soyo 1, Feature 3, lithic artifacts from Square 5. 
Soyo 1, Feature 3, lithics artifacts from Square 5. 
Soyo 1, Feature 3, bone fragments from Square 5. 
Soyo 1, Feature 3, Square 5 level 1 map. 
Soyo 1, Feature 3, Square 5, Level 2 map. 
Soyo 1, Feature 3, Square 5, early Neolithic ceramics. 
Chudriin Daraa deer stone associated with a looted mound. 
Chudriin Daraa west feature excavation plan. 
Chudriin Daraa bone finds. 
Chudriin A small iron knife. 
Chudriin Daraa bone object decorated with triangular designs. 
Chudrrin Daraa birch-bark with fish scale decoration. 
Churdiin Daraa pelvic bone of small child. 
Chudriin Daraa bones from a child. 
Chudriin Daraa bones from a child. 
Chudriin Daraa bones from a child. 
Tsatstain Hoshuu site cleared to the top of the rock deposit. View to north. 
Tsatstain Hoshuu upper level rocks with antler fragment. 
Tsatstain Hoshuu upper level rocks showing locations of horse head offerings. 
Tsatstain Hoshuu excavation showing large rock slab north of the deer stone. 
Fig. 18.33 
Fig. 18.34 
Fig. 18.35 
Fig. 18.36 
Fig. 18.37 
Fig. 18.38 
Fig. 18.39 
Fig. 18.40 
Fig. 18.41 
Fig. 18.42 
Fig. 18.43 
Fig. 18.44 
Fig. 18.45 
Site of shaman’s cache at Angarkhai Mountain, Sumber village, Arbulag sum. 
A selection of shaman’s equipment recovered from the Angarkhai hill cache. 
Ulaan Tolgoi deer stone site showing Deer Stones 5 (left) and 4 before excavation. 
Ulaan Tolgoi (Erkhel) DS4, Feature 4 upper level rock structure. 
Ulaan Tolgoi DS4, Feature 4 lower level bone (B) and charcoal (CH) finds. 
Ulaan Tolgoi (Erkhel) DS4, Feature 4, soil profile of north wall from OS 8W to OS 4W. 
Ulaan Tolgoi (Erkhel) DS4, Feature 5, upper level rocks and lower level horse head. 
Ulaan Tolgoi (Erkhel) DS4, Feature 5 west wall soil profile ON 2W to 4N 2W. 
Ulaan Tolgoi (Erkhel) DS4, Feature 6 upper level rocks and finds in Square 4N 2E. 
Ulaan Tolgoi (Erkhel) DS4, Feature 6, lower level rocks and horse head burial. 
Ulaan Tolgoi (Erkhel) DS4, Feature 7 upper level map. 
Ulaan Tolgoi (Erkhel) DS4, profile from 2S/4W to 2S/1W. 
Calibrated plot of radiocarbon dates from deer stone sites. 
Table 
Table 
Table 
Table 
Table 
Table 
Table 
Table 
Table 
Table 
Table 
Table 
Table 
Table 
Table 
Table 
Table 
Table 
Table 
Table 
Table 
Table 
Table 
Table 
List о f T ab! es 
1.1 Radiocarbon dates from deer stone sites, 2002-2004. 
5.1 Distribution of mounds surveyed during 2003 and 2004. 
5.2 Distribution of Class I, II and III mounds. 
5.3 Distribution of mounds with circular and squared fences. 
5.4 Squared mound statistics. Ulan Tolgoi area. 
5.5 Squared mound statistics. Ulaan Tolgoi area. 
5.6 Deer stone locations recorded to 1/10 of one second. 
9.1 List of articulated human bodies found in the Hets Mountain Cave. 
10.1 Vascular plants of Hovsgol province. 
10.2 Comparison of the main groups of vascular plants. 
10.3 Comparison of the main families of vascular plants in Hovsgol and Alaska. 
10.4 Coefficient similarity of the dominant genera in the Hovsgol tundra. 
10.5 Comparison of the genus Ericaceae in Hovsgol and Alaska by coefficient similarity. 
10.6 Comparison of Ericaceae in Hovsgol and Central Siberia. 
10.7 Comparison of Ericaceae in Alaska and Central Siberia by coefficient similarity. 
10.8 Average amount of lichen eaten by reindeer per day. 
10.9 Plants grazed by Reindeer. 
10.10 Pasture capacity of reindeer rangeland. 
10.11. Productivity of tundra plants grazed by reindeer in summer pastures. 
10.12 Diet selection of the reindeer in their summer pasture. 
18.1 Artifacts found in Soyo-1, Feature 3, Square 3. 
18.2 Artifacts from Soyo-l/F3, Square 4. 
18.3 Artifacts from Soyo-1/F3, Square 5. 
18.4 Archaeological artifacts found in Soyo-l/F3, Square 5. 
x 
P re face 
American scientists and researchers have been exploring Mongolia since the beginning of the 
20th century. The famous Roy Chapman Andrews undertook field explorations in the Mongolian 
Gobi desert area beginning in 1910 and, made important discoveries of rare dinosaur fossils and 
archaeological artifacts dating to the Paleolithic and later periods. These scientific discoveries were 
new not only to Mongolia but also to world science. 
Although joint scientific work between Mongolians and Americans began more than a century 
ago, the relationship grew more distant throughout much of the 20th century. However, beginning 
in the 1990s, Mongolia shifted to a democracy and adopted a market-oriented economy, and from 
that time on Mongolian and American political, economical, and cultural ties have again begun to 
develop. We note with pride that the scientific associations between our two countries have played 
an important role in re-developing these ties. 
Since 2003, the National Museum of Natural History in the Smithsonian Institution and the 
National Museum of Mongolian History have jointly undertaken research work as part of the “Deer 
Stone Project.” This project has initiated a wide-ranging study of the environment and peoples of 
the Lake Hovsgol area of northern Mongolia. During the 2004 fieldwork season, team members 
excavated at the Soyo Tolgoi site in Ulaan Uul sum (county) in Hovsgol province. They also closely 
examined deer stones and their surrounding environments in the Ulaan Tolgoi area of Alag Erdene 
sum and the Tsatstain Hoshuu area of Renchinlhumbe sum. The archaeological data from these sites 
have been transfered to laboratories for further examination and dating. Studies are also continuing 
on the vegetation of the Lake Hovsgol area, including its diversity and environmental correlation 
with the lifestyles of the Tsaatan (reindeer herding) people of the province. 
We believe that the results of these environmental and ecological studies of the Lake Hovsgol 
area will contribute to the study of history and culture of not only the Mongolians, but also of 
the Central Asian nomads. Although this project started only a few years ago, it has helped many 
young Mongolian researchers and museum workers improve their knowledge of modern scientific 
equipment, technology, and research methodologies. This has been one of the many invaluable 
benefits of our joint research. 
We are presenting to you, our dear readers and researchers, in this first edition of the Deer 
Stone Project Field Reports, the results and new scientific tools that have been collected from the 
beginning of this joint project. This important book introduces new information and ideas to the 
study of the history, culture, and environment of Mongolia’s northernmost peoples. 
Finally, we would like to express thanks to the following people and organizations for their 
many contributions to this field research project: the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural 
History and its administration; Dr. William W. Fitzhugh, Director of the Smithsonian’s Arctic 
Studies Center; and Peter Marsh and the staff of the American Center for Mongolian Studies. To 
all of them we express our deepest appreciation and best wishes. 
Professor A. Ochir 
Director, National Museum of Mongolian History 
March 28, 2005 
xi 
Ѳмнѳх Уг 
А НУ-ын эрдэмтэд Монгол орныг судлах ажлыг бур XX зууны эхээр анх эхэлсэн юм. Алдарт 
эрдэмт эн Р.Ч. Эндрюс нарын судалгааны баг 1910-аад оноос эхлэн М онгол орны говь нут агт эртний 
судлалын хайгуул шинжилгээ хийж, эрт галавын амътадын яс, чулуун зэвсгийн улдцууд зэрэг нэп 
ховор чух ал дурсгалуудыг анх нээн олсон билээ. Энэ нь зѳвхѳн Монголын тѳдийгуй дэлхийн шинжлэх 
ухаанд гарсан шинэ ололт болсон юм. 
М онгол А меркийн шинжлэх ух ааны х арилцаа х олбоо х эдийгээр зуугаад жилийн ѳмнѳ эх элсэн 
боловч хэсэг хугацаанд зогсонги байдалтай байв. Харин 1990-ээд оноос М онгол улс ардчилал зах 
зээлийн харилцааны замыг сонгон замнах болсноос хойш Монгол-А Н У-ын улс тор, эдийн засаг, 
соёлын харилцаа ѳргѳжин хѳгжиж байна. Манай хоёр орны энэхуу харилцаанд эртний улбаатай 
шинжлэх ух ааны хамтын ажиллагаа ѳѳрийн байр суурийг эзэлж байгааг тэмдэглэхэд таатай 
байна. 
АНУ-ын Смитсоны Байгалийн туухийн ундэсний музей, Монголын ундэсний туухийн музей 
хамтран “Бугаи чулуун хѳиюѳ" эрдэм шинжилгээний тѳслийг 2003 оноос хэрэгжуулж байна. 
Энэ тѳслийн хурээнд Хѳвсгѳл нуурын орчны археологийн дурсгалууд, оршин суугчдын угсаатны 
бурэлдэх уун, т эдний соёл, амъдралын х эв маяг, байгаль- экологийн асуудлыг х амарсан ѳргѳн х урээт эй 
иж судалгаа хийж байна. 
Ѳнгѳрсѳн хугацаанд явуулсан хээрийн судалгааны явцад Хѳвсгѳл аймгийн Улаан-Уул сумын 
Соёо толгой хэмээх газарт шинэ чулуун зэвсгийн уеийн сууринг нээн илруулж, анхны туршилтын 
малтлага хийсэн байна. Мѳн Алаг- эрдэнэ сумын Улаан толгой, Ринченлхумбэ сумын Цацтайн 
хошуу зэрэг газарт буй буган чулуун хѳіиѳѳ, тууний тахилын байгууламжуудыг судлан, илэрч 
олдсон хэрэглэгдэхуунуудийн он цагийг лабориторит шинжлуулж байна. Мѳн Хѳвсгѳл нуурын 
орчныургамалжилт, тууний тѳрѳл онцлог байгаль-экологийн зохицолхийгээд, тэндэхийн цаатан 
ардын аж амьдралыг шинжлэн судалж байна. 
Туе тѳслийн судалгааны ур дун нь зѳвхѳн Монголчуудын тѳдийгуй Тѳв Азийн эртний 
нуудэлчдийн ту ух соёлын болон Хѳвсгѳл нуурын орчны байгаль-экологийн судалгаанд тодорхой 
хувь нэмрийг оруулна хэмээн бид найдаж байна. 
Тэрчлэн манай тѳслийн ажил эхлээд тѳдий л удаагуй боловч Монголын залуу судлаачид, 
музейн ажилтнууд суулийн уеийн шинэ техник, багаж хэрэгсэл, судалгааны аргатай танилцан, 
тэдгээрийгхэрэглэж сурах, мэргэжил боловсролоо дээшлуулэхэдмэдэгдэхуйц дѳхѳм болж байна. 
Энэ бол манай хамтын ажиллагааны бас нэг ѳгѳѳж юм. 
“Буган чулуу хѳшѳѳ” тѳслийн хамт олны судалгаа эхэлсэнээс хойш хуримтлуулсан 
шинжилгээний шинэ х эрэглэгдэх уун, судалгааны ур дунг эмхэтгэсэн анхны бутээлээ судлаачид, 
уншигч олонд толилуулж байна. 
Энэхуу ном нь нуудэлчдийн ту ух соёлын болон байгаль - экологийн судалгаанд шинэ мэдээ 
х эрэглэгдэх уун, шинэ санаа дугнэлтийг оруулж ѳгч байгаагаараа ач холбогдолтой юм. Эцэст нь 
манайхамтарсан судалгааны ажлыг зохион байгуулах, хээрийн шинжилгээний ажлын бэлтгэлийг 
хангахад ихээхэн хучин зутгэл гаргаж бидний хамтын ажиллагаанд байнга тусламж дэмжлэг 
узуулж байдаг Смитсоны байгалийн туухийн музей, Смитсоны институтийн удирдлага, уг 
институтийн Хойд туйл судлалын тѳвийн захирал ноён William W.Fitzhugh, болон энэхуу номыг 
хэвлуулэхэд туслалцаа узуулеэн Америкийн Монгол судлалын тѳвийн хамт олонд Монголын 
талын багийн нэрийн ѳмнѳѳс болон хувиасаа гун талархлаа илэрхийлж сайн сайхныг хусэн ерѳѳж 
байна. 
Монголын Ундэсний Туухийн Музейн 
захирал доктор, профессор А. 04ИР 
2005 оны 3-р сарын 28. 
хіі 

Evening camp at Ulaan Tolgoi west of Erkhel Lake, Hovsgol Aimag. (photo: Fitzhugh) 
l 
1 
TbeD еег^З^опе Project: 
Exploring [\Jortbern Mongolia and its /\rctic 
(Connections 
William W. Fitzhugh 
Arctic Studies Center, National Museum of Natural History 
Smithsonian Institution 
Geographically remote to Western scholars and without a pre-Soviet scientific 
tradition, Mongolia is one of the least-known archaeological regions of Central Asia. 
Multidisciplinary research coordinated by the Smithsonian’s Arctic Studies Center at the 
National Museum of Natural History, in collaboration with National Museum of Mongolian 
History and the Mongolian Academy of Sciences, has begun to explore aspects of northern 
Mongolia’s cultural and environmental history relating to Siberia, circumpolar, and 
northern Pacific culture history and artistic traditions. This paper outlines the research being 
investigated by the Deer Stone Project and presents preliminary results of field studies in 
northern Mongolia in 2001-2004 (Figure 1.1). 
f*roject tiistory and (jeographic getting 
During June of 2001 and 2002 the Smithsonian-Mongolian team conducted 
reconnaissance projects in Hovsgol Aimag of northern Mongolia between Muron and the 
Darkhat Valley and in the mountains between the West Darkhat and the Russian (Tuva) 
border, and in 2003 and 2004 returned for several weeks of archaeological excavation. 
The project began through collaboration with a humanitarian effort organized by Ed Nef to 
provide educational, medical, and financial assistance for a small group of reindeer-herders 
living in the West Darkhat taiga between Lake Hovsgol and the Tuva border known in 
Mongolia as ‘Tsaatan’ and to anthropological circles as ‘Dukha’ (Vainstein 1980, Plumley 
and Battulag 2000). Our scientific goal was to explore the potential for archaeological, 
anthropological, and environmental studies, including threats to Tsaatan survival resulting 
from climate, environmental, and socio-economic change, and from cultural and linguistic 
isolation from their Tuva relatives resulting from closure of the Mongolia-Russian border 
after 1991 ( Plumley and others in Cultural Survival Quarterly 2000; Milnius 2003). 
5 
2001 Loop 
Hovsgol-Darkhat region of northern 
Mongolia is central to the goals of 
the Deer Stone Project. Lying north 
of the 50 degree parallel that roughly 
defines the northern boundary of 
present-day Mongolia, the political 
unit known as Hovsgol Aimag, which 
is dominated by Lake Hovsgol, the 
Darkhat Valley, and the extension 
of Eastern Sayan mountains, is 
geographically transitional between 
the Mongolian steppe and the Siberian 
taiga. Its basin-and-range topography, 
its higher elevations, colder climate, 
greater rainfall and forest cover, and 
its Yenesei-bound drainage, give 
the Hovsgol-Darkhat region a more 
‘Siberian’ cast than the lower, more 
open steppe south of the Selinge 
The geographic setting of the 
Figure 1.1. Map of field location 
River (Figure 1.2). Separated from the steppe by a barrier of high hills and plateaus 
rising to 2500-3000m, the Darkhat region has retained an ethnic and historical character 
somewhat apart from the Mongolian mainstream (Hodges 2003) where Mongolian herders 
and Siberian hunters and reindeer-herders have coexisted and to some extent blended for 
hundreds if not thousands of years. This cultural divide was evident as early as the 13th 
century when Genghis Khan began his campaign to unify Mongolia, beginning with the 
Darkhat tribes. 
Today the Darkhat lowlands (ca. 1500m) are occupied by Mongol sheep, goat, 
cattle, camel, and horse herders who supplement their diet with fish and wild game. The 
Dukha/Tsaatan, consisting of a West Tundra group (west of Lake Hovsgol) and an East 
Tundra group (north and east of Lake Hovsgol), each having about 500 people and a 
slightly larger number of reindeer, occupy the taiga and tundra fringes to the west and 
north of the Darkhat valley lying between 2000-3 500m (Figure 1.12). North of the Russian 
(Tuva) border, elevations fall, making lichen-dominated reindeer habitat more susceptible 
to adverse impacts of warmer climatic regimes like those of today. These conditions make 
the mountains surrounding the Darkhat an outlier of reindeer habitat far south of its normal 
geographic range. As recently as a century ago Dukha reindeer-herders used to herd their 
reindeer even further south, in the highlands between Muren and the Darkhat. 
Before describing the Deer Stone Project, we need to specify why Mongolia, a land¬ 
locked nation 1300 km south of the Arctic Circle, is relevant to circumpolar archeology. 
4 
Eskimo Origins 
Since about 2000 
years ago in the North Pacific 
and Bering Sea region have 
suspected that key features 
of this complex - including 
shamanistic ritual, art, and 
religious concepts - originated 
inAsia(Jenness 1928; Collins 
1937, 1951). In particular, 
bone and ivory implements 
of the Okvik, Old Bering Sea, Figure 1.2. Expedition entering Sayan Mountains west of 
and Ipiutak cultures dating ca. Soyo, west Darkhat Valley, June 2002. 
A.D. 0-500, carried elaborate 
decoration illustrating hunting magic and animal-human transformation art (Figures 1.3, 
1.4). Okvik and early OBS engravings were carved with stone tools, but OBS II and 
III styles, Ipiutak, and Punuk (A.D. 500-1000) utilized metal engraving tools of Asian 
origin. While the sources of the art styles and motifs have not yet been traced outside the 
Bering Sea region, some artifacts found in OBS burials were inspired by Asian prototypes, 
including ivory chains and open-work carvings modeled after bronze castings (Figure 1.5; 
Arutiunov and Sergeev 1975; Arutiunov and Fitzhugh 1988: fig. 150). Asian contacts are 
even more explicit in finds from the Ipiutak site at Point Hope, Alaska, where Larsen and 
Rainey (1948) found ivory and bone objects of the same form as metal ornaments used 
by Siberian shamans to decorate and empower their ritual coats, and ivory composite 
death masks that compared closely to Chinese Chou masks of jade and nephrite (Collins 
1971). The excavators attributed many of the exotic forms to the introduction of a Siberian 
shamanistic complex into Alaska and linked specific artifact types to the Permian Bronze 
and Iron Age of West Siberia. A few years later, Carl Schuster noted that these and other 
forms of early ancient Eskimo art were probably related to the Eurasiatic animal-style art 
complex (Schuster 1951; Schuster and Carpenter 1986:I(4):911-927). Lacking a broader 
base of archaeological materials, dated finds, and contextual information from Siberia and 
the Far East, these theories were impossible to evaluate and until recently remained an 
untested aspect of circumpolar culture theory (Fitzhugh 1998; 2002a). 
Iron Age ‘Eskimos’in Yamal 
The opening of Russia to Western scientists provided an opportunity for the author to 
collaborate with Russian archaeologists investigating Neolithic, Bronze, and Iron Age sites 
in the lower Ob River and Yamal Peninsula in the Western Siberian Arctic during 1995-96. 
I had previously concluded that convergent development rather than trans-Atlantic contact 
was responsible for similarities between Scandinavia Younger Stone Age cultures and 
4000-year old Maritime Archaic cultures of Northeastern North America, and that neither 
had anything to do with Eskimo origins (Fitzhugh 1975). But Chemetsov’s discovery of an 
5 /\rctic (Connections 
Old Bering Sea II Old Bering Sea III 
Figure 1.3. 
Ancient and 
modern Alaskan 
Eskimo art 
motifs, AD 1 to 
present (after 
Covarrubias 
1954). 
Punuk 
Ѳ ® ШШХ2І IZHHaI 
Contemporary Alaskan Eskimo Covarrubias 1954 
early Eskimo-like arctic maritime culture on the Yamal shores of the Kara Sea (Chemetsov 
and Moszynska 1974) - the find that prompted Larsen and Rainey to propose West Siberian 
connections at Ipiutak in the 1940s - had yet to be evaluated from a modem perspective. 
Their claim was less suspicious in 1948 than today, because it was still believed that Eskimo 
culture may have developed from European Paleolithic cultures that moved into the Arctic 
at the end of the Ice Age. This idea has now been discredited, and despite the fact that 
no Eskimo-like remains had been found in the intervening 3000 miles from Chuktoka to 
Yamal (Chard 1958), the field studies needed to confirm the absence of Eskimo culture 
from the central Russian arctic coast had not been done. Four years of Siberian fieldwork 
and museum studies with Russian colleagues convinced me that Chemetsov’s ‘early arctic 
maritime culture’ of Yamal was neither maritime nor ‘Eskimo’ (Fitzhugh 1998; see also 
Fedorova 2003), and that Permian similarities to early Eskimo art were untenable from 
every point of view: stylistics, chronology, geography, and ritual (Figure 1.6). Subsequent 
research in Taimyr, along the the Laptev Sea coast, and at an 8000-year old Mesolithic on 
Zhokhov Island in the northeastern Laptev Sea (Pitul’ko 1999), all gave negative results 
with regard to origins of Eskimo culture and Old Bering Sea art (Fitzhugh 2002). 
Primor ’e to Bering Strait; Ritual Art, and Transformation 
In the meantime, research in the Bering Sea and North Pacific (Dumond and Bland 
1996) identified Asian prototypes for a number of the archaeological complexes and culture 
elements known from Alaska, including the likely origins of 4000 B.P. Arctic Small Tool 
tradition ceramics and lithic assemblages (Powers and Jordan 1990). However work on 
such cultures as Tar’insk (Lebedintsev 1990), Lakhtina (Orekhov 1999), and Old Koryak 
(Dikov 1979), which are still relatively little known, has not yet revealed much that can be 
6 {“"itzhugh 
Figure 1.4. Human-animal 
spirit engraving on harpoon 
winged objects, Old Bering 
Sea culture site at Eleven, 
Chukotka, ca. AD 500. 
(Arutiunov and Fitzhugh 
1988, Fig. 138; courtesy of 
Museum of Anthropology and 
Ethnology, St. Petersburg). 
Figure 1.5. Open-work ivory 
carwing from Ekven site, 
Chukotka (Arutiunov and 
Sergeev 1975, Arutiunov 
and Fitzhugh 1988: fig. 150) 
and Alaskan Ipiutak bone 
ornament (Larsen and Rainev 
1948). 
Figure 1.6. Bronze bird-man 
image from Yamal, Western 
Siberia, Kolmagorskii 
Treasury UAE-301 (Fedorova 
1994; Fig. 47). 
closely related to Old Bering Sea art and religion. Neither, so far, have studies further south, 
around the mouth of the Amur, in Sakhalin, northern Japan, or Korea revealed prototype 
material related to Early Bering Sea art. Many of these East and Northeast Asian complexes 
do not have preserved organic remains, and without this crucial material, evaluating 
similarities remains extremely difficult. What can be said is that rock art, especially that 
representing faces and masks, thought to date ca. 3000-1000 B.P., is common in the Lower 
Amur region and northern China (Okladnikov 1981; Song 1992; 1998), indicating a long 
tradition of body and clothing decoration and labret use, and these practices, seen also in 
the Altai tombs, Mongolian deer stones and petroglyphs (Jacobson 1993,1998; Sanjmyatav 
1995; Jacobson et al. 2001; Jacobson-Tepfer 2001; Bayarsaikhan 2004), and known also 
/\rctic (Connections 7 
from Old Bering Sea and later Beringian cultures, are the most likely medium for links 
between Eastern Asia and the North Pacific-Bering Sea region. Another possible Asian- 
stimulated technology may be found in the introduction of ground slate, which appears in 
Old Bering Sea, Northeast Asian and Korean cultures about 2000 years ago, coincident 
with and perhaps stimulated by the introduction ofmetals from Central Asian and Siberian 
sources. This introduction seems to have been independent of the earlier Ocean Bay culture 
slate-grinding tradition of Kodiak Island and may have originated as a substitute for metal 
goods, as was the case in Old Bering Sea ivory chains and manufacture of ceramic vessels 
styled after metal prototypes by Siberian cultures who lacked these prestige goods. 
A Possible Scythian-Eskimo Connection 
The fine decoration of ethnographic clothing from such groups as the Ainu, Nanai, 
Nivkhi, and other Lower Amur River peoples, as well as those, possibly, of Alaska and the 
Northwest Coast, may eventually be shown to be a legacy of the earlier traditions of highly 
ornate clothing and body decoration of early East Asian and Pacific peoples (Fitzhugh 1988a, 
1988b, 1993). Given the widespread evidence of body painting and tattooing, I believe 
that these artistic traditions of the northeast Asian maritime region are probably related 
to the decorative arts of Central Asia as seen especially in the Scythian tombs of the Altai 
(Molodin 2000; Edwards 2003). The idea of a deer stone art connection with Scythian art 
is not new and has been suggested by various Russian and American scholars (see review 
in Jacobson-Tepfer 2001) Mongolia’s deer stone monuments, which are believed to be an 
early form of animal-style art applied to a monumental human form, attracted my interest 
because they occur geographically along a natural path of communication between Central 
Asia and the North Pacific coast; because they date to Bronze and Iron Age times and are 
an ‘early overlap’ with early Eskimo culture; and because I believe they must be related 
to broader religious, spiritual, and artistic traditions of southern Siberia similar to those 
found among North Pacific peoples but which so far are not known from archaeological 
complexes of northern Siberia and the Arctic. 
Figure 1.7. Deer stone engraving of 
spirit тага/ (Asian Elk) with water bird beak 
or bill (Sanjmyatav 1995: Plate 25). 
I am not proposing, at this time, a 
solution to these problems, but I do suggest 
a mechanism and route by which powerful 
symbolic elements of Asian culture may 
have infiltrated the indigenous cultures 
of the North Pacific. The specific artistic 
forms - whether they be Scythian, proto- 
Scythian, early Korean, Jomon, or others 
- and their dating need investigation, 
as does the cultural complexes and 
functional categories in which they occur, 
such as death ritual, hunting magic, 
representations of deities and animal 
spirits, and shamanism. What strikes me 
8 itzhugh 
Figure 1.8. 19th Century Bering 
Sea Eskimo harpoon socket-piece 
with predator helping-spirit carving 
Figure 1.9. Ipiutak spirit sucking tube 
from Ipiutak site, Alaska. 
(Larsen and Rainey 1948). 
(Smithsonian E36339). 
as most similar in comparing deer stone art with early Eskimo art is the transformational 
nature of the images, which combine features of the Asian elk - the most magnificent and 
powerful cervid of Eurasia - with bills of water birds, much in the way that Alaskan Eskimo 
have long represented transformation figures of wolf and killer whale, or seal and water 
bird, whose spirits were believed to change physical forms while crossing barriers between 
land and water, water and air, or land and air (Figures 1.7, 1.8, 1.9). It seems likely that 
these features may have roots in the Paleolithic cultures of Asia. The hypothesis I wish to 
test, however, is more specific and relates to relationships and forms of the late Neolithic, 
Bronze, and early Iron Age. We clearly have a long way to go in terms of understanding 
the meaning of these images in both Eskimo and Sibero-Mongolian contexts, and Esther 
Jacobson and her Mongolian and Russian colleagues have already brought us a considerable 
distance down the latter path. It seems likely to me, following N. N. Dikov (1958), that 
the deer stone carvings served as protective devices to ensure safe passage of an honored 
leader’s spiritual passage into the upper world, just as the body art of Altai warriors and 
Old Bering Sea Eskimo hunters protected them from spiritual danger in the world of the 
living in much of eastern Asia and the Pacific for the past 3000-4000 years. The question 
is, can such connections be traced archaeologically between Mongolia and the Bering Sea, 
and perhaps further, to the historic Eskimo and Indian cultures of the North Pacific? 
ernes 
Deer Stone as Object and Icon 
Mongolia’s deer stones (Figure 1.10) represent both a subject of study and a symbolic 
focus that lies at the core of our archaeological, ethno-ecological, and paleoecological 
studies. The monuments date to a period shortly after these steppe societies had been 
transformed by major social and religious change resulting from animal domestication and 
new military technologies. Geographically, deer stones are found along the northern fringe 
of the steppe near the taiga border, a transitional environment rich in animals (including 
Arctic (Connections 
Figure 1.10. (a) Deer Stone 1 
at Ulaan Tologi (Erkhel) site in 
Hovsgol Aimag, northern Mongolia, 
displaying anthropomorphic figure 
with earrings, spirit deer on torso, 
and belt with tools, (b) Ushkiin Uver 
deer stone with spirit deer and belt 
with dagger, axe, bow and other 
implements. The top of the stone 
has been broken by lightning. Other 
stones have been damaged by frost 
and use by cattle as rubbing stones. 
taiga species like reindeer and elk), plant, and fish resources that would have attracted both 
herding and hunting peoples (Figure 1.11; Tseveendorj et al. 1999:68). The legacy of this 
cultural geography continues today in the relationship between the minority Dukha reindeer- 
herders and the politically dominant Mongols. Exploring the complex history of Hovsgol- 
Darkhat cultures, peoples, and changing environments for the past 4000-6000 years is also 
a scientific challenge with practical benefits in tourism, sustainable development, cultural 
survival, and international recognition (Figure 1.12). 
Investigating deer stone art and associated archaeological and landscape ritual 
features is only one of several factors motivating the Deer Stone Project. Other research 
questions include the origins and history of reindeer domestication; the cultural and 
ecological context of modem Dukha reindeer husbandry in relation to on-going economic, 
social, and political changes in Mongolia, impacts of global warming and changing 
environment; and broader questions of Mongolia’s cultural and historical relationships 
to peoples of Siberia and Northeast Asia. Related Smithsonian projects in other areas 
of Mongolia are exploring Mongolia’s Paleolithic past, its rock art, and its role in the 
development of‘nomadic’ states and empires and the silk route trade, and to its relationship 
with developing civilizations in China. The Deer Stone Project explores Mongolia’s roles 
in cultural development, population dispersal, and culture contacts to the north and east. 
Northern Connections 
Although recent history has emphasized Mongolia’s strategic position as a buffer 
state or exploitation zone between China and Russia (Lattimore 1940, 1962; Bawden 
1989; Ishjamts 1994; Christian 1998; Baabar 1999; Barfield 2001; DiCosmo 2002), history 
and archaeological research demonstrate that Mongolia became an important center of 
cultural development long before its empire period in the 13-15th centuries. In Ice Age 
io (“itzhugh 
/ 
Figure 1.11. Distribution of deer stone sites 
in Mongolia (adaptedfrom Tseveendorj 
1999). 
% Rock Art 
Site 
MONGOLIA 
CHINA 
Hatgal 
RUSSIA 
Uver 
elevation > 2500m 
—- —— Inti Boundary 
2001 & 2002 Routes 
• — • 2001 Loop 
Figure 1.12. Distribution of West 
and East Taiga Tsaatan (Dukha) 
territories in Darkhat-Hovsgol 
region. Regions to the south are 
occupied by Mongol herders, but 
some of the highland zones were 
utilized by Tsaatan in the past. 
times the Gobi, then well-watered, 
was a Central Asian ‘Serengetti’ with 
large animal and human populations 
and during late Pleistocene times 
may have been the source of the 
mongolid physical type that expanded 
throughout much of Asia and into 
the New World. There is no reason 
to doubt Mongolia’s continued role 
in later cultural developments and 
transmissions within the steppe zone 
and across the steppe-taiga boundary. 
Our archaeological work explores Mongolia’s environmental and cultural connections with 
southern Siberia, Northeast Asia, and the North Pacific, focusing on the past 6000 years. 
As noted previously, Mongolia’s temperate latitude and the dominance of the Silk 
Road, Chinese history, and recent Soviet domination has obscured Mongolia’s geographic 
and cultural ties to Siberia, and its links with the circumpolar region and the North Pacific. 
Climatologically, northern Mongolia is as ‘arctic’ as Nome, Alaska, and its landforms 
include such classic arctic forms as permafrost and conical ice-cored pingos which can take 
i i /\rctic (Connections 
decades if not hundreds of years to form (Figure 1.13). Mongolia’s arctic characteristics are 
not limited to contemporary conditions. During our 2001 survey Steven Young noted striking 
similarities between Mongolia’s tundra and alpine plant communities and the ancient 
vegetation of the Beringian Land Bridge, similarities that suggest a former phytogeographic 
connection with arctic ecosystems (Young, this volume). These connections and post¬ 
glacial environmental history of the Darkhat region are being explored by botanical and 
paleoecological studies of modem Darkhat and Beringian landscapes. Reconstmction of 
the post-glacial history of the Darkhat basin (drained before 6000 BP) and of regional 
climate history based on lake sediment samples are providing an archaeological context 
for interpreting cultural and archaeological data (Robinson et al. 2004; Robinson 2005). 
South Siberian Reindeer Herders 
A special feature of the project is its focus on the Dukha, known to Mongolians 
as ‘Tsaatan’ or ‘Reindeer People’ (Fitzhugh 2002b). Numbering about 700 people and 
1000 reindeer, the Dukha are the southernmost reindeer-herders in the world (Vainshtein 
1980, 1981). Of the four Tuva-speaking groups with homelands between Lakes Baikal and 
Hovsgol, only the Dukha - the southernmost group and the only group living in Mongolia 
- still live as full-time reindeer-herders (Figure 1.14). Located near the Russian/Tuva 
border, their 2000-3500m high forest and tundra pastures west and north of the Darkhat 
and Lake Hovsgol provide lichen forage for reindeer at the extreme southern limit of the 
geographic range of this species in Asia. The existence of this habitat outlier results from 
a special geographic feature that preserves a pocket of Siberian tundra and lichen forage in 
the elevated Hovsgol and nearby Sayan Mountain ranges. To the north, in Siberia, elevations 
drop and reindeer habitat becomes marginal or discontinuous. Today, in these neighboring 
regions of Russia, Tuva-speaking relatives of the Dukha have already largely given up 
reindeer herding, leaving the Mongolia Dukha as the only group still maintaining herds as 
their principal means of subsistence. However, their survival is being threatened by stress 
resulting from climatic warming (lichen tundra range reduction), reduced reindeer fitness, 
human population loss, and post-Soviet social, political, and economic change. Our work 
complements ethnographic studies (Wheeler 1999, 2000) and humanitarian projects such 
as Dan Plumley’s Totem Project and Santis Education Projects by documenting Dukha 
ecological knowledge, herding practices, and ritual (including shamanism), in order to 
better understand and publicize the challenges facing Dukha people. 
Herders, Lichen, Reindeer; and Climate Change 
Our studies of Dukha reindeer-herding practices supplement earlier studies by the 
Russian ethnographer, Vainstein, and Mongolian scholars. Paula DePriest, a lichen specialist 
from the Smithsonian, has collected botanical samples for classification and research from a 
variety of reindeer seasonal pastures. In working with Dukha reindeer herding experts, she 
has obtained ethnographic data about how reindeer feeding behavior, seasonal movements, 
and herding strategies relating to weather, local forage conditions, predation, disease and 
other factors influence the way in which reindeer are managed (DePriest et al. 2003, and 
i z fAtzbugh 
Figure 1.13. Melting pingo in Hovsgol Figure 1.14. Tsaatan (Dukha) reindeer- 
Aimag in 2001, 49-53.33 ’N, 99-39.181 ’E. herders in Menge Bu/ag tundra camp. 
this volume). She has found Dukha lichen taxonomy closely parallels Western science 
species categories and discovered that much local knowledge about lichens and reindeer 
husbandry - for instance Dukha knowledge about medicinal and ritual practices used to 
maintain the health of the reindeer - has never been recorded. Climatic trends are also 
obvious today: our observations on the present invasion of dwarf birch into the Dukha 
alpine tundra pastures signals a result of climatic wanning which, if it continues to convert 
Dukha summer pastures to taiga, may threaten Dukha survival in this southernmost isolated 
outlier of reindeer habitat (Plumley and Battulag 2000; Milnius 2003). 
Origins of Reindeer Domestication 
To date, anthropological theories of the origin of reindeer domestication have been based 
on ethnographic and historical models (Vainshtein 1980; Ingold 1980; Schnirelman 1980; 
Krupnik 1993) rather than zooarchaeology, with the result that the date and place where this 
important transformation in the relationship between humans and reindeer occurred still 
remains unknown. Despite the popularity of theories of arctic Siberian and Fennoscandian 
origin among northern Siberians and Fennoscandians, the Tuva and north Mongolian steppe/ 
taiga border is a more likely location for reindeer domestication because the proximity 
of reindeer habitat to the primary zone of early animal domestication on the steppe (see 
Sukhbaatar paper in this volume). Here forest hunters familiar with techniques being used 
by steppe herders on other animals would have learned about and been able to apply these 
methods to reindeer in a region where seasonal reindeer movements between winter forest 
ranges and summer tundra pastures are short and do not require long distance migration as 
in the case of arctic reindeer herding. The Russian ethnologist, SevyanVainshtein (1980, 
1981), a specialist on Tuva cultures and ethnohistory, has hypothesized that Tuva-style 
mountain reindeer husbandry (for milk and transport) was the first stage in the domestication 
process, which later went through a series of development stages leading eventually to 
the type of intensive migratory herding utilized by Eurasian arctic peoples for the past 
500-1000 years. 
We are attempting to test this concept by gathering information on Tsaatan ethnoecology, 
herding practices, species composition and abundance, and reindeer foraging behavior as 
well as searching for archaeological sites containing reindeer remains. Archaeological sites 
/\rctic (Connections О 
will be tested to collect archaeofauna for use in beginning to define reindeer exploitation 
strategies for different periods in the past. We are also searching for reindeer fauna from 
existing archaeological collections in museums and research centers in Mongolia and 
Russia, and will work closely with Russian experts with knowledge of reindeer herding 
practices to see if the South Siberian domestication hypothesis can be verified. At present 
the domestication history of this species has never been explored. Given the importance 
of reindeer herding in the transformation of almost all peoples of northern Eurasia from 
hunting and fishing to herding, resolution of this problem would have important implications 
for understanding cultural developments in a huge portion of the world. The appearance 
of reindeer herding may also mark the historical turning point among northern peoples in 
which the ancient relationship between hunter and prey were replaced by new religions 
and world views associated with human technological dominance and control over the 
natural world (Fitzhugh 1988b, 1993). 
Bronze Age Ritual Landscapes 
Traveling between Muron and Darkhat one cannot avoid being impressed by the 
large number of Bronze and Early Iron Age burial mounds and ceremonial sites. A small 
subset of these are complex sites containing deer stones like those at Ushkiin Uver and 
Ulaan Tolgoi, but such sites are relatively rare compared to the nearly ubiquitous stone 
mounds and khirigsuur. The latter are found everywhere Mongol-style pastoralism was 
practiced, whether on the steppe or steppe-forest zone. Habitation sites, workshops, rock 
art sites, and others, by contrast, are extremely rare in the Darkhat, as are sites of most 
other cultural periods except modem times, probably due to heavy sedimentation from the 
high rainfall this region receives. In part this relates to the absence of surface exposures in 
the grass-covered steppe. On the other hand, since one cannot imagine that the landscape 
was ever abandoned, it would appear that settlement patterns of the last few thousand 
years must have been similar to those of the modem day, employing light felt tents and a 
migratory lifestyle. 
Investigation of Bronze Age ritual landscapes and the origins of Asian chiefdoms 
are exciting subjects for archaeological study (Jacobson 1993, 1998,2002; Jacobson-Tepfer 
2001; Jacobson, Kubarev, and Tseevendorj 2001; Erdenebaatar 2004; Honeychurch and 
. Figure 1.15. Ushkiin Uver 
deer stone site (north view). 
Amartuvshin 2005a). While much is known from nearly a century of research by Mongolian, 
Soviet, and other groups working in Mongolia and the Altai, many questions remain. 
Few sites have been accurately dated; little is known about the development history of 
complex sites like Ushkiin Uver and Erkhel (Figure 1.15); little excavation has been done 
outside of central mound burial crypts, etc. Use of new mapping, dating, and recovery 
techniques; settlement pattern and ‘whole-site studies’, studies of human remains, regional 
and environmental analysis, and use of modern theory offer promise for achieving major 
gains in new information about this exciting period in Central Asian history. 
Continuities and Connections: Mongolia and Beyond 
Another objective is to develop a late Holocene Darkhat culture history (c.f. 
Korean-Mongolian Joint Expedition 2001,2002,2003; Honeychurch 2004; Honeychurch 
and Amartuvshin 2003,2005b) that can be used to explore changes observed in its cultures 
and environments through time, including the external factors like climate change and 
internal ones like fire, grazing, and forest clearance. Vainstein has proposed that the 
pastoralist economic systems of Tuva and Darkhat/Mongolia have been remarkably stable 
for centuries and even millennia. Is this view from ethnography and history compatible with 
archaeological evidence? What are the major turning points in its history? And how has 
the region interacted with respect to Mongolian, Siberian, and perhaps even circumpolar 
regions? Has the Darkhat primarily been of regional importance - perhaps having been a 
geographic cul-de-sac as an outlier or ‘observer’ of Mongolian history - or has it played 
a larger role in cultural developments or regional interactions? Obviously such questions 
require substantial archaeological evidence of a sort that is not likely to become available 
immediately; but progress in at least some of these areas can be expected, and in the process 
a broader picture is likely to become available from other areas of Mongolia, Siberia, and 
the northern Far East that may provide clues to more distant goals of circumpolar and 
North Pacific dimension. 
In 2001 and 2002 we met our Tsaatan guides at Soyo where the Khugiin Gol 
(‘Melody River’), a tributary of the Little Yenesei, leaves the mountains and emerges 
onto the Darkhat Plain. Soyo, meaning ’fang’ or ‘canine’ in Mongolian, is the name of a 
prominent conical hill that rises abruptly from the valley floor on the south bank of the 
Figure 1.16. Sanjmyatav inspects 
vandalized Tolijgii Boom Iron Age 
rock art site near Soyo in 2001. 
/\rctic (Connections 
river. In addition to being an important river ford, spear-fishing location, and staging area 
for hunting trips into the mountains, Soyo serves as a seasonal market and meeting place 
for West Darkhat Mongolian and Tsaatan herders. Not far downstream on the north bank 
is one of the few Bronze/Iron Age rock art sites known in the Darkhat Valley (Sanjmyatav, 
this vol.). When we visited it in June 2002 we found it almost completely obliterated by 
looters attempting to secure images from the soft shale for sale to tourists (Figures 1.16). 
Apparently this was not a random incident; in 2003 we encountered a band of looters 
equipped with vehicles, shovels, and pry bars systematically pillaging burial mounds in the 
West Darkhat region. Before we revealing ourselves as archaeologists we learned that they 
were financed by antiquities dealers in Ulanbaatar and Beijing and had expert knowledge 
of local archaeology and knew exactly where to search for finds. Hopefully our report to 
the Ulaan Uul police had a positive effect. 
Soyo Tolgoi 
In 2002, while camped at the base of Soyo hill on the Khug River, we noticed 
archeological materials eroding from a buried soil level containing small hearths with 
animal bones, a sherd of thick tan ceramic with a red exterior wash or paint, large amounts 
of charcoal, and fire-cracked cobbles and slabs (see Bayarsaikhan and Odbaatar, this vol.). 
Among the bones were large herbivore (deer or elk), small mammals, and a scapula of 
a sheep or goat. The eroding terrace front also produced a number of small flint finds, 
including a conical prismatic core and numerous tiny microblades. 
The cultural horizon could be traced along the bank for about 100m, buried under 
l-3m of windblown sand carried up from the eroding bank. A modem garbage pit cut into 
the terrace about 10m south of the bank revealed this cultural horizon extended for some 
distance back from the bank, suggesting the presence of a large, buried site containing 
faunal remains, datable materials, and a variety of artifact types that indicated occupations 
at least as early as the Neolithic. My colleague, Sanjmyatav, believed Soyo was the first 
Neolithic site known from the Hovsgol region. We later learned another Neolithic site had 
been found in 2003 on the east shore of Lake Hovsgol (John Olson, pers. comm.). Also 
of importance for environmental reconstruction was the presence of a thick mat of buried 
timber that Stephen Young found below the water level in the south bank of the river, now 
radiocarbon-dated to cal. 7180-6750 BP. 
Figure 1.17. Late prehistoric 
component hearth in Up¬ 
per Level at Soyo 1, Feature 
1. Edge-faceted stone disc 
fragments are among the 
fire-cracked rocks at right 
found within the hearth. 
\6 
Small bag of charcoal (SI) mostly 
collected here in ring hearth, but 
some from trench soil (brown) 
- "General collection" bagie from 
all over in tan-brown neolithic soil 
-65 
A-B = profile below 
Ж 
'trench' 10-15 cm deeper then the rest 
of the cultural level contains almost all of 
the crumbly ceramics, chert tools, 
and flakes in a light brown soil with charcoal. 
50 cm 
= Concentrated 
calcined bones 
in tan/red earth 
QJb = Vertical rock 
О = Rock 
JL = Black soil bone 
В = Tan (neolithic) soil bone 
• ~ Flake 
# = Artifact 
S = Sample 
2 south line 
Horse (?) tooth -82 cm 
S' in dark brown soil _f,5 
S-- . 
,*58 29 50 
12'. 
0 13/ 
16, c4- 
/•28 23'2)?.' 
•48 22.' 
19.-- 
tty; a 
\кга>, э56.-'' 
0о-'^Г:_.-^'Ѵл7 .о 25 о p 
S2 
в ':-'5ѵЖ Г'.47 18 ' 34 27 
61 
34 — В В ЦвВ4: 
В 
4 
1 в” в о к I 
30 cm hearth nng with 
bone charcoal in tan soil 
55 
14 
В 
52 
О 
В 
30 
. ,0 4 Д О 
•о- \ 83 Quartzite core 
3 
В 
-116 -121 0 south line 
2S 
IS 
-118 
OS 
4/ 
N 
Figure 1.18. Neolithic level excavation map ofSoyo 1, Feature 3. 
Table 1.1. Radiocarbon Dates From Deer Stone Project Sites, 2002-2004. (See Figure 
18.45 in this volume) 
site / feature location/year sample no. material uncorrected calib (2-sig) 
Ulaan Tolgoi DS5 Erkhel / 2002 B-169296 AMS charcoal 2090 ± 40 BP BP 2150-1960 
Ulaan Tolgoi DS4 S-17 Erkhel / 2003 B-182958 AMS charcoal 2170 ±40 BP BP 2320-2050 
Ulaan Tolgoi DS4 S-7 Erkhel / 2003 B-182959 AMS charcoal 2930 ±40 BP BP 3220-2950 
Ulaan Tolgoi DS4 FI Erkhel /2004 B-193738 AMS bone coll. 2530 ±40 BP BP 2750-2470 
Ulaan Tolgoi DS4 F2 Erkhel / 2004 B-193739 AMS bone coll. 2950 ± 40 BP BP 3240-2970 
Ulaan Tolgoi DS4 F3 Erkhel / 2004 B-193740 AMS bone coll. 2810 ±40 BP BP 2990-2800 
Ulaan Tolgoi DS4, F5 Erkhel /2005 B-207205 RAD bone coll. 2790 ± 70 BP BP 3220-2800 
Ulaan Tolgoi DS4, F6 Erlhel /2005 B-207206 RAD bone coll. 2740 ± 70 BP BP 3150-2780 
Soyo 1 FI hearth Soyo /2002 B-177013 RAD charcoal 1170± 50 BP BP 1230-1210* 
Soyo 1 F2 hearth Soyo /2002 B-177014 RAD charcoal 1020 ±50 BP BP 1040-1030** 
Soyo 1 F3, S-3 Soyo / 2003 B-182961 RAD cal. bone 5480 ± 130 BP BP 6510-5940 
Khugiin Gol 1 Soyo /2002 B-169298 RAD wood 6090 ± 70 BP BP 7180-6750 
Menge Bulag 1 Tundra/2002 B-169297 RAD charcoal 1300 ±70 BP BP 1320-1060 
Tsatstain Khosuu Tsatst. /2005 B-207207 AMS tooth coll. 2920 ± 40 BP BP 3330-3060 
This date has a second calib range: BP 1190-960 
This date has two other calib. ranges: BP 1000-890 and 860-800 
In 2003, we returned for further work at Soyo, forewarned that last year’s 
radiocarbon samples had produced unexpected results. Instead of dates of 5000-6000 BP, 
which would have been acceptable for a Neolithic site, charcoal from the Feature 1 hearth 
had dated cal. ca. 1100 BP, and Feature 2, cal. ca. 900 B.P. So in addition to opening a 
broader area to obtain larger samples of artifacts and bone materials, we needed to clarify 
this anomalous dating of a site containing Neolithic tools. 
Clearing the face of the exposure revealed a single buried soil horizon stained with 
humic material and charcoal, and several small hearths composed of tightly-clustered 
cobbles with thick concentrations of charcoal, partially-burned and unbumed mammal 
bone, fire-cracked rock and pieces of thick, gritty, red-surfaced pottery (Figure 1.17). We 
excavated two of these hearths, opening up the bank and following the cultural layer several 
Arctic (Connections 17 
meters back into the terrace front. We soon discovered that the buried charcoal-stained 
horizon actually consisted of two levels about 10cm apart: an upper one containing the 
hearth cobbles, large chunks of well-preserved charcoal and unbumed bone, and a few 
centimeters below, a lower level with more small scattered hearth rocks, small chunks of 
highly fragmented charcoal, calcined bone, small pieces of thin-walled, highly eroded 
ceramics with cord-marked decoration, and flint tools including microblades and wedge- 
shaped cores. Our 1000 B.P. dates were from the upper zone and were clearly related to a 
late component containing a variety of domestic animal remains. A curious feature of one 
of these hearths was the presence of a series of thick, facetted-edge stone discs, 2-3cm 
thick and 15cm in diameter, most of which had been cracked by fire. Surface collections in 
the flood plain south of the site turned up a similar complete disc and fragments of similar 
thick-walled ceramics. 
Excavation of several square meters of the lower horizon in 2002-2004 revealed 
an intact Neolithic component (Figure 1.18) a few centimeters thick centered around 
small scattered hearth deposits containing cord-marked ceramics, flint tools including 
microblades and wedge-shaped cores, burins, end scrapers, side scrapers, bifacial knives 
and a small triangular bifacial point (almost certainly an arrow point), and a fragment of 
a small tubular bead with a drilled hole made of black stone, possibly of jet. A sample of 
calcined bone dated to cal. 6510-5940 B.P. (for a more detailed description see Fitzhugh 
2004; Bayarsaikhan et al., this vol.). The thin, scattered nature of the finds from both levels 
suggests small transient camps rather than permanent sites. 
Menge Bulag 1: A Tundra Pit Feature with Stone Age/Neolithic Remains 
Leaving the Darkhat Valley and climbing into the mountains to the west one enters 
a new landscape where the fingers of riverside steppe pasture pinch out and the Siberian 
larch forest begins. From here until emerging into the tundra above 2000m one finds no 
surface signs of prehistoric occupation, and only sporadic evidence of modem use by 
Mongol and Tsaatan, who use the forest zone for hunting and winter reindeer pasture. 
During summer the forest is too hot and fly-infested for reindeer, and the Tsaatan take 
them up into the tundra in the higher valleys. It is here that we spent a few days each 
summer in June 2001-2003 becoming acquainted with the West Tundra people, observing 
i S fVtzhugh 
their reindeer husbandry practices, and searching for archaeological sites, which in open 
country are more easily detected than in the forest. 
In 2001, while scouting the edge of the Tsaatan tundra camp on the Menge Bulag 
(termed ‘Baran GoF in previous field reports), a tributary of the Little Yenesei, 20 miles east 
of the Russian border, I found a 7 by 8m diameter depression with an apparent entranceway 
cut into the terrace edge. A few flakes of black flint were eroding from the surface at the 
front of the structure. Unfortunately, the three small trenches we excavated in 2002 (Figure 
1.19) did not reveal a house pit, as the feature had no floor, slumped walls, or hearth. Rather 
it was a simple conical pit excavated into the river terrace, and contained three stratigraphic 
levels, conforming to the pit outline, each about 25 cm thick in the center and lensing out 
at the surface: Level 1, cobble-free homogeneous brown soil; Level II, mottled brown 
sandy loam with many cobbles, the majority of the lithic industry, and scattered charcoal; 
and Level III, a mixed sandy gravel with clay pockets and no charcoal. A radiocarbon 
date of cal. 1320-1060 BP was obtained on a composite sample of unidentifiable charred 
material scattered in Level II. Throughout these levels we found a small number of quartz 
and quartzite flakes, several quartz pieces esquillees (scaled bi-polar cores), a small quartz 
core, a possible coarse grindstone or axe blank, and in the upper strata just beneath the turf, 
a single black chert flake. Near the center of the depression, 25 cm below the sod and about 
the same distance above the base of the cultural deposit, we found a well-preserved horse 
tooth, and just beneath the sod, a modem ash lens with burned bones and unburned wood. 
From the Tsaatan we learned that a Tsaatan Soviet-style reindeer brigade had occupied this 
terrace in the mid-20lh century and this may account for the recent ash and bone refuse. It 
was not clear if the black chert is related to the quartz industry of the pit fill, and it may 
represent a separate component. It would be tempting to believe the date is in error, in 
which case the feature might date to the Neolithic or Mesolithic. In 2004 we visited this 
site again and found more black flint including a small microblade fragment on the eastern 
side of the terrace, confirming the presence of a Neolithic occupation. Bayandalai, one of 
the Tsaatan elders, also showed me a perfect microblade core he had found years ago, but 
did not remember its source. 
While in the location we surveyed several kilometers along the Menge Bulag 
stream, but the only other archaeological sites noted were 20"’ century Tsaatan camps. 
Further surveys here in 2004 produced evidence for intensive 20th century summer use by 
Tsaatan groups, but no earlier remains were noted. Our surveys in 2003 in the Tsaatan spring 
camp region west of Tsaagan Nuur revealed nothing of archaeological importance in this 
marshy and heavily-forested region; however the chain of lakes to the southwest provided 
Kevin Robinson with excellent lake core samples for his batchelor’s thesis (Robinson et 
al. 2004; Robinson 2005). 
Ulaan Tolgoi 
Eight km west of Lake Erkhel, about 30 km north of Muron, is a large ceremonial 
complex containing scores of boulder mounds and khirigsuur (Figure 1.22). The site is found 
on the south and east side of a prominent hill, Ulaan Tolgoi, which stands in the center of 
/\rctic (Connections 19 
Figure 1.20. Ulaan To/goi Deer Stone 
5 trench, 2002. 
Figure 1.21. Ulaan To/goi circular animal 
cremation feature, 2002. 
the valley floor. The site includes a set of five ornamented deer stones, among which are 
several of the finest deer stones in Hovsgol aimag, and one that may be the largest and 
most beautifully-carved monument in Mongolia. This stone is made of a slab of granite 
that stands almost 3.5 m above ground at the south end of a north-south alignment of four 
other slabs of different shapes and degrees of decoration. In 2002, Esther Jacobson visited 
the site, and its deer stones were then photographed by her husband, photographer Gary 
Tepfer. We visited the site for a few hours in 2001 and returned in 2002 to map one of the 
smaller deer stone settings and its associated boulder features. During this visit I explored 
the surroundings, finding the valley floor packed with khirigsuur constructions that extended 
up and onto the rocky summit of Ulaan Tolgoi hill. Clearly this geographic area and the 
hill itself had some special religious significance. With only one day to spend at Erkhel, 
we mapped Deer Stone 5 and surroundings, excavated a 1x2m trench 50cm south of the 
deer stone, and dug a small oval ring feature 50m east of DS5. 
The purpose of the trench was to obtain a dating sample associated with the erection 
of Deer Stone 5 (Figure 1.20; for details see Fitzhugh 2004:14-19). The trench was laid out 
E-W with the center of its north wall 75cm south of DS5 to avoid undermining its foundation. 
Although some of the Ulaan Tolgoi deer stones had been re-erected and cemented in place 
(by earlier Russian-Mongolian teams according to Sanjmyatav), DS5 appeared to be in 
original position. Our excavation, which reached a depth of 40cm, showed no evidence of 
a pit associated with the erection of the stone. We found four stratigraphic levels beneath 
a thin turf zone and from the lowest of these levels (IV) we recovered two AMS charcoal 
samples from beneath a 25cm diameter cobble, in undisturbed context, one of which dated 
cal. 2150-1960 BR Immediately adjacent to the deer stone and clearly defined in the north 
wall of the trench was the remains of a marmot burrow that terminated at the top of a flat 
slab 35cm below the ground, 50cm north of the rock and charcoal find. Beneath this level 
was undisturbed gravelly sand. The rock and 5cm thick slab, lying flat and in the middle 
of the L-IV horizon were culturally-placed and are associated with the erection of DS5. 
Since we were unable to note any stratigraphic evidence of a pit cut associated with the 
monument, it appears that the stone was placed in a pit just large enough for the stone’s 
20 
base. No artifacts, bones, or other cultural materials were found. We also excavated a small 
open-center oval feature (Figure 1.21) 47.5m and 100 degrees (mag.) from DS5. The rocks 
had been chosen for their large blocky size. We excavated a lx.50m trench through the 
center of the feature, finding two soil levels: Level I being unconsolidated wind-blown 
sand, and Level II being a tan sandy soil level 20-30 cm thick containing charcoal stains 
and a large quantity of calcined bone. The fragments appeared to be quite robust and were 
probably from a large animal, most likely a horse, although species determination was not 
possible. A small AMS charcoal sample was obtained here but has not yet been dated. Our 
future work will include dating a number of these features to determine their chronological 
relationship with each other and the deer stone and khirigsuur constructions, about which 
there is disagreement over what they represent (contemporary sacrifices in honor of the 
central ceremonial figure? accretional sacrifices phased over time? horses or other species? 
Figure 1.22. GPS mapping 
Ulaan Tolgoi Deer Stone 4 
in 2003. View southeast. 
Erkhel Deer Stone 4 Complex *n 2w 
Arctic (Connections 
Figure 1.24a. Excavations at Ulaan 
Tolgoi Deer Stone 4, 2003. View to 
north, showing Feature 1 (left) and 
2 (right). 
Figure 1.24b. Feature 2 east-facing 
horse head burial at Ulaan Tolgoi 
Deer Stone 4. 
etc.). Since many of the burial mounds at Ulaan Tolgoi site would require huge efforts to 
excavate, investigation of their outlying features may be the most effective way to study 
these complex constructions. 
In 2003 and 2004 we returned to Ulaan Tolgoi to expand our deer stone work and 
map the mounds and features in the surrounding region (Frohlich, Gallon, and Bazarsad 
2004, and this volume). We excavated and mapped seven features associated with DS4 
(Figures 1.22, 1.23), finding horse skulls and sections of neck vertebrae and sets of hooves 
in five of the seven (Figure 1.24 a, b), but few artifacts other than small, hand-sized pecking 
stones (Figure 1.25). Excavations at the base of the deer stone setting failed to produce 
charcoal or other datable materials, but a charcoal sample (S7) found a few centimeters 
from a pecking stone and a small piece of burned ceramic at the base of the cultural deposit 
produced a date of cal. 3220-2950 BP. This pecking stone had been used around its entire 
surface, while others were found to have working edges that matched the grooves forming 
the outlines of the animals and other elements in the carvings. We therefore believe these 
stones were used to produce the engravings. The presence of pecking stones within the horse 
burial features and in the lower cultural level allows us to suggest a direct link between 
the horse sacrifices and the production of the deer stone art and therefore, probably, their 
erection and dedication. AMS samples of tooth remains from several of the horse skulls 
found in the features surrounding DS4 provide some of the first absolute dates for deer 
stones, which has long been a subject of debate, beyond the general agreement of their 
22 itzhugh 
Figure 1.25. Deer Stone 4 with 
one of several pecking stones 
excavated from surrounding 
features. 
Late Bronze-Early Iron Age attribution (Jacobson 1993:146). These features formed a 
ring of six horse head burials each located 2-4 meters from the deer stone. AMS dates on 
bone from three of the horse skulls excavated in 2003 (DS4 Features 1,2,3) also produced 
ages of cal. 2800-3250 BP, conforming to the 2002 west trench S7 charcoal sample but 
not to a charcoal date in the upper level of the Feature 2 horse head burial excavated in 
2002, dating cal. 2320-2050 BP. In 2004 we excavated three new horse head features that 
completed the ring of features surrounding DS4, and these also produced dates of cal. 
2800-3200 BP. The bone dates from the horse head burials and one of the two charcoal 
dates from DS4 support the interpretation that the horse burials and the carving of the 
stone itself took place as part of a single ceremony. These dates are slightly later than dates 
obtained from excavations of two horse head features at a deer stone site at the Tsatstain 
Khoshuu site south of Tsaaganuur in 2004, one of which has been dated with a result of 
cal. 3330-3060 BP. 
Khirigsuur and Mound Mapping 
Deer stone studies are part of our broader investigation of Bronze Age ceremonial 
and mortuary complexes in Hovsgol aimag. Toward this end, Bruno Frohlich began a 
detailed mapping survey in the Erhkel Lake and West Darkhat region in 2002 using a 
satellite mapping system capable of millimeter-scale accuracy (Frohlich, Gallon, and Hunt 
2003; Frohlich, Gallon, and Bazarsad 2004; Wallace and Frohlich, this vol.). These surveys 
produced detailed maps of hundreds of Bronze Age mound sites (see Appendix 1), which 
were distributed in a greater variety of topographic locations than previously suspected, 
ranging from flood plains and river-side locations to the tops of prominent hills. The latter 
are emerging as a major determinant of khirigsuur and deer stone site locations. Combining 
the results of selective excavations with detailed mapping of ceremonial site complexes 
including burial mounds, khirigsuur, and deer stone monuments is beginning to produce 
important new information on what has been one of the most mysterious aspects of North 
Mongolian prehistory - specifically, Bronze Age ritual landscapes, patterns of regional 
variation, and burial ritual, demographics, and artifact associations. (Further detail may 
be found in Frohlich et al. in this volume.) 
f\retie (Connections 25 
Figure 1.26. 2002 team 
members collecting bones 
from looted khirigsuur on 
south side of Ulaan Tolgoi 
hill 
In 2002, while surveying on the southwest flank of Ulaan Tolgoi about 1km west 
of the deer stone site, we found a circular khirigsuur with a central boulder mound that 
had been excavated by looters only a few days earlier (Figure 1.26). The looters had dug 
into the central mound, ca. 10m in diameter wide and 2m high, to a depth of about 1,75m, 
encountering a burial about 1 m below the ground surface. We found a human skull in the 
bottom of the pit and collected it and a small bag of bones, the majority of which were 
resident marmot and mouse, but some goat or sheep remains had been placed in the grave 
with the deceased. No horse or cattle bones were present. 
The Ulaan Tolgoi deer stones were made of high quality granite that was not 
available on site or in the rest of the western part of the Erkhel basin. However, the hill 
rising on the south side of Erkhel Lake has abundant outcrops of excellent granite, and 
inspection showed this location had been used recently to quarry architectural building 
stone (Figure 1.27). Modem extraction was by the plug-and-feather technique, and in one 
instance a single rectangular block of granite 15m long and 3m high had been cleanly split 
out of the hillside. Scattered down the hillside were many blocks with dimensions similar to 
those of deer stones. Some of these slabs had weathered out of the bedrock whose parallel 
cleavages were stained with the same type of iron deposits found on deer stone surfaces. 
Quite likely Erkhel hill is the source of the Ulaan Tolgoi monument slabs. 
At this point it is too early to offer generalizations about deer stones and khirigsuur, 
although some significant progress has been made. Neither we nor others have found human 
remains associated directly with deer stones. In the case of Ulaan Tolgoi deer stone site we 
have found DS4 was ringed by at least six horse head burials containing east-facing horse 
heads packaged with the seven cervical neck vertebrae and four hooves, and that the features 
are placed in a planned circular arrangement around the deer stone, arguing strongly for 
synchronous placement ca. cal. 2900 BP. The presence of fist-sized pecking stones found in 
and around the horse head features provides further evidence of contemporaneity between 
the horse burials and the carving of the stone. It thus appears that in this case the erection, 
carving, and horse sacrifices were conducted in a single ceremony. Further, it seems likely 
that other stone features located outside the horse burial features may also have been part 
of the dedication ritual, an idea that will have to be tested with future excavation. 
гл j^itzhugh 
Figure 1.27. Erkhel Lake granite quarry. Figure 1.28. Shaman equipment 
from Angarkhai Hill cache. 
Distant Echoes: A Cache of Shamanistic Objects 
A rather different ritual find was made in 2001 at the top of Angarkhai Hill, Arbulag 
sum, between Muron and the Darkhat Valley. While camped here one evening, we found 
a shaman’s cache in the cleft of the rocks at the summit of what is locally called ‘Shaman 
Hill’. The cache had been placed here perhaps a decade or more ago in a small wooden 
packing crate. At some point the box had been opened and its contents had been scattered 
about. A shaman’s drum lay in front of a cleft in the rock together with the drum beater, 
and inside the cleft we found metal shaman ornaments, including a small bronze libation 
cup, several mouth harps, a tin cut-out depicting a shaman with a feather headdress, and 
other ornaments (Figure 1.28). Respecting the nature of the deposit, we photographed the 
collection and left the offering it in place. I was impressed by how similar these materials 
were, particularly the drum, to objects we had been shown by the Dukha shaman at her 
tent at Menge Bulag. Ten years ago 1 had found what may have been a shaman’s cache in 
Yamal, thousands of miles to the northwest, which also contained a metal cut-out figure of 
a shaman (Fitzhugh and Golovnev 1998). Such similarities are striking demonstrations of 
the power of ritual and artistic concepts to spread across vast distances, as seen in Siberian 
elements found at the 1500 year old Ipiutak cemetery in Alaska. 
Climate History Studies 
Ideas expressed in a paper by Stephen Young about Mongolia’s paleoenvironmental 
history and ties with the Arctic and Beringia (Young, this vol.) have begun to be pursued in 
collaboration with geologists Michael Rosenmeier and Kevin Robinson of the University of 
Pittsburgh. In 2003 we assisted Kevin’s lake sediment coring program in the mountains west 
of Tsaganuur which has produced data on changing climate and environmental conditions 
over the past 4000 years (Robinson et al. 2004). Kevin’s work led to Michael Rosenmeier’s 
2004 field sampling project in which he collected environmental and biological samples 
(horse teeth) as part of an isotopic study of climate and environmental change. 
Forensic Studies 
In mid-September, 2003, Smithsonian forensic anthropologists Bruno Frohlich 
and David Hunt traveled to Ulaanbaatar to assist the Institute of Archaeology recover 
f\rcbc (Connections 25 
information from a huge mass grave that had been discovered at Hambiin Ovoo within 
the Buddhist Gandan Monastery in Ulanbaatar (Frohlich et al. 2003, 2004). It is believed 
this site may contain the remains of as many as 3000 monks. At the time nearly 1200 
remains had been removed. Collaboration between the monastery, the Mongolian Academy 
of Science, and the Smithsonian is providing the first professional forensic studies of a 
sample of these remains, believed to have been victims of the Stalin-inspired purges of 
1937. Frohlich participated in a second forensic project in late May 2004 at the invitation 
of Naran Bazarsad of the Institute of Archaeology, involving the recovery of a group of 
mummified remains from a cave in the southern Gobi near the Chinese border, reported 
in this volume. 
(Conclusion 
Although it will take several more years for these studies, including those in the 
tundra and West Darkhat region, to develop sufficient data, our long-range goal is to develop 
a regional chronology that dates and describes cultures, settlement patterns, and adaptations 
so that this information can be compared with better-known regions like Egiin Gol (Crubezy 
et al. 1996; Honeychurch 2004) east of Hovsgol and the Tuva taiga to the north. A primary 
goal of this research is to determine how the steppe-taiga boundary influenced cultural 
development and animal domestication and how cultural and ecological boundaries have 
shifted in response to changing climate and historical events. 
A second goal has been to investigate the Mongolian Bronze and Iron Age cultural 
and ritual landscapes (Askarov et al. 1992; Bokovenko 1994; Sementsov et al. 1998; 
Mon-Sol Project 1999/2000; Jacobson-Tepfer 2001; Jacobson et al. 2001, Jacobson 2002; 
National Museum of Korea 2002) by mapping and excavations at the Ulaan Tolgoi site. 
Our research applies GPS mapping, modem recovery techniques, and anthropological 
perspectives to determine feature function, site history, and construction sequences. Major 
questions to be resolved include the precise radiocarbon dating of deer stone art styles, 
the function and relationships between burial mounds, khirigsuur, deer stones, and their 
associated features, most of which contain cremated (datable) animal remains. These 
studies will help us understand Bronze and Early Iron Age world-view and ritual landscape 
patterns, as well as social and religious functions of deer stone monuments. 
A third goal of this research is to begin to assess Mongolia’s role in the origins 
of Scythian art and the hypothesis that the elaborate ‘Mongolian style’ deer stone art is 
an early form of Scytho-Siberian animal art. I hope to be able to test the possibility that 
Mongolian Bronze and Iron Age art spread eastward from the Mongolia-Sayan region 
into northeast Asia and the Bering Sea, as Carl Schuster and Edmund Carpenter have 
proposed (1951; Schuster and Carpenter 1986). Hopefully this work and related studies 
in East Asia will confirm why Siberia has so far failed to produce prototypes - following 
the Larsen-Rainey hypothesis - for the origins of early Eskimo art, whose death masks, 
ivory ornaments, shamanistic elements, and animal motifs seem more closely related to 
Mongolian and East Asian forms and art than to Siberian. 
16 l^itzhugh 
Acknowledgments 
At the outset I want to thank Paula DePriest, Bruno Frohlich, Daniel Rogers, 
Matthew Gallon, Andrea Neighbors, Greg McKee, Deborah Bell, Sue Lutz, Carolyn 
Thome, Paul Rhymer and others at the Smithsonian who collaborated in recent fieldwork. 
I owe a deep debt of gratitude to Ed Nef of Inlingua Services of Arlington, Virginia, for 
his inspiration and support, to Dooloonjin Orgilmaa of Santis Foundation in Ulanbaatar, 
and to Adiyabold Namkhai, who facilitated our field programs. The National Museum 
of Mongolian History, directed by Dr. Idshinnorov until his death in 2003 and later by 
Dr. Ayudain Ochir, has been a strong partner through its indefatigable researchers Ts. 
Ochirkhuiag, Ts. Ayush, J. Baiarsaikhan, Ts. Odbaatar; Dr. D. Tseveendorj of the Institute 
of Archaeology; Drs. Enktuvshin and Galbaatar, leaders of the Mongolian Academy of 
Sciences, and T. Sanjmyatav, archaeologist at that institution; Oi. Sukhbaatar of Chinggis 
Khan College; L. Damdinsuren, Governor of Hovsgol Aimag; Mongolian researchers 
and colleagues; and the Dukha (Tsaatan) people all have made important contributions. 
Funding for the 2001-4 projects came from Ed Nef, Robert Bateman Arctic Fund, Trust 
for Mutual Understanding, U.S. Department of State Ambassador’s Fund, Smithsonian’s 
National Museum of Natural History, and the Arctic Studies Center. Helena Sharp assisted 
with the production of illustrations for this paper. 
Contact address: Arctic Studies Center, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian 
Institution, Washington, D.C., 20560; www://mnh.si.edu/arctic; e-mail: fitzhugh@si.edu 
preferences 
Askarov, A., V. Volkov, and N. Ser-Odjav, 1992. 
Pastoral and Nomadic Tribes at the Beginning 
of the First Millennium B.C. In History of 
Civilization of Centeral Asia: the Dawn of 
Civilization to 700 В. C, edited by A. H. Dani 
and V. M Masson. Paris: UNESCO, 459-468. 
Arutiunov, Sergei, and Dorian Sergeev, 1969. 
Ancient Cultures of the Asiatic Eskimos: Uelen 
Cemetery. Mscow: Institute of Ethnography. 
Nauk (in Russian). 
_, 1975. Problems of the Ethnic History of 
the Bering Sea: Ekven Cemetery. Institute of 
Ethnography. Moscow: Nauk. 
Arutiunov, Sergei, and William W. Fitzhugh, 
1988. Prehistory of Siberia and the Bering Sea. 
In Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia 
and Alaska, edited by William W. Fitzhugh 
and Aron Crowell. Washington: Smithsonian 
Institution Press, 117-139. 
Baabar (B. Batbayar), 1999. History of Mongolia, 
edited by C. Kaplonski. The Mongolia and Inner 
Asia Studies Unit. University of Cambridge. 
Cambridge: Whitehorse Press. 
Baiarsaikhan, J., 2004. Notes on Meaning of Deer 
Stone Iconography. In The Hovsgol Deer Stone 
Project, 2003 Field Report, edited by William 
W. Fitzhugh. Washington: Arctic Studies 
Center, National Museum of Natural History, 
Smithsonian Institution, 35-41. 
Barfield, Thomas, 2001. The Shadow Empires: 
Imperial State Formation Along the Chinese- 
Nomad Frontier. In Empires: Perspectives 
from Archaeology and History, edited by S. E. 
Alcock, T. N. D’Altroy, K. D. Morrison, and C. 
M. Sinopoli. Cambridge: Cambridge University 
Press, 10-41. 
Bawden, Charles R., 1989. The Modern Histoiy 
of Mongolia, 2nd ed. London: Keegan Paul 
International. 
Bokovenko, N. A., 1994. Tomb of Saka Princes 
Discovered in the Sayan, Siberia. In New 
Archaeological Discoveries in Asiatic Russia 
and Central Asia, edited by V. M. Masson, A. 
G. Kozintsev, N.F. Solovyova, and V. Yu. Zuyev. 
Archaeological Studies 16:48-54. 
Arctic Aonnections 27 
Chard, Chester S., 1958. The Western Routes of 
Eskimo Culture. In Act as del XXXII Congresso 
Internacional de Americanistas, San Jose, Costa 
Rica, 2. Costa Rica. 
_, 1974. Northeast Asia in Prehistory. Madison: 
University of Wisconsin Press. 
Chernetsov, Valerii N., and Wanda Moszynska, 
1974. Prehistory of Western Siberia, edited by 
Henry N. Michael. Anthropology of the North: 
Translations from Russian Sources, 9. Montreal 
and London: Arctic Institute of North America 
and McGill-Queen’s University Press. 
Christian, David, 1998. A History of Russia, Central 
Asia, and Mongolia. Vol. 1: Inner Asia From 
Prehistory to the Mongol Empire. London: 
Blackwell. 
Colpaert, A. et ah, 1995. Remote Sensing: A Tool 
for Reindeer Range Land Management. Polar- 
Record 31:235-244. 
Collins, Henry В., 1937. Archaeology of St. Lawrence 
Island, Alaska. Smithsonian Miscellaneous 
Collections 96( 1). Washington. 
_, 1951. Origin and Antiquity of the Eskimo. 
Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution 
for 1950. Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 
423-467. 
_, 1971. Composite Masks: Chinese and Eskimo. 
Anthropologica n.s. 13( 1 -2):271 -278. 
Crubezy, E., H. Martin, P. H. Giscard, Z. 
Batsaikhan, S. Erdenebaatar, J. P. Verdier, 
and B. Maureille, 1996. Funeral Practices and 
Animals Sacrifices in Mongolia at the Uigur 
Period: Archaeological and ethno-historical 
study of a kurgan in the Egyin Gol Valley (Baikal 
Region). Antiquity 70:891-899. 
Danell, K. et ak, 1994. Food plant selection by 
reindeer during winter in relation to plant quality. 
Ecography 17:153-158. 
DePriest, P. T., Lutz, S., Young, S., Tsendeekhuu, 
Ts., and William W. Fitzhugh, 2002. Traditional 
Knowledge of Lichens by Mongolia’s Dukha 
Reindeer Herders. In The Deer Stone Project: 
Anthropology, Natural History, and Global 
Change in Northern Mongolia. 2002 Field Report 
and Project Description. Washington: National 
Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian 
Institution 
DiCosmo, Nicola, 2002. Ancient China and Its 
Enemies: the Rise of Nomadic Power in 
East Asian History. Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press. 
Dikov. Nikolai N., 1979. Ancient Cultures of 
Northeastern Asia. Moscow: Nauk. 
Dumond, Don E., and Richard Bland, 1996. 
Holocene Prehistory in the Northernmost North 
Pacific. Journal of World Prehistory 9(4):401- 
451. 
Edwards, Mike, 2003. Siberia’s Scythians: Masters 
of Gold. National Geographic 203(6): 112-127. 
Erdenebaatar, D., 2002. Burial Materials Related to 
the History of the Bronze Age in the Territory 
of Mongolia. In Metallurgy in Ancient Eastern 
Eurasia from the Urals to the Yellow River, 
edited by Katheryn M. Linduff, Chinese Series 
31. Pittsburgh: Edwin Mellen Press, 190-236. 
Fedorova, Natalia V., A. P. Zykov, S. F. Koksharov, 
and L. M. Terekhova, 1994. Ugrian Heritage: 
West Siberian Antiquities from the Collection 
of Urals University. Institute of History and 
Archaeology, Russian Academy of Sciences, 
Urals Branch. Yekaterinburg. 
_, 2003. Ust-Polui: Is' Century BC. Catalogue 
of the Exhibition. Published jointly by the 
Yamal Nenets Autonomous Okrug, Museum 
of Anthropology and Ethnology/Kunstcamera, 
Yamal Nenets Regional Shemenovsky Museum 
RAS, and the Institute of History and Archaeology 
of the Urals Division of the Russian Academy of 
Sciences. Salekhard and St. Petersburg. 
Fitzh ugh, William W., 1975. A Comparative Approach 
to Northern Maritime Adaptations. In Prehistoric 
Maritime Adaptations of the Circumpolar Zone, 
edited by William W. Fitzhugh. International 
Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological 
Sciences Symposium Volume. The Hague: 
Mouton, 339-386. 
_, 1988a. Comparative Art of the North Pacific 
Rim. In: Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of 
Siberia and Alaska, edited by W. Fitzhugh and 
A. Crowell. Washington: Smithsonian Institution 
Press, 294-312. 
_, 1988b. Persistence and Change in Art and 
Ideology in Western Alaskan Cultures. In: The 
Late Prehistoric Development of Alaska s Native 
peoples. Alaska Anthropological Association 
Monograph 4. Aurora Press, 81-105 
_, 1993. Art and Iconography in the Hunting 
Ritual of North Pacific Peoples. In: Proceedings 
of the 7th International Abashiri Symposium. 
Abashiri: Abashiri Museum of Northern Peoples, 
1-13. 
_, 1998. Searching for the Grail: Virtual 
Archaeology in Yamal and Circumpolar 
Theory. Publications of the National Museum, 
Ethnographic Series. Copenhagen: Danish 
28 fitzhugh 
National Museum 18:99-118. 
_, 2002. Yamal to Greenland: Global Connections 
in Circumpolar Archaeology. In Archaeology: 
the Widening Debate, edited by Barry Cunliffe, 
Wendy Davies, and Colin Renfrew. Oxford: 
Oxford University Press, 91-144. 
_, 2003. Mongolia’s Arctic Connections: The 
Hovsgol Deer Stone Project 2001-2002 Field 
Report, edited by William W. Fitzhugh. National 
Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian 
Institution. Washington: Arctic Studies Center, 
114. 
_, 2004a. Project Goals and 2003 Fieldwork. 
In The Hovsgol Deer Stone Project, 2003 Field 
Report, edited by William W. Fitzhugh. National 
Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian 
Institution. Washington: Arctic Studies Center, 
1-24. 
_, 2004b. The Hovsgol Deer Stone Project, 
2003 Field Report, edited by William W. 
Fitzhugh. National Museum of Natural History, 
Smithsonian Institution. Washington: Arctic 
Studies Center, 169. 
Fitzhugh, William W., and Andrei Golovnev, 1998. 
The Drovyanoy 3 Shaman’s Cache: Archaeology, 
Ethnography, and “Living Yamal.” 
Arctic Anthropology 35(2): 177-198. 
Frohlich, Bruno, Matthew Gallon, and David 
Hunt, 2003. Surveying and Excavating Bronze 
Age Burial Mounds and 20th Century Mass 
Burials in Mongolia. Arctic Studies Newsletter 
11:21-23. 
Frohlieh, Bruno, Matthew Gallon, and Naran 
Bazarsad, 2004. The Khirigsuur Tombs. In The 
Hovsgol Deer Stone Project, 2003 Field Report, 
edited by William W. Fitzhugh. Arctic Studies 
Center, National Museum of Natural History. 
Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 42-61. 
Frohlich, Bruno, Naran Bazarsad, David Hunt, 
and Enkhtur Altangerel, 2004. Mass Burials 
at Hambin Ovoo. In The Hovsgol Deer Stone 
Project, 2003 Field Report, edited by William 
W. Fitzhugh. Arctic Studies Center, National 
Museum of Natural History. Washington: 
Smithsonian Institution, 92-104. 
Hodges, Glenn, 2003. Mongolian Crossing: Is Time 
Running Out On A Timeless Migration? National 
Geographic 204(4): 102-121. 
Honeychurch, William, 2004. Inner Asian Warriors 
and Khans: a Regional Spatial Analysis of 
Nomadic Political Organization and Interaction. 
PhD. Dissertation in preparation. Dept, of 
Anthropology, University of Michigan. 
Honeychurch, William, and Ch. Amartuvshin, 
2003. An Examination of the Khunnu Peeriod 
Settlement in the Egiin Gol Valley, Mongolia. 
Studia Archaeologica 21(l):59-65. 
Honeychurch, W. and Ch. Amartuvshin, in 
press (a). States on Horseback: The Rise of 
Inner Asian Confederations and Empires. In: 
Asian Archaeology, edited by Miriam Stark. 
Cambridge: Blackwell. 
Honeychurch, W. and Ch. Amartuvshin, in 
press (b). Survey and Settlement in Northern 
Mongolia: The Structure of Intra-Regional 
Nomadic Organization. In, Proceedings of the 
University of Chicago Conference on Eurasian 
Archaeology. Leiden: E.J. Brill Publishing. 
Ingold, Tim, 1980. Hunters, Pastoralists, and 
Ranchers. Cambridge Studies in Social 
Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press. 
Ishjamts, N., 1994. Nomads in Eastern Central Asia. 
In History of Civilization of Central Asia. Vol. Ill, 
edited by Janos Harmatta. UNESCO, 151-169. 
Jacobson, Esther, 1993. The Deer Goddess of 
Ancient Siberia. A Study in the Ecology of Belief. 
Leiden, New York, Kohn: E. J. Brill. 
_, 1998. The Recreation of Landscape Settings 
in Petroglyphs of Northern Central Asia. 
International Journal of Central Asian Studies 
3:192-214. 
_, 2002. Petroglyphs and the Qualification of 
Bronze Age Mortuary Archaeology. Archaeology, 
Ethnology, and Anthropology of Eurasia 
3(11 ):32-47. 
Jacobson-Tepfer, Esther, 2001. Cultural Riddles: 
Stylized Deer and Deer Stones of the M<ongolian 
Altai. Bulletin of the Asian Institute, New Series, 
15:31-56. 
Jacobson, Esther, V. D. Kubarev, and D. 
Tseevendorj, 2001. Mongolie du Nord-Ouest: 
Tsagaan Salaa/Baga Oigor. 2 Vols. Repertoire 
des Petroglyphes d’Asie Centrale: Fascicule 6. 
Paris: De Boccard. 
Jacoby, G. C., R. D. D’Arrigo, and T. Davaajamts, 
1996. Mongolian Tree Rings and 20lh Century 
Warming. Holocene 10:1-7. 
Jenness, Diamond, 1928. Archaeological 
Investigations in Bering Strait, 1926. Annual 
Report of the National Museum of Canada for 
1926, Bulletin 50:71-80. Ottawa. 
Karabanov, E. B.,A.A. Prokopenko, D. F. Williams, 
and G. K. Khursevich, 2000. A New Record of 
Holocene Climate Change from the Bottom 
Arctic Connections 29 
Sediments of Lake Baikal. Palaeogeography, 
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 156:211- 
224. 
Korean-Mongolian Joint Expedition, 2001. Mongol 
Morin Tolgoi Hyeungno Mudeom. Korean- 
Mongolian Joint Research Report II for 1999 
and 2000. Seoul: National Museum of Korea, 
National Museum of Mongolian History, and 
Institute of History of the Mongolian Academy 
of Sciences. 
_, 2002. Korean-Mongolian Joint Expedition in 
Mongolia 1997-2001. Special Exhibition. Seoul: 
National Museum of Korea, National Museum 
of Mongolian History. 
_, 2003. Hnnnu Tombs at Judgiin Tolgoi 
in Mongolia. Research Report on Korean- 
Mongolian Joint Expedition in Mongolia III. 
2 vols. Seoul: National Museum of Korea, 
National Museum of Mongolian History, and the 
Institute of Archaeology, Mongolian Academy 
of Sciences. 
Krupnik, Igor, 1992. Arctic Adaptations: Native 
Whalers and Reindeer Hunters of Northern 
Eurasia. Hanover: University Press of New 
England. 
Larsen, Helge, and Frolich Rainey, 1948. 
Ipiutak and the Arctic Whale Hunting Culture. 
Anthropological Papers of the American Museum 
of Natural History 42. New York. 
Lattimore, Owen, 1940. Inner Asian Frontiers of 
China. New York: Oxford University Press. 
_, 1962. Nomads and Commissars: Mongolia 
Revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
Lebedintsev, A. E., 1990. Early Coastal Cultures 
of Northwestern Priokhot’ye. Moscow: Nauk 
(in Russian) 
Lin Yun, 1986. A Re-examination of the Relationship 
Between Bronzes of the Shang Culture and of the 
Northern Zone. In Studies of Shang Archaeology, 
K.C. Chang (ed.). New Haven: Yale University 
Press, 237-273. 
Milnius, Susan, 2003. Southern Reindeer Folk: As 
Far from Santa as the Old Herders Go. Science 
News 163:40-42 (Jan. 18, 2003). 
Molodin, V. I., 2000. The Pazyryk Culture: Problems 
of Origin, Ethnic History, and Historical Destiny. 
Archaeology, Ethnology, and Anthropology’ of 
Eurasia 1(4). 
Okladnikov, A., 1981. Ancient Art of the Amur 
Region. Leningrad: Aurora. 
Orekhov, A. A., 1987. An Early Culture of the 
Northwest Bering Sea. Moscow: Nauk [in 
Russian; English translation by Richard Bland: 
National Park Service, Anchorage, Alaska. 
1999] 
Peck, John A., P. Khosbayar, Sarah Fowell, 
Richard B. Pierce, S. Ariunbileg, Barbara 
C, S. Hansen, and Nergui Soninkhishig, 
2002. Mid to Late Holocene Climate Change 
in North Central Mongolia as Recorded in the 
Sediments of Lake Telmen. Palaeogeography, 
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 183:135- 
153. 
Petzold, D., and S. N. Goward, 1998. Reflectance 
Spectra of Subarctic Lichens. Remote Sensing 
of Environment 24: 481 -492. 
Pitulko, Vladimir, 1999. Ancient Humans in Arctic 
Ecosystems: Environmental Dynamics and 
Changing Subsistence. World Archaeology 
30(3):421-436. 
Plumley, Daniel ,and S. Battula, 2002. We are 
Dukha: This is the Way of our People. Cultural 
Survival Quarterly 24(2): 19-21. 
Powers, Roger, and Richard H. Jordan, 1990. 
Human Biogeogaphy and Climatic Change in 
Siberia and Arctic North America in the Fouth 
and Fifth Millennia B.P. Transactions of the 
Royhal Society of London, A330: 665-670. 
Robinson, Kevin, M. Abbott, and M. F. Rosenmeier, 
2004. Late Holocene Paleoenvironmental 
Studies. In The Hovsgol Deer Stone Project 
2003 Field Report, edited by William w. 
Fitzhugh. Field Report Series. Arctic Studies 
Center, National Museum of Natural History. 
Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 62-69. 
Rogers, Daniel J., 2002. Smithsonian Research on 
Mongolian Empires. 2002 Field Report and 
Project Description. Field Report Series. Arctic 
Studies. Center, National Museum of Natural 
History. Washington: Smithsonian Institution. 
Sandmeier, St., and D. W. Deering, 1999. Structure 
analysis and classification of boreal forests using 
airborne hyperspectral BRDF data from ASAS. 
Remote Sensing of Environment 69:281-295. 
Sanjmyatav, Tovuudorj, 1995. Mongoliin Khadni 
Zurag (Petroglyphs of Mongolian). Edited by 
N. Ser-Odzhav. Institute of History, Mongolian 
Academy of Sciences. Ulanbaatar. 
Schnirelman, Victor A., 1980. The Origins of Animal 
Husbandry: a Cultural and Historical Issue. 
Moscow: Nauk. 
Schuster, Carl, 1951. Survival of the Eurasiatic 
Animal Style in Modern Alaskan Eskimo 
Art. Selected Papers of the 29'h Congress of 
Americanists, New York, 1949. Edited by Sol 
jAtzbus^h 50 
Tax. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 
35-45. 
to the Far Northern World. New York: John 
Wiley and Sons. Wiley Science Editions. 
Schuster, Carl, and Edmund Carpenter, 1986. 
Materials for the Study of Social Symbolism in 
Ancient and Tribal Art: a Record of Tradition 
and Continuity. 12 vols, edited and written by 
Edmund Carpenter, assisted by Lorraine Spiess. 
1(4). New York: Rock Foundation. 
Sementsov, A. A., G. I. Zaitseva, J. Gorsdorf, A. 
Nagler, H. Parzinger, N. A. Bokovenko, K. 
V. Chugunov, and L. M. Lebedeva, 1998. 
Chronology of the Burial Finds from Scythian 
Monuments in Southern Siberia and Central 
Asia. Proceedings of the 16th International 14C 
Conference, edited by W. G. Mook and J. van 
der Plicht. Radiocarbon 40(2):713-720. 
Song, Yaoliang, 1992. The Deified Human Face 
Petroglyphs of Prehistoric China. Hong Kong: 
Joint Publishing Company Ltd. 
_, 1998. Prehistoric Human-Face Petroglyphs of 
the North Pacific Region. Arctic Studies Center 
Newsletter 6 (Supplement). Washington: National 
Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian 
Institution, 1-4. 
Swanson, J. D., M. P. Kinney, and P. C. Scorup, 
1983. Reindeer Range Vegetation Inventory 
Procedures. Acta Zoology’ Fennica 175:39-41. 
Tseveendorj, D., N. Urtnasan, A. Ochir, G. 
Gongorjav (editors), 1999. Historical and 
Cultural Monuments of Mongolia. Mongolian 
Academy of Humanties. Ulanbaatar. (in 
Mongolian) 
Vainshtein, Sevyan I., 1980. Nomads of South 
Siberia: the Pastoral Economies of Tuva. 
Trans, by Michael Colenso; edited by Caroline 
Humphrey. Cambridge: Cambridge University 
Press. 
_, 1981. On the Distribution of the Reindeer 
Economy Among the Samoyed Peoples. In 
Congressus Quintus Internationalis Finno- 
Ugristarum. Turku, Finland, 8:118-123 (in 
Russian). 
Wheeler, Alan, 1999. The Dukha: Mongolia’s 
Reindeer Herders. Mongolia Sur\>ey 6:58-66. 
_, 2000. Lords of the Mongolian Taiga: an 
Ethnohistory of the Dukha Reindeer Herders. 
MA thesis presented to the Department of 
Central Eurasian Studies, Indiana University. 
Whitaker, Ian, 1981. Tuvan Reindeer Husbandry in 
the Early 20th Century. Polar Record20(127):337- 
351. 
Young, Stephen, 1989. To the Arctic: an Introduction 
_, 2003. Environment and Geobotanical Notes. 
In Mongolia’s Arctic Connections: the Hovsgol 
Deer Stone Project, 2001-2002, edited by 
William W. Fitzhugh, pp. 17-22. Field Report 
Series, Arctic Studies Center, National Museum 
of Natural History. Washington: Smithsonian 
Institution. 
_, 2003. Environment and Geobotanical Notes. 
In Mongolia’s Arctic Connections: the Hovsgol 
Deer Stone Project, 2001-2002, edited by 
William W. Fitzhugh, pp. 17-22. Field Report 
Series, Arctic Studies Center, National Museum 
of Natural History. Washington: Smithsonian 
Institution. 
/\rctic (Connections 51 
Mongolian /\bstract 
Буган Чулуун хѳшѳѳ тѳсѳл: Монголии умард нутаг ба хойд туйлын 
уялдаа холбоотой асуудлыг судлах нь 
Вильяам Фицу, Туйл Судлалын Тѳвийн захирал 
Ундэсний Байгалын Тѵѵхийн Музей 
Смитсонийн Институт 
Монгол бол Тѳв Азийн бусээс археологийн хувьд бага судлагдсан 
газруудын нэг юм. Гэвч Монгол улс ѳнгѳрсѳн 10 жилийн турш улс тѳрийн 
шалтгааны улмаас уудсэн хаагдмал байдлаасаа салж, олон улсын эрдэмтэн 
судлаачидтай хийх хамтын ажиллагаа нь маш тургэн хурдацтайгаар ѳсѳж 
байна. Баруун болон Тѳв Азийг холбосон Торгоны зам болон Хятадтай харьцах 
Монголын харилцаа нь харьцангуйгаар илуу судлагдсан болохоос биш Монгол 
болон, ѳмнѳд Сибирь, Зуун болон Зуун хойд Азитай соёлын хѳгжлѳѳрѳѳ хэрхэн 
холбогдох, хун амын шилжилт суурьшилт ѳрнѳх явц зэрэг хучин зуйлсэд 
Монголын эзлэх уурэг ролийн талаар судалгаа хийгдээгуй байгаа гэж хэлж 
болно. Орос, Солонгос, Зуун хойд Азид, Монголын хойд болон зуун хэсгийн 
холбоо хамаарлын талаар тодотгосон зарим нэг судалгаанууд хийгдсэн боловч 
археологийн ба хурээлэн буй орчны судлагааны асуултууд нь дѳнгѳж эхлэлийн 
тѳдий байгаа билээ. Америкийн Нэгдсэн Улсын Байгалын Туухийн Ундэсний 
Музей дэх Смитсонийн Туйл Судлалын Тѳв, Монголын Ундэсний Туухийн 
Музей болон Монголын Шинжлэх Ухааны Академитай хамтран хийсэн олон 
талт судалгаа шинжилгээний ажлын хурээнд Монголын Хойд нутгийн соёл 
ба хурээлэн буй орчны туухэн асуудлыг Сибирь, Туйлын эргэн тойрон болон 
Номхон далайн хойд хэсэгтэй харьцуулан, туухэн талаас нь судлаж эхэлсэн юм. 
Монголын хойд нутагт 2001 оноос 2004 онд хийгдсэн эрдэм шинжилгээний 
ажлын Уеэр судлагдсан асуудлууд, уунээс урган гарсан урьдчилсан ур дунгууд 
нь энэхуу илтгэлд тусгагдсан болно. 
“Буган чулуу хѳшѳѳ” тѳслийн гол зорилго нь Монголын хойд болон 
дорнод хэсгийн газар нутаг нь бусад бус нутгийн соёлтой уялдаа холбоотой эсэх 
талаар гунзгийруулэн судлах явдал бѳгѳѳд энэ асуудал тѳдийлѳн судлаачдын 
анхааралд ѳртѳхгуй байсаар ирсэн гэж хэлж болно. Пермафрост ба амьтны 
аймаг гэх мэт орчин тойрныхоо хувьд Монгол нь туйл орчмын газар нутагтай 
ижил тѳстэйгѳѳс гадна ан ав хийх, цаа буга маллах гэх зэрэг соёл иргэншлийнхээ 
хувьд ч гэсэн ойролцоо байдаг бѳгѳѳд туйл орчмын хун ард болон тэдний соёл 
зан заншилд Монголчуудын оруулсан хувь нэмэр чухал байсан нь дамжиггуй. 
Монголын хойд нутаг нь цаа буга гаршуулж эхэлсэн анхны голомт байсан 
байх магадлалтай тѳдийгуй монголын хурэл зэвсгийн Уеийн соёл иргэншил нь 
Скифчуудийн урлагийн гарал уусэлд чухал нѳлѳѳтэй байж зарим нэг ухагдахуун 
нь зуун тийш Номхон далайн хойд хэсэг руу тархсан байж болзошгуй юм. Бага 
хэмжээгээр судлагдаж байсан Хѳвсгѳл аймгийн Дархадын хотгор орчмын бус 
нутагт илуу их тулгуурлан явагдаж байгаа “Буган чулуу хѳшѳѳ” тѳсѳл нь тайга, 
талын хѳндлѳн гулд хуй нэгдлийн уеэс эхлэн ѳнѳѳг хуртэл амьдарч ирсэн хун 
ардын соёл иргэншлийн туухийг сѳхѳх, хурлийн уеийн шутлэгийн зан уйлтэй 
Citzbugh 52 
холбогдох буган чулуун хѳшѳѳний он цаг, бутэц, агуулгыг гунзгийруулэн авч 
узэх, Цаатангуудыг угсаатны зуй, экологийн талаар судлаж, улмаар цаг агаарын 
дулаарал нь тэдний амьдралын хэв маягт хэрхэн нйлййлж байгааг мѳн тодруулах 
зорилготой байлаа. Туунээс гадна Дархадын хотгорын бусийн цаг агаар байгал 
орчны туухийг судлаж, эдгээр нь соёл иргэншлийн хѳгжилд хэрхэн нѳлѳѳлсѳѳр 
ирсэнийг тодорхойлох нь тѳслийн бас нэгэн зорилго байсан юм. 
Yp дун: Буган чулуун хѳшѳѳ, хиригсуур ба хурэл зэвсгийн уеийн байгаль 
дэлхийг тахин шутэх зан уйлийн талаар ерѳнхий дугнэлт хийх нь арай л эрт 
байсан боловч зарим нэг чухал ач холбогдол ѳгѳхуйц урагштай алхамууд 
хийгдсэн юм. Алаг-Эрдэнэ сумын нутаг Улаан Толгойн ѳвѳрт бид нэгэн буган 
чулуун хѳшѳѳг (Буган чулуу 4) малтах явцдаа зуун тийшээ харуулан тавьсан 
морины толгой, хузуу, дѳрвѳн туурай зэргийг хамт булж тахилга уйлдсэн зан 
уйлийг илруулэн олсон юм. Эдгээр олдворууд нь буган чулуун хѳшѳѳний эргэн 
тойронд буй тойрог хэлбэрийн чулуун байгууламж дотор булагдсан байх бѳгѳѳд 
морины толгойн яс болон нуурсний дээжинд хийсэн он цаг тогтоох лабораторийн 
судлагаагаар МЭѲ IX зууны орчимд холбогдох нь тогтоогдсон юм. 
Буган чулуу хѳшѳѳний судалгаанаас гадна GPS буюу Газарзуйн байршлын 
системийн зурганд оруулсан зуу зуун булш, хиригсууруудийн тусламжтайгаар 
хиригсуур болон хурлийн уеийн оршуулгын газрын ерѳнхий хэв зургийг гаргасан 
нь судалгааны ажлын нэг дэвшилттэй зуйл байсан гэж хэлж болно (Фрохлич, 
энэ дугаарт). 
Дархадын хотгорын баруун талд орших загас агнуураар баялаг Хѳгийн 
голын орчмоос археологийн чухал олдворууд олдсор байгаа билээ. Эдгээрийн 
хамгийн эртнийх нь болох МЭѲ 5500 жилийн ѳмнѳх Хуй нэгдлийн уеийн жижиг 
суурингийн улдэгдлээс цахиур олборлож байсны ул мѳр болох ялтсан зэвдсгууд, 
жижиг гурвалжин узууртэй сумны зэв, зулгуурууд, нимгэн ур муутай сараачмал 
зураас гаргасан ваарны хагархай хэсгууд, дугуй хэлбэртэй голдоо нухтэй чулуун 
сувснууд олдсон юм. Эндээс жижиг голдуу суун тэжээлтэн амьтдын яснууд 
олдсон бѳгѳѳд ихэд шатсан байсны улмаас танихад хундрэлтэй болсон байна. 
Дараагийн олдвор нь МЭ 1000 оны орчим холбогдох нягт ширхэгтэй жижиг 
чулууг тойруулан тавьж гал тулж байсан галын ор болон бог малый яснууд, 
зузаан шавар сав суулганы хагархай жижиг хэсэг зэргээс бурдэж байсан. Уулын 
тундрын бусийн Баран голын орчмын судалгааны ур дунд Хуй нэгдлийн уеийн 
олдворууд олдсон боловч энэ ан авын нуга бэлчээр нутгийн археологийн 
баримтууд нь маш хязгаардлагдмал хэвээр улдэж байна. 
Скифчуудийн урлагийн бутээлийн гарал уусэлд Монголчуудын хувь 
нэмрээ оруулсаныг баллах судалгаа ба Жакобсон (1993) болон бусад судлаачдын 
Монголын буган чулуун дээрх урлагийн бутээл нь Скиф-Сибирийн амьтан 
дурслэлийн урлагийн эртний тѳрѳл зуйл болох тухай онолууд нь Улаан Толгойн 
МЭѲ 3000 жилийн тэртээх уед холбогдох буган чулуун хѳшѳѳний судалгаагаар 
урагшилах боломжийг олгож байгаа юм. Эдгээр хѳшѳѳ чулуун дээрх сийлбэр 
буюу уунтэй ижил тѳстэй урлаг нь Монгол-Саянаас зуун тийш тархаж Зуун 
болон Зуун хойд Азиар дамжин Берингийн тэнгист хурсэн байж болзох талаар 
Карл Шустерийн (1951) анхны дэвшуулсэн онолыг ургэлжлуулэн судлан узэх 
боломжтой болох нь энэ олдсон олдвороос харагдаж байна. Хэрвээ бид уунийг 
/\rctic (Connections 55 
лавшруулан судлаж чадах юм бол Сибирийн эртний Эскимосчуудийн урлаг 
нь ууний дотор ухсэн хуний нуурний баг, зааны ясан гоёл чимэглэл, бѳѳгийн 
хэрэгсэлууд, амьтантай холбоотой зан уйлууд гэх зэрэг нь яагаад Сибирийн 
урлаг соёлтой холбогдохоосоо илуу Монгол болон Зуун Азитай илуу ойр 
холбоотой байгаа нь улмаар Larsen-Rainey-гийн харилцан хамаарлын таамаглал 
батлагдахгуй байсан шалтгаанд хариулт ѳгѳх боломжтой. 
Geographer Oi. Sukhbaatar, Director of the Mongolia Reindeer Foundation, riding a 
reindeer out of the West Taiga hills, (photo: Fitzhugh) 
54 
2 
j~he Дпсіепѣ Art of Mong°f an Reindeer Merding 
Professor Oi. Sukhbaatar 
Chinggis Khaan University 
Even though it is traditionally known that Mongolians count sheep, goat, horse, 
cow and camel as their five major herding animals, reindeer husbandry has been the sixth 
animal herded for over a thousand years. Every Mongolian knows that reindeer live in 
Hovsgol province, specifically in the northern Hovsgol areas of Ulaan uul, Renchinlhumbe 
and Tsagaannuur. Beginning in 1985, there were efforts to relocate the reindeer in the 
Tsagaannuur area to make reindeer herding more viable; however, the reindeer herders 
continued to possess reindeer in the border areas of Ulaan uul and Renchinlhumbe, the 
neighboring administrative units. 
The word “reindeer” is tsaa buga in the Mongolian language, which is a shortened 
version of a longer term meaning “white deer.” Thirty to forty percent of the reindeer are 
white-colored and almost all of the animal’s rear parts are white/gray-colored. Therefore, 
earlier Mongolians used to call the reindeer “white deer” (tsagaan buga), and throughout 
history the shorter version became tsaa buga in Mongolian. Moreover, the reindeer herders 
are called “Reindeer people” or Tsaatan in Mongolian. 
I believe that the forest and taiga regions in northern Mongolia are the original 
steppe areas where mankind started breeding and pasturing reindeer. Of the four families 
of reindeer in the world, the Mongolian and Tuva reindeer are the largest. The average 
height of an adult reindeer in Mongolia is 110-125 centimeters and its average weight is 
120-220 kilograms. Thus, while in most countries the herders harness several reindeer 
together as one, Mongolian and Tuva herders saddle reindeer just like they saddle horses. 
Also, their use of reindeer is similar to practices used for riding and burdening oxen, horses, 
and elephants. Mongolian reindeer have an ability to travel 40 km per day carrying 60-120 
kg loads through the uneven rocky road in the mountain forest {taiga) areas. Because the 
reindeer’s walk is light and easy, the long journey does not tire riders as much as horseback 
riding does. Reindeer riding is the most convenient means of transportation around the forest 
area because reindeer are capable of enduring hardship in the mountains, such as not getting 
stuck in the mud and not slipping on rocks. These features result from a combination of the 
animal’s innate abilities and long-term training. In Mongolia, the reindeer herders have, 
over many years, simplified the work of herding reindeer. It has been said that when more 
55 
herders practice raising livestock, the 
process becomes easier and the animals 
get larger. 
Other evidence that supports 
our opinion has been found in some 
archaeological sites. Soviet scientists 
published an article showing images of 
reindeer at a rock art site found in Tuva, 
located close to the Mongolian border, 
which became a part of Soviet Union 
in 1944. A similar reindeer rock art site 
was also found near the Zuun turag Mountain’s Har Nart Rock in Sagil, Uvs Province, in 
Mongolia. In June 1968, our group, guided by a skilled cattle breeder, Buyanjargal, and 
other local people, took a trip to Tsagaan Otog Valley near the Har Nart Rock and discovered 
the rock art displaying a reindeer herder with a long hunting spear (Figure 2.1). 
Tsagaan Otog Valley is a sheltered place protected against bad weather, and there 
are, as a consequence, rocks with rock art drawings of wild goat, deer, wolf, and hunters 
with bows and arrows (one of them shows a male hunter with spread legs). Looking at the 
three different hunters (one is on foot, another is riding a horse, and the last one rides a 
reindeer), we know that the rock art dates after the Paleolithic period because the hunters 
were riding the horse and reindeer without saddles. Also, wild goats, reindeer and hunters 
were described as indicating the importance of male dominance. Possibly, the rock art was 
done during the end of the spring and beginning of the summer season because the eter, 
the Mongolian name for a male reindeer, had fewer and shorter branches (three branches) 
of horns and also a large fat chest. 
These rock art sites demonstrate that hunters of that time were very organized and 
hunted in groups with horses, reindeer, and dogs due to the difficulties of hunting wolf, 
wild goat, and deer in the rocky mountain area. Observing the reindeer {eter) rider, seeing 
him without a hat and the recognizing the reindeer’s short horns, it is possible that hunters 
choose the beginning of the summer season for a special purpose, for this is the time when 
newborn wild animals are still young and are in collective groups. The hunting spear is 
estimated is estimated to have been 3.5-4 meters long by comparing it to the hunter who was 
holding it. The hunter had tied three different ribbons (not laces) around the pointed area at 
the middle and the end of the spear. These ribbons may be related to either shamanism or 
hunting practice. The middle ribbon was drawn very close to the reindeer’s mouth and it 
was hard to tell if it was one of the ribbons or was tired to the reindeer’s tongue. Typically, 
when reindeer get overheated and sweaty during a ride they walk with their mouth wide 
open, tongue hanging out, and pant. 
The Tsagaan Otog Valley rock art suggests that reindeer breeding and riding began 
in Mongolia around 4000 years ago. In addition, there are some deer rock art sites found in 
Tagna, the rock mountain area between Buhmoron River and Uvs Lake in the western part 
of Mongolia. In some depictions at these sites it is difficult to tell whether an animal shown 
Figure 2.1. Rock art displaying a reindeer 
herder with a long hunting spear. 
56 ^ukhbaatar 
is a deer or a reindeer. There is, in addition, another deer rock art site found in Shovgor 
Zaraa Rock of the Buregkhangai unit in Bulgan province in the central part of Mongolia 
that might illustrate reindeer. Moreover, we have heard from some local elder cattle breeders 
that there is rock art of a man with a deer on a tether that is found in Hanbogd, Omnogobi 
province near Mongolia’s border with China. Around 1980 we tried but failed to find that 
rock. The local cattle breeders were certain of its existence and criticized our inability 
to find the site. If this rock art is ever found, it would provide sufficient evidence from 
Mongolian archeology to prove that ancient Mongolians used to breed not only reindeer 
but also deer. There is also a rumor about rock art depicting a man with a tethered deer in 
another region, the mountains of Baga Bogd and Arts Bogd, in Uvurkhangai province in 
central Mongolia. 
The rock art site at Tsagaan Otog Valley provides archaeological evidence that 
Mongolian reindeer herders began breeding, riding, and using reindeer some 4000 years 
ago. Additionally, it holds an important place as one form of the ancient heritage of the 
Tsaatan people’s art and culture. 
History evidence from old scripts documents that Mongolians have bred and 
herded reindeer for about 1000 years. Persian historian Rashid-ad-din, who was the prime 
minister of Persia at the time, mentioned Mongolian herders with reindeer living in the 
northern Mongolian mountain area in his book, Chronicle Sudra. As he said, the mountain 
forest population herd reindeer, ski, and hunt; yet, they do not breed sheep and goats. He 
also mentioned that they used to frighten their daughters by threatening to marry them to 
sheep herders. Reindeer are the cleanest and most odorless animal among the domesticated 
animals; so, it is reasonable that they tried to scare their daughters by threatening to marry 
them to a herder who stinks like sheep. Reindeer herders still use a short and wide ski 
called ukhaagn in the present days. The khaag is covered with horse fur wrapped it so that 
the hair angles back against the snow, making it easier for the skier to walk uphill while 
permitting one to slide downhill. The khaag not only represents the reindeer herder’s 
ancient culture and tradition, but also it is also an important game and hunting tool. The 
short length of the khaag allows the skier to easily ski on uneven and bumpy trails. Also it 
is a very handy tool for hunting because a hunter can slide down quickly from high places, 
and the tip of the ski is unbreakable. Moreover, its horse fur cover helps the hunter to get 
close to a wild animal without making noise. 
Logically, it is probable that throughout history, residents of the southern part of the 
mountain forest region adopted cattle breeding from their herder neighbors of the steppe. 
Reindeer, as a kind of deer, is the most common form of domesticated animal found in the 
forest mountain zone; therefore, after domestication the practice of breeding and herding 
reindeer would have quickly spread to the residents of the central and northern parts of 
the mountain zone. From the 17th to 19th centuries, several hundred reindeer were counted 
as property of the Darkhad and Uriankhai during the cattle population census in the Bogd 
Shavi recording. Until 1930, Darkhat’s wealthy herders had a large number of reindeer, 
which they used for herding, hunting, and transportation. They used to buy wheat, cotton, 
and other goods from the towns of Hanh and Hatgal and carry them to Bus River during 
/\ndent Art 57 
the winter bazaars. They sold goods to the hunters and purchased fur, musk-oil, bile of 
bear, reindeer horn, and herbs from Tuvan and Uriankhai people to re-sell to Russian 
and Chinese companies in Hatgal and Hanh. This business proved to be very successful; 
therefore, they took a good care of their reindeer. 
Some Mongolians have continued to practice the tradition of breeding and herding 
reindeer up to the present time. In the 1950s, when reindeer herders moved back from Tuva 
to Mongolia after Tuva became part of the former Soviet Union, they left most of their 
reindeer back in Tuva and lost some of them. For that reason, there were approximately only 
400 reindeer in Mongolia in that time. Beginning in the 1960s the Mongolian government 
sought to encourage the growth of the reindeer population, and through their efforts the 
popular grew to approximately 2280 reindeer as of the winter of 1975-1976. In other words, 
compared to 1956, the reindeer population grew five-fold. 3000 to 4000 years ago, the 
reindeer herding territory was much wider, including the northern parts of the present Uvs, 
Zavkhan, and Hovsgol provinces in Mongolia. But, from that time forward, this habitat 
shrank due to the expansion of territory used by cattle herders. Currently, there is less than 
6000 square km of territory left in northwest Hovsgol province for reindeer herders. For 
example, in 1970 there were approximately slightly more than 1000 reindeer in the north 
Bayanzurkh and west Ulaan-Uul parts of Hovsgol province; but today, the reindeer herding 
territory has been reduced by 60-80 km at its southern edge. Unfortunately, the number 
of reindeer has decreased rapidly since 1990, and as of 1997 there were approximately 
only 500 reindeer remaining. The Tsaa Buga Foundation (Reindeer Foundation) and the 
Tsaatan association (Reindeer Herders’ Association) have put great effort into decreasing 
the mortality rate of reindeer and increasing the growth of the reindeer herds. They have 
helped reindeer herders by providing food supplies, clothing, and medicine as humanitarian 
aid. Furthermore, they have achieved a decrease in the mortality rate such that the reindeer 
population has increased to 650, thanks primarily to medical programs treating reindeer 
diseases. 
Despite these gains, the reindeer population remains very low and subject to 
catastrophe. Historically, Mongolia has been a territory where mankind started breeding 
reindeer and was the place where many nations and tribes, particularly those residing in 
cold and harsh winter climates, were saved from hunger. Therefore, like recent generations 
of this land, it is our responsibility, duty, and honor to save the endangered species of 
reindeer and to help increase its population. If we pay more attention to this work we will 
attract the interest of scientists, researchers, and humanitarian workers from the rest of the 
world who will come and help us fulfill this goal. 
53 ^ukhbaatar 
Mongolian /\bstract 
Монголын Цаатаны урлагийн эртний нэгэн бутээл 
Профессор Ой. Сухбаатар 
Чингэс Хаан дээд сургуулийн дэд захирал 
Монголчууд уламжлалт таван хошуу мал гэж ярьж хэвшсэн хэдий ч хэдэн 
мянган жилийн ѳмнѳѳс зургаа дахь тѳрлийн мал буюу цаа бугыг бэлчээрийн 
аргаар малласаар иржээ. Ѳнѳѳгийн Хѳвсгѳл аймгийн хойд хэсэгт Улаан-Уул, 
Ренчинлхумбэ, Цагааннуур сумын нутагт цаа буга байдаг тухай монголчууд хэн 
хунгуй мэднэ. 1985 оноос Хѳвсгѳлийн цаа бугыг шинээр байгуулсан Цагааннуур 
сумын нутагт бѳѳндуу байршуулсан хэдий ч цаатан ардууд зэргэлдээх Улаан- 
Уул, Ренчинлхумбэ сумдын зах залгаа газраар куудэллэх явдал хэвээр байна. 
Дэлхийд байгаа дѳрвѳн тѳрлийн цаа бугын уулдрээс Монгол, Тувагийн 
цаа буга биеэр хамгийн том нь юм. Монголын нас гуйцсэн цаа буга сэрвээгээрээ 
110-аас 125 см ѳндѳр, 120-оос 220 кг хуртэл жин татдаг. Иймээс дэлхийн бусад 
орны цаатангууд цаа бугыг хэд хэдээр нь чарганд хослон хѳллѳж, уналганд 
ашигладаг бол Монгол, Тувад цаа бугыг морь адил эмээллэн унаж уналганд 
хэрэглэнэ, ухэр, морь, заан мэт бас нуруу ачна. Цаа буга 60-аас 120 кг ачаа 
ачуулууад уул тайгын бартаат замаар нэг ѳдѳртѳѳ 40 км хуртэл явж чадна. Цаа 
бугыг унаж явахад явдал нь зѳѳлѳн учраас хумуус морь унасан шиг ядардаггуй. 
Намганд шигдэж, асга хаданд халтирдаггуй учраас ой тайгын бартаат замд 
хамгийн тохиромжтой унаа юм. Энэ нь эрт гаршуулж, уналга эдэлгээнд 
оруулсны ур дагавар юм. Монголд цаа буга маллах уйл ажиллагаа хамгийн 
энгийн, харьцангуй хѳнгѳн хялбар байдгаас узвэл энэ нь олон мянган жилийн 
маллагааны явцад боловсрон энгийн болж хувирсан арга ажиллагаа юм. Малыг 
маллаж эдлэх тусам бие нь томорч, маллагаа нь энгийн болдог зуй тогтолтой 
билээ 
Бидний дугнэлтийг баллах бас нэг нотолгоо бол археологийн дурсгалууд 
юм. 1944 онд Орост нэгдэн орсон Тувагийн нутагт, манай улсын хилийн 
ойролцоо цаа буга сийлж зурсан хэд хэдэн хадны зургийг ОХУ-ын судлаачид 
олж узээд хэвлэлд нийтлуулсэн байдаг. Манай улсын нутагт гэхэд Уве аймгийн 
Сагил сумын хойд хэсэгт Зуун тураг уулын Хар нартын байц цохионы ѳвѳрт 
орших Цагаан ѳтѳг хэмээх богино аманд бид 1968 оны 6-р сард хѳдѳлмѳрийн 
баатар Буянжаргал нарын зэрэг нутгийн хумуусээр газарчлуулан бух цаа буга 
унаж, урт жад бариад анд явж буй хуний зургийг олж узсэн билээ. Энэ зурагт 
цѳѳвтѳр (гурван) салаатай, богинохон эвэртэй, хэнхдэгийн харвин ихтэй этэр 
(бух цаа буга гэж ойлгоно уу) зурсныг узвэл хаврын суулч, зуны эхэн уеийн этэр 
бололтой. Этэр хѳлѳглѳгч нь хормойтой дээл маягийн хувцаетай зурагдеан нь 
сонин байлаа. Тэр анчин жадаа хоёр гараараа барьсан, этэр нь жолоо цулбуургуй 
мэт зурагдеаныг узвэл ороо морийг дагадаг уургын морь мэт, ангаа дагаж 
давхидаг сурмаг этэр байв уу? Этэр хѳлѳглѳгчийн барьсан жадны арын узуур 
махир байгаа нь амьтан булеэн жадаа алдахгуй байх, жадлагдеан амьтнаас 
Ancient Art 52 
чирэгдэхэд зориулагдсан нь тодорхой байна. 
Цагаан ѳтѳгийн хаднаа дурслэгдсэн зургаас узвэл Монголд цаа буга 
хѳлѳглѳх явдал дор хаяж 4000 жилийн ѳмнѳ хэвшмэл болсон байна. Уве 
нуураас Бѳхмѳрѳн голын хооронд орших уул хаданд (Тагнын салбар) бугын 
зураг сийлэгдсэн нь олон байхын зэрэгцээ буга, цаа буга хоёрын алии болохыг 
тодорхойлоход эргэлзээтэй бугын хэд хэдэн дуре бий. 
Бичиг сударт ч гэсэн Монголд 1000 шахам жилийн ѳмнѳ цаа буга 
маллаж байсан тухай мэдээ бий. Персийн туухч Рашид-ад-диний (Тухайн уедээ 
Ил хаант улсын ерѳнхий сайд байсан) “Судрын чуулган’Чд (Он дарааллын 
ойллого) Монголын умард нутгийн ойт уулсаар цаа буга маллаж, хонь ямаа 
малладаггуй, цана хѳлѳглѳж, ан хийж аж тѳрдѳг иргэд охиноо талын хоньчин 
эрд богтолж ѳгнѳ гэж айлгадаг байсан тухай бичсэн байдаг зэргээс узэхэд эртний 
уламжлалтай байсан нь мэдэгдэж байна. 
Ushkiin Uver ‘singing shaman ’deer stone near Muren. 
(photo: Fitzhugh) 
до 
5 
^bamamstic Elements in Mong°lian Ц)еег ^tone/\rt 
Jamsranjav Bayarsaikhan 
National Museum of Mongolian History 
In traveling throughout Mongolian steppe, one soon becomes aware of the beautiful 
art found on the region’s deer stone monuments. These monuments, which feature deer- 
figured art, are known as ‘deer stones’ in Mongolian archaeological books and research 
studies. The largest concentration of deer stones occurs in the Asian and European steppe 
zone, where approximately 700 have been found associated with historically unique 
archaeological sites dating to the Bronze and Early Iron Ages dating from 2000 BC to 700- 
300 BC. Archaeologists have been researching deer stones for more than a hundred years. 
In Mongolia, the Lake Baikal area, and the Sayan Altai and Altai Mountain regions, there 
are 550,20,20, and 60 deer stones respectively. Moreover, there are another 20 deer stones 
in Kazakstan and the Middle East (Samashyev 1992) and 10 in the far west, specifically 
in the Ukraine and parts of the Russian Federation, including the provinces of Orenburg 
and Kavkasia, and near the Elba River (Mongolian History 2003). 
There are different viewpoints about the origins of deer stone art. According to 
H.L. Chlyenova, the artistic deer image originated from the Sak tribe and its branches 
(Chlyenova 1962). Volkov believes that some of the methods of crafting deer stone art are 
closely related to Scythians (Volkov 1967), whereas D. Tseveendorj regards deer stone art 
as having originated in Mongolia during the Bronze Age and spread thereafter to Tuva and 
the Baikal area (Tseveendorj 1979). D.G. Savinov (1994) and M.H. Mannai-Ool (1970) 
have also researched deer stone art and have expressed other conclusions. 
The purpose of this article is not to discuss the various opinions held by the above 
scientists, but rather to propose some new ideas about understanding some aspects of deer 
stone art. The deer stone is a specially-decorated and vertically-aligned rectangular shaped 
rock whose surface is divided into three parts. On opposite sites at the top of most stones 
one usually finds a carving showing one or two large and one or more smaller round rings, 
beneath which are shown smaller geometric forms. Between these small uppermost carvings 
and the usually cross-hatched lower border band there are pecked engravings of one or 
more beautifully illustrated deer, or, occasionally, some other figures like horses, leopards, 
wild goats, men, fish, or pigs. These other animals may appear with or without the image 
of a deer. Additionally, a number of different weapons and tools are shown hanging from 
a broad border band or belt, and nearby carved bows and arrows and other motifs such as 
4-i 
Figure 3.1. Pazyryk mummy tatoo decoration (after Figure 3.2. Typical deer images 
Rudenko). on a deer stone fragment. 
a chevron or ‘hard palate-shaped pentagonal figure’ may be illustrated. Some deer stones 
have no animal figures and display only border lines and weapons. 
It is clear from the distribution and geographic locations of deer stone sites that 
this art has been created by nomadic peoples. But it is interesting and significant to 
understand the spirit of its creation. Researchers have many different ideas about why deer 
and other objects were illustrated on deer stones. To take a specific example, it is noted 
on page 120 of the first of the five-volume History of Mongolia (2003) that “Deer are 
largely concentrated and found throughout the Central Asian regions and their fur, meat, 
and horns are traditionally used. Also, deer do not harm human beings. Therefore, it has 
been an honorable and symbolic animal for a long period of time.” On the other hand, as 
said by researcher S. Dulam, “While ancient inhabitants used to believe in their family 
representative (symbolic object or totem) as their origin, they also believed that the deer 
was the symbol or spirit of their creator. In other words, the image of the deer on the stone 
is related to ancient belief that human beings originated as deer” (Dulam 1989). 
Furthermore, American scientist William Fitzhugh speaks about the developments 
in deer stone rock art research as expanding our knowledge of human face art and early 
Asian and some European mask-making traditions. Images in deer stones may indicate a 
long tradition of protective body ritual and decoration related to tatoo use and shamanism. 
Overall, he supposes that the deer stone monuments represent a spiritualized human body 
(Fitzhugh 2002). 
In order to understand the human spiritual belief regarding deer it is necessary to 
consider the religious convictions of people of that time. It is likely that ancient human 
beings had very simple explanations for natural phenomenon and reacted to unfamiliar 
creatures with surprise and fear and even regarded some beings as superior to them. 
Researchers have suggested a link between deer stones and shamanism and the beginning of 
religious faith dating to 700 BC (Purev 1999:19). Consequently, it is logical to understand 
their intelligence and religious ideas by researching shamanism. Clearly, in a corresponding 
manner, contemporary traditional knowledge can be of assistance as well. 
42 £)ayarsaikhan 
Figure 3.3. The handle of a shaman drum 
on display at the National Museum of 
Mongolian FIistory. 
Figure 3.4. The interior of the NMMH 
shaman drum. 
I would like to briefly describe shamanistic spirituality as it relates to deer. First of 
all, one of the main items of shamanic paraphernalia is the ongodiin unaa hengereg - the 
spirit receiving drum - which is made of deer hide (Jamyan 1998:3 k). A ritual hymn to make 
the spirit lively is: “Guiding our life and happiness; a young deer is just coming by...." 
After singing and performing a particular ritual ceremony, the shaman takes off his coat, 
puts on his shaman attire and starts evoking the spirit. In this manner, the shaman’s steed, 
the female deer (sogoo in Mongolian), comes to life and says things like, “In separating 
from its own herd (family), the female deer transformed itself in order to bring success to 
the conqueror,” and “it leaps into the sky through the power of the chosen hero” (Jamyan 
1998:33-34). The idea of this extraordinary and mysterious deer deserves special attention 
with regard to deer stone imagery. 
Likewise, O. Purev, a Mongolian researcher of shamanism, believes that “for a long 
time, shamans of Mongolian tribes and ethnic groups considered the female deer as heavenly 
steeds” and identified them with their shamanic paraphernalia and implements. One might 
therefore expect to find some correspondence between the role of deer in Mongolian 
shamanism and on deer stones. From our point of view, the practice of shamanism, tattoos 
on the frozen man from Pazyryk (Figure 3.1), and the deer image on deer stones (Figure 
3.2) might be similar and may relate to deer as magical-fantastic stallions that lead dead 
people’s souls to heaven, the “dark space.” 
Another interesting image illustrated on deer stones is the ‘palate-shaped pentagonal 
figure’ as conventionally described by researchers. A number of scientists have researched 
this figure and proposed various ideas. For example, V. V. Volkov and Novgorodova consider 
5b amanistic L lettients 45 
this pentagonal figure as an armor shield or something similar to a human chest skeleton 
found in shaman’s ritual clothing (Volkov 2002; Novgorodova 1975). D. Tseveendoij and D. 
Erdenebaatar have expressed similar opinions, regarding it as representing an armor shield 
(Tseveendorj 1976; Erdenebaatar 2000), whereas M. H. Mannai-Od sees similarity to the 
image of a wooden house found in the Boyarskii Rock art site (Mannai-Ool 1970). D. G. 
Savinov agrees with the idea of a shield but believes new research may suggest alternative 
interpretations. For instance, he supposes it could be some kind of ‘container’ for the dead 
to inhabit during the transition before becoming re-animated again (Savinov 1994). 
This image has been in dispute among researchers and scientists for a long time 
but heretofore has not been interpreted with respect to traditional shamanistic practices 
and implements. It struck us that this palate figure was very similar to a similar design 
on the grip of the shaman’s drum as seen by its image and symbolic concept. According 
to shamanistic belief, human or animal body parts including a “main spine, four tsol 
(consisting of the liver, stomach, heart and kidney), 10 joints, and 80 vessels” and objects 
symbolizing the Four Elements were commonly embodied in the shaman’s drum (Purev 
1999:250-251). In view of this ritual, there has been the tradition to carve pentagonal palate 
designs on shaman drum beaters to represent a spiritual steed’s spine and ribs. Another 
piece of evidence supporting our explanation is the illustration of animal spines and similar 
figures found on the handle of a shaman’s drum on display at the National Museum of 
Mongolian History (Figure 3.3 and 3.4). Furthermore, during the 2004 expedition of the 
Mongolian-American Joint Deer Stone Project 2004, we recovered several old implements 
of shamanic paraphernalia which had been defaced and rusted by nature on Angarkhai 
Mountain near the town of Sumber in Arbulag (Figure 1.28). These shamanic belongings 
have been preserved and are now displayed at the National Museum of Mongolian History. 
Among these implements is a drum handle that displays the palate design. A similar design 
is also carved into the a drum beater recovered at the same site (Figure 3.5). Apparently 
the custom of illustrating the palate design on the inner part of the drum is a common and 
long-standing tradition in Mongolian shamanism. 
Additional facts supporting this idea may be seen in a wooden shamanic implement 
in the state museum of Bayan-Ulgii province that carries this design. This image is quite 
comparable to the image found on deer stones (Figure 3.6). One of the traditional ritual 
ceremonies practiced by shamans is to transform a dead shaman’s drum into a spirit drum 
Figure 3.5 The 
drum handle and 
drum heater of the 
Angarkhai Hill 
shaman drum. 
Figure 3.6 Shamanic figure from Bayan Figure 3.7 Palate-shaped pentagonal 
Ulgii. figure. 
by cutting the drum’s crosspieces (handles). The cut drum is commonly buried with a 
dead shaman so that he or she would not be carried to hell (Purev 1999:326). 
Thus, we suppose it is no coincidence that the ‘palate-shaped pentagonal figure’ 
(Figure 3.7) on deer stones and the images on shaman drum handles, beaters, and other 
implements are so similar to each other. From this point of view, we suggest that the 
pentagon figure on deer stones is neither a shield nor a skeleton; instead, it is the general 
image of a spine representing a generalized animal body. In other words, this image is 
closely related to the ritual of a dead person’s next life and its soul and spirit. It is interesting 
to note that there are similar portrayals in ornaments commonly called “unjlaga” (dangler) 
by researchers. These ornaments are from Bronze Age archaeological sites and are mostly 
found in Mongolia and elsewhere in the Euro-Asian region. Hence with future study we 
may find new ways of interpreting and understanding deer stone art and ritual with better 
knowledge of Mongolian shamanism and its symbolism and paraphernalia. 
Altanzaya, L., and L. Erdcnebold, 2000. Kher- 
lenbar hotiin orchmoos oldson modon ongonii 
tuhai. SA. Tomus XX, Fasc 1-11. Ulaanbaatar, 
94-99. 
Mongoli 7 Moscow. 
Purev, O., 1999. Mongol boogiin shashin. Ulaan¬ 
baatar, 19, 326. 
Chlyenova, N. L.,1962. Ob olennykh kamnyakh 
Mongolii Sibiri. Moscow, 34. 
Savinov, D. G.,1994.Olennye kamni v kulitnre ko- 
chevnikov Euro-Asia. Saint Peterburg, 149. 
Erdenebaatar, D., 2002. Mongol nutgiin dorvoljin 
bulsh khirgisuuriin soyol. Ulaanbaatar. 
Samashev, Z. S.,1992. Naskalni izobrajenie Verkh- 
nevo prshirtyshiya, Alma-Ata, 156. 
Dulam, S.,1989. Mongol domog zuin dur. Ulaan¬ 
baatar, 31-32. 
Tseveendorj, D., 1976. Tov aziin ertnii nuudelchdiin 
bambai. Ulaanbaatar, 53-56. 
Fitzhugh, William W., 2002. Mongolia’s Arctic 
Connections: The Hovsgol Deer Stone Project, 
2001-2002 Field Report. Arctic Studies Center. 
Smithsonian Institution. Washington, 7-9. 
Tseveendorj, D., 1979. Mongolnutgaas oldson zarim 
bugan chuluun khoshoo. SA. Tomus Y1I. 
Ulaanbaatar, 67. 
Jam у a n, L.,1998. Dayan-deerhiin boo morgol. 
Ulaanbaatar, 31 -34. 
Tseveendorj, D., ed., 2003. Mongol ulsiin tuukh, 
Terguun boti. Ulaanbaatar. 
Mannai-Ool, M. H., 1970. Tuva v Skipskoe vremya, 
Ulaanbaatar, 27. 
Volkov, V. V., 1967. Bronzovy i ranny jelezny veka 
Severnoi Mongoly. Ulaanbaatar, 71-80. 
Novgorodova, E. A., 1975. Karasukskiya traditsy 
v ranneskipskom monumentalinom iskusstve 
Volkov, V. V., 2002 .Olennye kamni mongolii. Mos¬ 
cow, 17. 
^hamamstic H lements 
Mongolian /\bstract 
Буган чулуун хѳшѳѳ тууний зарим дурслэлийн тухай 
Ж. Баярсайхан 
MYTM-н э/ш-ний ажилтан 
Монгол орны хурэл болон тѳмѳр зэвсгийн туруу УеД холбогдох томоохон 
дурсгалын нэг бол буган чулуун хѳшѳѳ юм. Буган чулуун хѳшѳѳ нь тархалт, газар 
нутгийн байршил дурелэл зэргээрээ нуудэлчдийн дурегал гэдэг нь маргаангуй 
бѳгѳѳд харин тууний утга учир, бутээлчдийн оюун сэтгэлгээний ундэе нь олон 
тооны судлаачдын сонирхлыг татсаар байна. 
Энэхуу ѳгуулэлд бид буган чулуун хѳшѳѳ туунд дурелзгдеэн буга болон 
бусад дурслэлуудийн учир холбогдлын тухай зарим нэг таамаглал дэвшуулэхийг 
зорьсон юм. Ялангуяа судлаачдын “тагнай хээтэй таван талт дуре” хэмээн 
нэрлэж заншеан дурсийг монголын уламжлалт бѳѳ мѳргѳлийн баримтанд 
тулгуурлан тайлбарлахыг хичээлээ. Энэ дурслэлийг судлаачид бамбай, байшин 
сууц, сунс орших сав гэх мэтчилэн олон янзаар зохих баримтанд тулгуурлан 
тайлбарласан билээ. Харин бидний дэвшуулж буй саналын гол цѳм нь бѳѳгийн 
хэнгэрэгний бариул, хэнгэрэгний ташуур, бѳѳгийн онго, дээл зэрэг эд хэрэглэл 
дээр дурелзгдеэн тагнай хээ болон буган чулуун хйшййн дээрх тагнай хээт 
дурений хувьд утга зан уйлийн холбоо байж болох ундэслэл байгаад оршиж 
байна. 
Бѳѳгийн тамлагын угэнд “Ижил сургээсээ салж, баатар хуний хэрэг 
бутээхээр дуре хувилсан”, “Хувь ихтэй баатарын хучээр агаарт дэгдеэн” ер 
бусын, бодит бус бугын тухай санаа гарч байгаа нь бидний сонирхолыг татсан 
бѳгѳѳд уунээс ундэслэн монголын бѳѳ мѳргѳл дэхь буга, буган чулуун хѳшѳѳн 
дэх буга хоёрыг ямар нэг хэмжээгээр холбож узэж болмоор байна. 
Бидний узэж буйгаар бѳѳ мѳргѳл, Пазирыкын муми, буган чулуун хѳшѳѳн 
дэх буга дурслэлийн туухэн гарал нэг байж болох юм. Энэ нь бугыг дурслэгчид 
тухайн амьтныг талийгаачдын сунсийг тэнгэрт (харанхуйн оронд) хургэгч шидэт 
унаа хэлэг хэмээн уздэг тѳеѳѳлѳлтэй холбогдож болох юм. 
Буган чулуун хѳшѳѳн дэх ѳѳр нэг сонирхолтой дурслэл бол судлаачдын 
нэрлэдэгээр «тагнай хээтэй таван талт дуре» юм. 
Бѳѳгийн шашинд аливаа адгуусан амьтан хийгээд хуний биеийг “гол 
нуруу, дѳрвѳн цул, 10 заадас, 80 судас...” аар холбогдож бутеэн гэж уздэг бѳгѳѳд 
энэхуу дѳрвѳн зуйлээ тѳлѳѳлуулеэн зуйлсийг бѳѳгийн хэнгэрэгэнд оруулж хийсэн 
байдаг. Энэ ёсны дагуу хэнгэрэгний бариулан дээр онгодын унаа болгож буй 
амьтны нуруу хавирганы ясыг тѳѳлѳѳлуулэн тагнай хээг сийлж, зурж дуреэлдэг 
байсан уламжлал байна. Мѳн Монгол, Тува бѳѳгийн хувцеан дээр лус, савдагийн 
орныг эзлуулэн хуний араг яс оёдог явдлыг тухайн бѳѳг галын дунд ч, тэнгэрт 
ч, лус савдагийн орноор ч чѳлѳтэй аялан явагч хэмээн хийсвэрлэн тѳеѳѳленийх 
хэмээн уздэг. 
Иймээс буган чулуун хѳшѳѳн дэх “тагнай хээтэй таван ѳнцѳгт дуре” нь дээр 
дурдсан тагнай хээт эд ѳлгийн зуйлстэй маш ойр тѳеѳѳтэй байгаа нь санаандгуй 
хэрэг биш болов уу гэж узэж байна. Уунээс узэхэд буган чулуун хѳшѳѳн дэх 
“таван ѳнцѳгт дуре” нь хун болон амьтны биеийг ерѳнхийлѳн нэгтгэж тѳлѳѳлдѳг 
тодорхой утга агуулгатай дурслэл байж болох юм гэсэн саналтай байна. Ѳѳрѳѳр 
хэлбэл талийгаачийн хойд нас, сунс сулдтэй холбоотой зан уйлийн шинжтэй 
дурслэл хэмээн узэж болмоор байна. 
л-6 
Л" 
Коек /\rt f rom the K)arkhat~VVe5t Mov5g°i Keg,on 
T. Sanjmyatav 
Center for the Study of Chinggis Khaan 
Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia 
There are approximately twenty red-paint rock art sites known from the mountains 
of Mongolia, eight of which are in Hovsgol province. These rock art sites are differentiated 
from the other rock art sites in other provinces by their stylistics, image, and color. We 
would like to share our ideas and assumptions about these sites with other researchers and 
specialists. 
Tolijgii Boom Rock 
Tolijgii Boom Rock is located on the left bank of the Khug River, 3km east of 
Soyo and 40km west of the town Ulaan Uul in Hovsgol aimag. Ancient artists created 
this red-painted rock art portraying water birds (special spirit-helpers of North Asian 
shamans), wild animals, cattle, men in square fences, and other round symbols. From 
the archaeologists’ point of view, these rock art sites correspond to the Late Bronze Age 
(Gochoo and Dorjsuren 1957; Dorj 1963). 
In 2002 our Mongolian and American research team made a detailed analysis of this 
site (Figure 4.1). It is placed in a rectangular area of a rock cliff face ahd has dimensions of 
8.5m by 3.8m. The images illustrate a water bird, a human figure, and various signs inside 
a square fence, as well as a tribal symbolic motif, a deer, a horse, and a horse carriage. 
Some of the most archaeologically significant images have been vandalized and destroyed 
in recent years. One part of the image depicts a flying water bird (Figure 4.2) together with 
a number of dots on the right hand side of a square fence and two men with spread legs 
and arms. There are 64 dots arranged in geometrically order in another square fence with 
a man positioned on one side of the fence (Figure 4.4). In the middle of the rock face there 
exists a square fence containing a man inside a square of signs (Figure 4.3). This type of 
style representing men as dots is similar to the art style of the Stone Age. 
The most interesting part of this painting is a carriage (too defaced and faint to be 
photographed), which was located in a 70 cm by 20 cm rectangular area and shows two 
wheels with 6 sectors each. The diameter of the wheels is 9 cm or 8 cm and the length 
of the axis was 8 cm. There are two horses and a man with wild animals on both sides of 
this carriage, but the image of the animals has been defaced. This is the first instance in 
Mongolia showing a red-painted carriage, making it especially significant. Sites with dark 
4-7 
Fig. 4.1. Tolijgii Boom rock art 
site near Soy о in 2002. View to 
west. 
Fig. 4.2. Tolijgii Boom site with 
defaced panel showing water 
bird. 
Fig. 4.3. Tolijgii Boom site 
showing defaced panel with a 
human inside afield of dots. 
Fig. 4.4. Tolijgii Boom site 
showing a person outside a field 
of dots. 
45 «Запігтіуаіаѵ 
red images of men and deer are of interest because of their primitive images and early date, 
corresponding to the Neolithic and Bronze Age. 
The historical acts, depictions, and periods represented by these paintings express 
the following points. First, it specifies family lifestyle in which humans designated a 
water bird as the symbol of their family totem and their territory’s Bronze Age boundary. 
Second, it indicates that the economy included hunting and cattle breeding and the use 
of carriages. Third, the art shows evidence of a long tradition of recording family-related 
activities through different colors and shades. For example, the painting of the double¬ 
wheeled carriage corresponds to 800-600 B.C., whereas the painting of the water bird and 
the dots representing men and animals in the square fence corresponds to the Bronze Age. 
And we presume that the method and style of the painting of the men with deer relates to 
the Neolithic (Sanjmyatav 2003). 
Bichigt Bulag 
According to the archaeologists E.A. Novgorodova and Sanjmyatav, the red-painted 
art sites depicting wild animals, cattle, men, and numerous dots in square fences found 
on the left side of Delger Lake 45km northwest of the town of Bayanzurkh correspond to 
Bronze Age (Novgorodova 1984; Sanjmyatav 1993). 
Studying the content and structure of the art leads us to the following conclusions. 
First, the depiction of a man and numerous doted signs inside a square fence illustrates 
the movement and settlement of a family group. On the right side of the image there is 
a figure of a water bird together with large and small circles. This demonstrates a small 
family separating from a larger family group and living as neighbors. Second, the depiction 
of two long lines connected together with one vertical line, of people leading and riding 
horses, and of three individuals holding their hands 
indicates that cattle breeding was being practiced. 
Third, the sketch of hunters shooting wild goats and 
other animals with arrows confirms that hunting 
played a supporting role in the family economy 
(Figure 4.5). 
There are two different panels painted in a 
rectangular space 60cm by 50cm, located near the 
right edge of a high rocky mountain 200m northeast 
of Bichigt Bulag. In the first panel there are seven 
rows with 49 dots positioned in a square fence area, 
which has a dimension of 22cm by 21 cm. Two people 
are placed inside the fence. The second square fence 
has the dimension of 21 cm by 21 cm and contains 7 
rows of 65 dots and includes one person at the edge 
of the fence. Also, two people and one flying water 
bird are depicted on the right side of the fence. The 
method and style corresponds to 2000 B.P. Figure 4.5. Bichigt Bulag. 
Rock /\rt 4? 
Narangiin Bulag 
There is another red-paint rock art site on the edge 
of Narangiin Bulag (Sun Creek), located on the eastern side 
of Delger Lake 25km southwest of the town of Bayanzurkh. 
This site occupies a rectangular panel of 80cm by 34cm. 
Its faded red paint depicts 7 rows and 10-12 columns of 76 
dots in one square fenced area measuring 34cm by 26cm 
(Sanjmyatav 1993). Above this fence are 11 lines having 
lengths of 3cm, and 5 people, some of whom are standing 
on these lines. Several people are seen holding hands above 
and below the fence (Figure 4.6). This depicts the movement 
of a small family unit separating from the main family and 
dates to the Bronze Age. 
Teeliin River Cave 
Teeliin River Cave is located 30km northwest of the 
town New Ider in Hovsgol province. The cave entrance is crooked and vertically rectangular 
in shape with a width of 2.5m and gets narrower as one proceeds inside. The middle of the 
cave has dimensions of 1.5m wide and 1.25m height. The dark red-painted art location was 
created on the right side of the cave wall. The art illustrates different human body shapes 
and their physical activities using three different colors: dark red, black, and faded orange. 
It differs from other art sites in not displaying wild animals and cattle. 
The red-painted depiction of a human in the middle of the panel is the most common 
subject of events shown. 80cm above ground level several human figures with pointed hats 
on their heads are depicted with cross marks (X). The human figures have thin necks and 
short backs and are seen with long fingers and raised hands. To the left is another red-paint 
image illustrating people 48-50cm high kneeling down and raising their hands. There is a 
vertical cross sign next to them as well. There are also depictions of two people painted in 
black shown holding hands in the traditional way which has received much attention from 
researchers. These people have huge heads, large necks, short stature, large stomachs, and 
short legs. They are raising their hands and spreading their legs, and there is a long twisted 
tool and a vertical cross sign next to them. Moreover, on the right edge of the rock, 37cm 
above the ground, a high-lighted figure of 15cm high stands with his two arms wide open. 
This image corresponds to both Neolithic and Bronze Ages in its method of depiction and 
combines usage of dark red, black, and faded orange colors. 
Cave Rock 
There is a small rocky mountain called Cave Rock on the bank of the Ider River 
located 2km from the center of New Ider (Figure 4.7). The dimension of the panel is 8cm 
by 2.5cm. The cave has a height of 1.6 m and a width of 2.5m. On the right side outside 
the cave door is a red-painted figure of a standing man 18cm tall with arms wide open. He 
has a huge head, as if he is wearing a bear head mask, a large neck, and a short slender 
body (Figure 4.8). The man is shown spreading his legs and expanding his palms with his 
50 ^anjmyatav 
fingers spread out. Through his attitude and action it is likely he is praying to the earth, 
sky, and heavens, asking his wishes to be granted. The painting probably corresponds to 
the Neolithic. 
Some scientists, including the Russians A.R Okladnikov, V.V. Volkov, E.A. 
Novgorodova, and Mongolian archeologists D. Navaand and T. Sanjmiatav, believe the 
red-paint rock art depicting birds, people, and dot signs in square fences found in the 
Mongolian mountains demonstrates the structure of families and the number of its members 
(Okladnikov 1962; Volkov 1967; Novgorodova 1981; Navaan 1975; Sanjmyatav 1995). 
D. Dorj, on the other hand, insists that the bird is a representative of family safety and a 
symbol of growing cattle and herds, whereas D. Tseveendorj considers this art represents 
agricultural activity and ritual ceremony (Dorj 1963, Tseveendorj 1983). 
Scientists have contradictory theories and explanations for the following reasons. 
First, we lack of information about some of the red-painted art found in various areas. 
Second, many paintings have been damaged by the elements or have been vandalized 
by humans and their contents are often not clear enough to interpret meaning or draw 
correct conclusions. Third, there has been no comprehensive research investigating the 
distinctions and similarities of the styles, sites, tombs, and burial places found in the 
region. Consequently, researchers have reached different opinions about design, content, 
and date. 
However, researchers have come to some conclusions on the origins, development, 
and chronology of red-painted art in Mongolia. Taikhar in Arkhangai province and 
the Dulaan Uzuur and Zuraa sites in Uvs province date to the Neolithic (Perlee 1960; 
Okladnikov 1981; Tseveendorj 1977). Additionally, according to D. Dorj the red-paint 
sites at Ih Tenger Canyon, Gachuurt Canyon, and Tolijgii Boom Rock correspond to the 
Bronze Age, specifically 1200-100 B.C. (Dorj 1963). D. Navaan dates these sites to the 
end of the second millennium B.R, whereas V.V. Volkov considers the origins of the rock 
art sites at Ih Tenger Canyon, Gachuurt Canyon, and Bichigt Bulan as being from the 
Bronze Age (Navaan 1975; Volkov 1967). Moreover, V.V. Volkov believes these sites 
can be correlated to ancient rock art by their location and tradition. N. Serodjav suggests 
that the red-painted art corresponds to the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age. 
Red-paint rock art found in Bichigt Bulan and Gachuurt Canyon is thought to date to the 
Figure 4.7. Icier River Cave. Figure 4.8. Human figure in the Ider 
River Cave. 
Scythian era (Serodjav 1977; Novgorodova 1981), while I believe most Mongolian red- 
painted rock is dated to 3000-2000 BP and corresponds to the Neolithic, Eneolithic, and 
Bronze Age. I conclude that the red-paint rock art sites found in Hovsgol province can be 
dated to the above time periods as well. 
Some comparisons can be made between the red-paint rock art sites in Hovsgol 
province and other provinces in Mongolia and neighboring countries. First, the Hovsgol 
sites differ from art in other Mongolian provinces by their contents, image components, 
and color. Second, while there are people and numerous dot signs inside square or oval 
shaped fences in rock art sites in Mongolia, fences are not shown in rock art found around 
Lake Baikal in Russia (Okladnikov 1967). Another difference is that the proportions of the 
human body are poorly expressed and are very primitive in the Mongolian art. Religious 
beliefs in the sky, heaven, and nature is strongly illustrated in Mongolian art. In addition, 
the image of the bird, thought to represent the individuality of the family, is not depicted 
in the Baikal region, nor are people shown engaged in physical activities, which suggests 
they were not yet involved in husbandry activities; indeed, they practiced earlier forms of 
gathering activities. I suggest that some of the red-paint art at Cave Rock, Teeliin River 
Cave Rock, and Tolijgii Boom Rock corresponds to the Neolithic and Eneolithic. Third, 
the red-painted rock art found in the rocky hills near Lake Hovsgol’s rivers and lakes 
includes the symbol of a bird representing the family and a man inside of a square fence. 
They signify the independence of the family and the boundary of their territory. 
Hovsgol art also illustrates figures of cattle, herds, and horse carriages with 
equipment that played an important role in animal husbandry. This suggests that human 
beings of that time had already shifted to animal husbandry and cattle breeding; thus, it 
was a period when hunting activity played a supporting role. Consequently, the red-paint 
rock arts at Tolijgii Boom, Bichig Bulan, and Narangiin Bulag should correspond to the 
Bronze Age. 
One of the most significant archeological sites in the world is the red-paint rock 
art site of Gurvan Tsenkheriin Gol Cave (Triple Blue Rivers Cave) in Hovd province. Its 
faded red-dark brown and red-colored paintings contain a variety of wild animal figures 
that date to the Paleolithic (Okladnikov 1967). It has been suggested that this site is related 
to Hovsgol province cave art. Particularly, the rock art at Teeliin River and Cave Rock 
have three different colors: dark red, black, and faded orange. Next, it illustrates a family 
lifestyle and a faith in heaven and nature; hence, it is apparent that the art was done during 
the Neolithic. In this point of view, Hovsgol’s red-painted art site shows a continuous 
development of the rock art traditions seen at Gurvan Tsenheriin Cave. 
As for the development of social structure, red-painted rock art suggests two main 
propositions. First, it indicates the family-based lifestyle of the Neolithic. Second, it is 
obvious that the structure of the family, husbandry, and society is described. For these 
reasons, the art provides ideas about historical events dating to the Bronze Age when the 
extended family structure began to break down and small families began to separate from 
the larger corporate family group. 
Family-oriented animal husbandry began when people shifted to cattle-breeding. 
52 ^animtjatav 
The act of hunters shooting wild animals with arrows along with hunting dogs proves that 
hunting activity continued to play a supporting role in their economy at a time when carts 
and carriages were beginning to be used as tools of transport. This was a period when 
humans shifted from a gathering and hunting economy to one based on manufacturing 
and food production. 
Research on red-paint art sites in Hovsgol area rock art shows progress in the use 
of new aspects of style, color, and descriptive method. As a result of this study we have 
new understandings of the Neolithic period, when the family structure was changing as 
a result of emerging technologies of food production and transport during the Neolithic, 
Eneolithic, and Early Bronze periods. 
{References 
Dorj, D., 1963. Mongolian Archeological Rock 
Art Sites. Ancient Studies and Ethnographical 
Research, Ulaanbaatar, 13. (in Mongolian) 
_, 1963. Historical Research Studies on 
Mongolian Archeological Rock Art Sites, 
Ulaanbaatar, 8. (in Mongolian) 
Fitzhugh, William W., 2003. Mongolia’s Arctic 
Connections: The Hovsgol Deer Stone Project, 
2001-2002 Field Report. National Museum of 
Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. 
Gochoo, Ts, and D. Dorjsuren, 1957. The 
Archeological Field Report on Central and 
Western Provinces in Mongolia in .the Year 
of 1955. Mongolian Science Center Research 
Study, Department of Social Science, 
Ulaanbaatar, 2. (in Mongolian) 
Navaan, D., 1975. Eastern Mongolia During Bronze 
Age. Ulaanbaatar. (in Mongolian) 
Novgorodova, E.A., 1981. Yeriodizatsii Petroglifov 
Mongolii. Srednii Aziya I ее sosedi v drevnosti 
Isrednevekovyie, Moscow, 182. 
_, 1984. Mir Petroglifov Mongolii, Moscow. 
Okladnikov, A. P., 1962. Drevne Mongolskii portret 
nadpisa I risunki na skale у podnojya gorii Bogdo 
Ula.Mongoliskii Archelogicheskii sbornik, 
Moscow, 68-74. 
_, 1967. Centralinoi Aziatskii ochar Pervobyitnogo 
iskusstva VAN SSSR, 10-100. 
_, 1981. Petroglifii Chuluutiin Gola Mongolii, 
Novosibirsk. 
Okladnikov, A. P, and B. D. Zaporojskaya, n.d. 
Petroglifyi Zabaikalya 
Perlee, Kh., 1960. Taikhar Rock, Ulaanbaatar. (in 
Mongolian) 
Sanjmyatav, T., 1992. Archeological Field 
Reports from an Expedition in Hovsgol. 
Center of Historical Studies, Ulaanbaatar. (in 
Mongolian) 
_, 1992. Archeological Field Reports from an 
Expedition in Hovsgol, Center of Historical 
Studies, Ulaanbaatar. (in Mongolian) 
_, 1995. Mongolian Rock Art Sites, Ulaanbaatar. 
(in Mongolian) 
_, 1999. Archeological Field Reports on 
Expedition in Hovsgol, Center of Chinggis 
Studies, Ulaanbaatar. (in Mongolian) 
_, 2002. Archaeological Field Report on 
Ame5ican-Mongolian Joint Archaeological 
Studies in Hovsgol Province. Arctic Studies 
Center. Smithsonian Institution. 
_, 2003. Chinggis Studies and Historical Cultural 
Art Sites: First Red-painted Rock Art Site of 
Carriage Found in Mongolian Mountains, 
Ulaanbaatar. (in Mongolian) 
Serodjav, N., 1997. Mongolian Ancient History, 
Ulaanbaatar. (in Mongolian) 
Tseveendorj, D., 1977. A Newly-found Red- 
painted Rock Art Site, Archeological Studies, 
Ulaanbaatar, 4. (in Mongolian) 
_, 1983. Art Sites Found in Mongolia during 
Neolithic, Ulaanbaatar. (in Mongolian) 
Volkov, V. V,, 1967. Bronzovyi Irannii jeleyznyi vek 
Severnoi Mongolii, Ulaanbaatar. 
Rock /\rt 25 
Mongolian /Abstract 
Хѳвсгѳл аймгийн нутаг дахь эртний хадны зургийн зарим 
дургсгалт газрууд 
Т.Санжмятав 
Чингис судлалын тѳв 
Улаанбаатар, Монгол 
Монгол орны байгалийн хадан дээр улаан хурэн зосон будгаар дурсэлсэн 
зураг суг 20 гаруй газраас олдсоноос Хѳвсгѳл аймгийн нутагт 8 байна. Эдгээр 
зосон зургийн зохиомж, зургийн бѳрдэл, ѳнгѳ бусад аймгийн нутгаас олдсон 
зосон зургуудаас ялгаатай байдаг тул мэргэжил нэгт судлаачидтай санал, 
дугнэлтээ сололилцох зорилго тавьсан юм.УУнд: 
Тольжгий боомын хадны зосон зураг: Улаан уул сумын тѳвѳѳс зуун 
хойш 40 км-т байгаа Тольжгийн боомын ханан хаданд улаан хурэн зосон 
будгаар шувуу, ан амьтан ,мал, дѳрвѳлжин хашлага дотор хун,олон дугариг 
тэмдгийг эртний хумуус зурсан байна Энэ зургийг 2002 онд Монгол-Америкийн 
хамтарсан архоелогийн шинжилгээний анги очиж судлан зосон будгаар зурсан 
морин тэрэгнии зураг анх удаа олсон явдал Монголын хадны зосон зургийн 
судалгаанд шинэ сэдэв болсноороо эрдэм шинжилгээний ач холбогдолтой юм. 
Энэ зосон зураг хурэл зэвсгийн уед холбогдох нь тодорхой байна. Харин хун, 
буга хоёрын зургийг нёолитын уед зурсан бололтой. 
Бичигт булангийн хадны зосон зураг: Баянзурх сумаас баруун хойш 45 км- 
т Дэлгэр мѳрѳний хѳвѳѳн дэх Ханан хаданд улаан хурэн зосон будгаар ан амьтан, 
мал, хун, дѳрвѳлжин хашлага дотор олон толбон тэмдэг, шувуу зурсан байгааг 
археологичид судлан МЭѲ 11 мянган жилд холбогдуулсан байна. Энэ зурагнаас 
зуун хойд зугт 200 м орчимд ѳндѳр ханан хадан уулын баруун талын ѳнцѳгт туе 
бур дѳрвѳлжин хашлага дотор олон толбон тавьсан хоёр хэсэг зураг шинээр 
олж судалгааны хурээнд оруулав. Бичигт булангийн хадны зураг дурслэсэн арга 
барил, зургийн бутэц, сэдвийн агуулгаараа МЭѲ 11 жилд холбогдуулна. 
Нарангийн булагийн хадны зосон зураг: Баянзурх сумын тѳвѳѳс баруун 
урагш 25 км-т Дэлгэрмѳрѳний зуун гар талд орших. Нарангийн булагийн хаданд 
ганцхан дѳрвѳлжин хашлага дотор 78 ш дугариг толбон тэмдэг зурсан байгааг 
анх судлагаанд оруулж хурэл зэвсгийн уед холбогдуулж байна. 
Тээлийн голын Агуйн хадны зосон зураг: Шинэ-идэр сумын тѳвѳѳс баруун 
хойш 30 км-т Тээлийн голын Агуйн баруун хажуугийн ханан хаданд улаан хурэн 
зосон будаг, хар будаг, улаан шарга будаг /гурван ангийн будаг/ -аар хумуусийн 
бие бялдарыг янз бурийн хэлбэр хѳдѳлгѳѳнтэй, олон арга барил, утга санааг 
илэрхийлэн дурсэлсэн зургийг шинээр олж судалгааны хурээнд оруулж байна. 
Энэ зураг дурслэл зуйн хувьд маш болхи гурван ѳнгийн будгаар зурагдеанаараа 
туухэн уламжлалтай, ан амьтан, малый дуре зураагуй ундэслэн неолитын уед 
холбогдуулж байна. 
Агуйн хадны зосон зураг: Шинэ идэр сумын тѳвѳѳс доош 2 км-т Идэрийн голын 
хѳвѳѳнд Агуйн хад оршино. Энэ Агуйны баруун хажуугийн гадна талд хар 
хурэн зосон будгаар 18 см ѳндѳр хун зурсан байгааг неолитын уед хамааруулсан 
юм. 
Хѳвсгѳл нутгийн хадны зосон зургийг Монголын бусад аймгийн нутаг болон 
5+ 5апі mtjatav 
хѳрш орны хадны зосон зурагтай харыдуулан узэхэд Нэгд: Монгол нутгаас 
олдсон зосон зургуудаас Хѳвсгѳл нутгийн хадны зосон зураг сэдвийн агуулга, 
зургийн бурдэл, будгийн ѳнгѳѳрѳѳ ялгаатай. Хоёрт: Монгол орны байгалийн 
хадан дээрх зосон зураг дѳрвѳлжин буюу дугариг тойрог дотор хун, олон толбон 
тэмдэг зурагдсан байхад, Орос улсын нутаг Байгаль нуурын ѳмнѳх хадны зосон 
зураг задгай зурагдсан онцлогтой байна. 
Агуйн хад ба Тээлийн голын агуйн хад, Тольжгий боомийн хадны зарим зосон 
зургийг дурсэлсэн арга барил, утга санааг илэрхийлсэн байдлар нь неолит ба 
энеолитын уед хамааруулах санал дэвшуулж байна. Хоёрт Тольжгий боомын 
хадны зарим зураг, Бичигт булан, Нарангийн булагийн ханан хаданд зурсан 
зосон зургуудын утга санаа бол Овгуудийн биеэ даасан байдал хил хязгаарыг 
тодорхойлсон тэдний шутдэг онго болох тураг шувуу ба дѳрвѳлжин хашлага 
дотор олон толбо тавьж, ан гѳрѳѳ хийж, мал маллаж, хѳсѳг тээврээр зочиж аж 
ахуй эрхлэн яваа зэрэг нийгмийн харилцааг илэрхийлсэн байдлаар нь хурэл 
зэвсгийн уед хамааруулж байна. 
Хѳвсгѳл далай орчмын хадны зосон зургийн дотор дѳрвѳлжин хашлагатай 
байгууламж 13 байгаагийн 3 нь тураг шувууны дурстэй байна. Эдгээр хашлага 
дотор 400 гаруй толбо тэмдэг, 80 орчим хуний зураг байгаагаас узэхэд нийт 
хун ам 500 гаруй буюу хагас сая байжээ гэж таамаглаж болох юм. Улаанбаатар 
хотын ѳмнѳх Богд уулын ар бэлийн ханан хаданд нэг дѳрвѳлжин хашлага дотор 
300 гаруй толбо тавьсан байна. Монголын хаданд зосоор зурсан толбо тэмдэг 
ба хумуусийн тоог барагцаалан нэгтгэхэд 1,6 сая хун байжээ. 
Хѳвсгѳл нутгийн хадан дээр улаан хурэн зосон будгаар зурсан дурсгалын туух 
соёл, эрдэм шинжилгээний гол ур дун бол Хѳвсгѳл нутгаас шинээр олдсон зосон 
зураг дурслэл зуй, будгийн ѳнгѳ сэдвийн бурдлээрээ Монголын хадан зосон 
зургийн судалгааг ѳѳрчлѳн баяжуулж, он цагийг неолитын уеэр цаашлуулсан 
юм. 
Хуй нэгдлийн цусан тѳрлийн хуйн амьдарлаас Овгийн байгууллын задрал 
хучтэй ѳрнѳсѳн туухэн хѳгжлийн уе байсныг судлагдаж байгаа Хѳвсгѳлийн 
зосон зургууд неолит, энеолит, хурлийн туруу уед холбогдуулж байгаагаар 
тодорхойлогдож байна. 
Коек Art 
SB— 
І^н 
■■■''‘-у '■■ У ■ 
НН 
Frohlich s GPS team mapping large khirigsuur mound south of deer stone site at Ulaan 
Tolgoi site west of Erkhel Lake, (photo: Fitzhugh) 
m шшт A- ■ * * < <1* -MШ* \ T F 
' , jv - ."iyS'i :фг 
\ ■■ - ■ ■m ШШ ■■■ 1 ж ш ■ 
. 
rv Bsfc рЧ'Ш 
* ,.:.л Ш '« 
- • ■ -..ii ■ 
у.. 
■ ж шта 
. ...  • 
E>unal M ourtds in (“jovsgol /\imag, Northern M°ng°l 
f*reliminary Results from 2005-2004 
ia: 
Bruno Frohlich, Department of Anthropology 
National Museum of Natural History 
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 
Naran Bazarsad, Institute of Archaeology 
Mongolian Academy of Sciences 
Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia 
Introduction 
During the summers of 2003 and 2004 we carried out surveys of burial mounds in 
Hovsgol Aimag of northern Mongolia. Three areas were selected: Soyo (Soyo Tolgoi, Ulaan 
Uul Sum), Ulaan Tolgoi (Erkhel Lake, Alag-Erdene Sum), and Ushkiin Uver (Ushkiin 
Uver, Moren), all known for large concentrations of burial mounds (Figure 5.1). This report 
includes data and results of analyses based on both field seasons. Since the analytical work 
is still in progress we are presenting statistical information on mound variation based on 
our 2003 survey at Erkhel Lake. Some of this information has previously been presented 
in the Smithsonian Institution Arctic Studies Center report, Hovsgol Deer Stone Project 
2003 Field Report. 
Our sample size improved from 282 mounds recorded in 2003 to a total of 530 
mounds in 2004. We accurately predicted that enhancements in sample size would improve 
our statistical procedures initiated in 2003. However, it also introduced new challenges 
including new patterns in the mound distributions not observed in the 2003 data. Such 
changes are the product of several factors including: (1) improved sample sizes, and (2) a 
realization that the diversity found within the mounds and their associated environments is 
much more complicated than first anticipated. Data is still being processed and analyzed, 
thus information presented in this report should be accepted as tentative. 
We decided not to include references in this paper, nonetheless we want to credit 
Mongolian, American and Russian researchers for making their data and results available to 
us. This is especially true for the information in the ‘Background’ section. Among many, we 
would like to point out W. Fitzhugh, F. Allard, W. Honeychurch, D. Rogers, D. Erdenebaatar, 
D. Tseveendorj, W. A. Fairservis, R. C. Andrews, E. Jacobson, J. Bayarsaikhan, and Ts. 
% 
57 
• Ulaanbaatar 
1 Soye 
2 Erkhel Lake 
Ushkin Uver 200 400 
km 
Figure 5.1. Areas of2003 and 2004 research. 
Ochirkhuyag. References can be found in the The Hovsgol Deer Stone Project 2003 Field 
Report, pages 58-61, (published in May 2004 by the Arctic Studies Center). 
f*revious [Research 
Mongolia is covered with Bronze Age burial mounds. Some are huge, extensive, and 
extremely visible on the landscape while others are barely identifiable. Both the amount of 
mounds scattered across the Mongolian landscape and which time periods are represented 
by mound structures are unknown. Mounds, also known as ‘khirigsuur’ or ‘kurgan’, have 
been reported extensively by Russian, Mongolian and more recently Asian, European, and 
American researchers. Many excavations have been completed, producing results currently 
visible throughout scores of scientific and popular publications that document years worth 
of data and fieldwork. 
The Mongolian Bronze Age endured from the mid-2nd millennium BC to the 4th 
century BC. At the beginning of the Bronze Age the people inhabiting Mongolia and 
adjacent regions had commenced a transformation from a sedentary, agricultural subsistence 
strategy to nomadic pastoralism. This transformation is believed to have been complete by 
900 BC. The causes for this drastic change are unknown, though several researchers have 
suggested that climatic changes and perhaps an economic transition to increasing demand 
for products of animal husbandry may have been significantly causal. Reconstructing the 
lifetime of these magnificent people, who succeeded in developing a social structure and 
economic system that endured for more than one thousand years and achieved far ranging 
cultural homogeneity through rapid mobility—despite a very low population density—is 
a fascinating process. 
f~rohlich et al. 
While no temporary or permanent settlements have been identified for this period, 
Bronze Age Mongolians produced multitudes of enduring stone monuments that required 
an enormous input of manpower. 
The known monuments have been classified into three major categories (1) slab 
burials, (2) khirigsuur, and (3) deer stones. 
Slab Burials 
Slab burials are centralized burial pits covered with stones and surrounded by a 
squared wall consisting of upright slabs of flat stones creating a protective wall-like fence. 
The distribution of slab burials ranges from the Khangai mountains west of Mongolia to 
Inner Mongolia in China, to the Gobi region in the south to the Lake Baikal area in the 
north. 
Khirigsuur 
Khirigsuur is the Mongolian name for Bronze Age burial mounds. The word for 
burial mound used on the Russian side of the border is ‘kurgan.’ The typical khirigsuur 
consists of a centralized burial chamber covered with un-worked stones (central mound). 
This mound of stone is surrounded by a wall (fence) which can be either circular or squared 
(Figures 5.2 and 5.3). During our surveys in 2003 and 2004, 530 khirigsuur and a few 
slab burials were recorded. We determined that sizes of the khirigsuur range from a few 
meters (4m) in length/diameter to more than 100m. Additionally, we found that some of 
Figure 5.2. Ulaan 
Tolgoi Class III mound 
with circular fence. 
Figure 5.3. Ulaan 
Tolgoi Class I mound 
with squared fence. 
£)urial Mounds 
Figure 5.4. Five 
of the 14 deer 
stones remaining at 
Ushkiin Uver. When 
Volkov mapped 
the site there were 
15 standing deer 
stones. 
the larger khirigsuur were surrounded by from one to almost a hundred external structures 
including smaller mounds with diameters between three and five m, and circular stone 
rings with diameters between 2m and 4m. Francis Allard has reported the existence of 
several huge khirigsuur in the Khanuy Valley, some of which exceed 400m in maximum 
length/diameter and which are surrounded by almost 3,000 external structures, including 
smaller mounds and small ring features. 
The distribution of khirigsuur ranges from the Khentii mountains in eastern 
Mongolia to the Bayan Olgii province in western Mongolia and from central-southern 
Mongolia to Lake Baikal in the north. Some khirigsuur have also been reported in the 
Chinese Xingjian province. 
Very few khirigsuur have been completely excavated. D. Erdenebaatar reports 
that only 16 khirigsuur have been completely or partially excavated and published, all 
located in southern Siberia and in northern Mongolia. Surveys and excavations completed 
by Francis Allard, of the University of Pittsburgh, comprise some of the most extensive 
research excavations and surveys on khirigsuur in the Mongolian Khanuy Valley. 
Deer Stones 
The third group of Bronze Age structures is the deer stone monuments. The deer 
stone monuments consist of upright stone slabs bearing beautiful anthropomorphic carvings 
and images of animals (Figure 5.4). On rare occasions they may depict human faces. The 
maximum height of the slabs has been reported at about 2.5m, and a minimum height of 
about lm (sizes are difficult to determine because of the destruction of many slabs leaving, 
less than lm of stone remaining). The deer stones’ function has been extensively discussed 
by several researchers. Esther Jacobson’s 1993 publication The Deer Goddess of Ancient 
Siberia offers a detailed and authoritative description and analysis of the deer stone images 
depicted by Eurasian nomads during the Bronze Age, and William Fitzhugh has described 
recent research of deer stone complexes in Hovsgol aimag. 
6o fVohlich etal. 
Small Ring Features 
Small Mounds 
"О о о 
Central Mound 
Squared Fence 
о о о О О О О 
Figure 5.5. The two most common expressions of khirigsuur: Mounds with circular 
fences and mounds with squared fences. Central mound: the centrally located pile of 
stone including burial chamber. Circular fence or squared fence: the surrounding wall 
of stones, either circular or squared. Small mounds: externally located smaller mounds. 
Small ring-features: externally concentrations of stones forming rings. 
The temporal relationship between the three classes of monuments is not fully 
known or understood. William Fitzhugh has suggested a temporal connection between 
deer stones and khirigsuur. This is supported by our surveys and analyses of spatial mound 
distribution adjacent to deer stone complexes. However, more research is needed to fully 
understand this interaction. 
The distribution of deer stones far exceeds the ranges of the first two categories 
(slab burials and khirigsuur). Deer stones have been reported from Inner Mongolia in the 
south to the Buriatiia area around Lake Baikal in the north, and from the Khentii province 
in eastern Mongolia to the farthest end of western Mongolia. Similar monuments have also 
been reported as far west as Ukraine and other countries in Eastern Europe. 
Field Seasons, 2003 and 2004 
Our survey and excavations of burial mounds was initiated in the early summer of 
2003 and continued in 2004. In the 2003 field season, we recorded 258 mounds, focusing 
on surveying in the Soyo and Erkhel Lake/Ulaan Tolgoi areas. In addition, 24 mounds were 
recorded in the Ushkiin Uver area. The 2004 survey added 248 mounds, covering new 
finds within the Soyo and Erkhel areas and the recordings of 110 mounds a few kilometers 
west of the deer stone complex at Ushkiin Uver (Table 5.1). It should be emphasized that 
the 2003 recording of mounds in the Ushkiin Uver area was strictly for the purpose of 
calibrating our equipment, thus this survey did not include a comprehensive search for all 
the mounds surrounding the Ushkiin Uver deer stone site. Also, data on the additional 110 
mounds recorded at Ushkiin Uver in 2004 does not include any GPS or metric data. The 
2004 field season concluded with the excavation of two previously looted mounds in the 
6 1 f^urial f\4ounds 
Soyo area, which yielded both human and horse skeletal remains from the central burial 
mound and from small mound structures, respectively. 
The majority of the 530 mounds were found on the valley floors or flat steppe and 
on southern, southwestern and southeastern facing hillsides. Rarely did we find any mounds 
on the hills’ northern side, although a few were identified on the flat steppe adjacent to 
the northern side. This phenomenon may be related to extensive tree coverage on north 
Table 5.1. Distribution of mounds surveyed during 2003 and 2004. Table does not 
include 110 mounds visually recorded in 2004 about 5 km west ofUshkin Uver. 
2003 2004 Total 
Erkhel Lake 87 31 118 
Soyo 171 107 278 
Ushkiin Uver 24 0 24 
Total 282 138 420 
facing hills, a feature which appears to be missing on most of the southern hill slopes. 
The larger mounds tend to be located on the flat land or steppe. Medium-size and smaller 
mounds are located on hillsides, and usually decrease as hill elevation increases. We 
found a few larger mounds in ‘saddles’ between hills and some smaller mounds at lower 
elevations. In four instances we observed some spatial association between deer stones 
and burial mounds, most clearly at Ullaan Tolgoi and at Ushkiin Uver. Two additional 
deer stone sites were found in the Soyo area, though they are much smaller than the sites 
at Ulaan Tolgoi and Ushkiin Uver. At the Soyo sites we found unambiguous evidence of 
clandestine excavations, possibly indicating the removal of some of the better preserved 
or more decorated deer stones. 
In general, the average khirigsuur consists of a centrally-located concentration 
of stones (central mound or central burial mound) surrounded by a low stone wall which 
can be either circular (circular fence) or squared (squared fence). Each comer of the 
squared fence may include one or more standing stones or small mounds some of which 
may contain burials. It is unclear if such comer burials are contemporary with the central 
mound (Figure 5.5). 
Many khirigsuur are surrounded by external mounds (small mounds) located east or 
west of the circular or squared fences (Figure 5.6). In addition, small rings of stones (small 
ring features) may be found in circular patterns external to the small mounds. While we 
are currently unsure whether all of the architectural features found within a defined mound 
structure are contemporary or may belong to different time periods, we have collected 
skeletal samples from both central mounds and small mounds for dating. 
Our principal research objective has been to collect large enough sample sizes 
for a statistically significant analysis, and to ensure, from a statistical point of view, that 
our sample populations represent the complete populations. To accomplish this goal we 
limited the amount of data to be collected from each mound and focused on the recording 
of selected variables from all visible mound structures within defined geographical areas. 
We applied fast and efficient data collection procedures by recording and calculating 
6l f-rohlich et al. 
Figure 5.7. Matt 
Gallon recording 
points on Class II 
burial mound at 
Ulaan Tolgoi using 
the Ash tech/Magellan 
Locus GPS receiver 
(Rover). A central 
Base Station including 
a similar unit is 
placed permanently 
within a radius of 
20 km. Using both 
receivers allows a 
precision of better 
than 3 cm. 
faunal Mounds 
variables such as geographical location and elevation, horizontal distribution, mound 
density, metric variables, shape, direction of features, and description of remaining burial 
contents for tombs that had been looted. We used surveying equipment including high 
precision global positioning systems (GPS), total stations, and basic measuring tapes and 
compasses (Figure 5.7). Some of the data was processed in the field using small computers 
operated on generator and battery power. Using a variety of GPS receivers we obtained 
ranges of precision from five to ten m using hand-held Garmin GPS-12 receivers (latitude 
and longitude), to better than three centimeters (0.03m) using a base-rover combination 
of Ashtech/Magellan Locus GPS receivers (latitude, longitude and elevation). 
With a GPS precision better than three centimeters we had to ensure that geometrical 
patterns reflecting mound architecture are displayed as accurately as possible. For example, 
a known circle with a known diameter on a flat and horizontal surface must be displayed 
as such after the data has been processed. This objective becomes a function of our ability 
to record points with high precision, and to use the right algorithms and map projections to 
produce a ‘real’ circle when displayed or plotted. At first, data recorded on circular fences 
plotted out as beautiful ellipsoids. In some cases this was partly correct but in most cases 
unquestionably wrong. After experimenting with known circles on horizontal surfaces we 
quickly learned that by selecting the right map projections, reference datum and adjusting 
Figure 5.6. Three 
small mounds 
(left) located east 
of circular fence 
(center) 
and central mound 
(right). Class I 
mound at Ulaan 
Tolgoi. 
for the recording of mounds located on hillsides we could produce consistently and 
exceptionally accurate, beautiful circles. We selected the Universal Transverse Mercator 
projection (UTM, North, Zone 47 [96° E - 102° E]) based on the World Grid System 1984 
( WGS84). In general the WGS84 corresponds to the North American Datum 1983 (NAD83). 
Our map references include Russian 1:200,000 topographic series dated to 1972, Russian 
surveys between 1942 and 1969 and remote sensing data including orthorectified Landsat 
images. We have found the Russian maps and the geo-referenced Landsat images to be 
very accurate. 
The Ashtec/Magellan Locus GPS receivers were used extensively at Ushkiin Uver 
and at the Ulaan Tolgoi area. Mounds in the Soyo area were recorded by small hand-held 
GPS units only. In 2004 we used the Locus GPS receivers to record 55 Soyo mounds which 
had been recorded in 2003 using the Garmin GPS-12 unit. These duplicate recordings 
showed that we could repeat our own recordings with acceptable accuracy. Indeed, for 
each of the 55 recorded mounds, all our Locus recordings, with a precision of 0.03m were 
located within the point recorded by the Garmin receiver plus and minus 6m. 
The 2003 survey of mounds in the Soyo area included all of the mounds in a defined 
search area south of the Khugiin Gol River. The survey was limited to basic recordings of 
size, shape, and one center recording of geographical location using hand-held GPS units. 
This was later extended during the 2004 season to include additional recordings of mounds 
toward the northeast, south of the areas surveyed in 2003, and a 20km long stretch of land 
north of the Khugiin Gol River. 
(jeneral Observation and Statistics 
The burial mounds range in size from a few meters to more than a hundred meters 
in diameter. We divided the mounds into three classes based on location and elevation: 
Class I: on low elevations and flat land (35%), Class II: on lower slopes of hills (33%), 
and Class III: on medium to high slopes on hills (32%) (Table 5.2). More than 75% of the 
larger mounds are found on flat land (Class I) (Ligure 5.8) and a majority of the smaller 
mounds are found at higher elevations (Class III) (Figure 5.9a & 5.9b). 43% include a 
circular fence, 32% include a squared fence, and 25% of mounds did not include any fence. 
When calculating the same frequencies, excluding mounds with no fences, the numbers 
are 57% and 43% for circular and squared fences, respectively. 
Table 5.2. Distribution of Class /, II and III mounds. Table does not include 
110 mounds visually recorded in 2004 about 5 km west ofUshkin Uver. 
Class I Class II Class III Total 
Ulaan Tolgoi 21 60 37 118 
Soyo 102 79 97 278 
Ushkiin Uver 24 0 0 24 
Total 147 139 134 420 
64 fVohlich etai. 
Figure 5.8. Class I mounds located on the flat steppe southeast of the Ulaan Tolgoi deer 
stone complex. In the foreground, sections of Class II mounds. Class I mounds are found 
on the flat steppe and Class II mounds on the boundary between steppe and hills. 
Some of the medium and larger-size mounds include external features such as 
smaller mounds and rings of stones (small ring features), that are most often located in 
straight or curved lines to the east or west of the fences. When the number of such external 
features is high they will surround most if not all of the basic mound architecture. We found 
that about 30% of the mounds include smaller external mounds ranging from one single 
entity to as many as 94. We also found that only 8% of the mounds include small ring 
features, always external to the fences and the small mounds. Only in one case did we find 
small ring features but no small mounds. Consequently, it may be concluded that presence 
of small ring features highly correlates with the presence of small mounds. Additionally, 
we found that the circular fence surrounding the central mound is always depicted as a 
perfect circle (Figure 5.10). This is true for all slope distances, thus fences on hills which 
depict a significant difference between the highest and the lowest points may look like 
oblique or ellipsoid geometrical shapes when displayed on a true horizontal surface, as is 
the case when using the Locus GPS system. We also found that the additional structures, 
such as small mounds and small ring features, are not always depicted as perfect circles 
but are very irregular (Figure 5.10). In general, small burial mounds do not have such 
external structures, and it is obvious that the frequency of external structures correlates 
with increasing size of the general mound structure. It is, however, unknown if the external 
architectural structures are contemporary with the central mound and the fences. 
£)urial Mounds 
Figure 5.9a. Class 
III mound with 
squared fence and 
standing corner 
stones, located 
about 2 km east 
of the Ulaan 
Tolgoi deer stone 
complex. Class 
III mounds are 
defined as being 
located on well 
defined hillsides. 
ffS 
Figure 5.9b. Class 
III mound with 
circular fence 
about l km north¬ 
west of Ulaan 
Tolgoi deer stone 
complex 
Deer Stones and Burial Mounds 
The temporal relationship between the three categories of monuments is open for 
discussion. Although we have no data suggesting a temporal relationship between slab 
burials and khirigsuur, our data suggests a connection between deer stone monuments and 
khirigsuur. The major deer stone complexes are mostly found on the flat steppe locations, as 
are Class I mounds. Class I mounds include about 80% of the larger mound structures. 
Data collected solely in the Ulaan Tolgoi area in 2003 reveals that out of a total of 
87 recorded mounds, nine are in the near vicinity of the deer stone complex. Of these nine 
mounds, six represent the largest recorded at Ulaan Tolgoi. Indeed, the average size of the 
six largest mounds is more than three times larger than the average size of the remaining 
81 recorded mounds (Figure 5.11). 
A total of 327 external structures (small mounds and small ring features) are 
associated with 17 of the 87 recorded mounds. Of the 327 structures, 266 or 81% are 
associated with the nine mounds found close to the deer stone complex. Given the 
assumption that increasingly complex mound construction correlates with increased 
social, political and/or economical status, this specific location may represent an area of 
higher ‘importance’ than the surroundings. The deer stones are most likely of spiritual and 
66 f~rohiich et al. 
North Center Mound 
j l . . ■ • Small Mound 
■ « Small Ring Feature 
■ . . 
—«- Circular Fence 
■ ■ ■ 0 
о 10 20 30 40 
Meters 
Figure 5.10. Mound no. 20 at Ulaan Tolgoi includes a perfect circular fence with 
a diameter of 34 meters. Center mound diameter is approximately 18 meters. Each 
small square represents one recording with the Locus GPS receivers. 
4k 
symbolic importance, thus emphasizing the social and cultural importance of the location 
of the deer stone complexes. 
Other observations support this hypothesis, although such data still needs to 
be quantified. Most external structures, especially the small mounds are often located 
either at the eastern or western side of the circular or squared fences. We determined that 
mounds located to the east of the deer stones have their external mounds located west of 
the fences. When mounds are located to the west and northwest of the deer stones, the 
external mounds are often located to the east of the fences. There are exceptions to this, 
especially within the group of the nine mounds located close to the deer stones. In such 
cases small mounds and small ring features appear to surround most of the circular and 
squared fences, although higher frequencies seem to be found in the direction of the deer 
stones. These observations are presently being analyzed and will be presented in detail at 
a later time (Figure 5.11). 
On the issue of mound density (i.e. number of mounds per square kilometer (km2), 
we find that the Soyo research area covers 195 km2 and the Ulaan Tolgoi area covers 16.8 
km2. In recording 171 mounds at Soyo and 87 mounds in the Ulaan Tolgoi areas (based on 
2003 data, only), we determined that the mound density at Ulaan Tolgoi (5.2 mounds/km2) 
is almost 6 times higher than in the Soyo area (0.9 mounds/km2). However, these numbers 
f^urial Mounts 67 
are somewhat misleading. The Soyo area includes a much higher percentage of flat steppe 
when compared to the area at Ulaan Tolgoi. This is important given that the 2003 survey 
data indicates that approximately 75% of the mounds are Class II and Class III mounds, and 
are located on the hills and lower hills only. Regarding ratios between hill and steppe, with 
adjustment for inconsistencies between Soyo and Ulaan Tolgoi, we find that the ‘adjusted’ 
mound density at Soyo is 2.4 mounds/km.2 This adjusted density is still approximately two 
times lower than the density at Erkhel Lake. We argue that this difference can be related 
to the presence of the substantial deer stone complex at Ulaan Tolgoi. 
The final results from the analysis of the location of external structures and mound 
densities indicate a need for an improved, and enlarged foundation of data. The additional 
mounds surveyed in 2004 and omitted from the above discussion will marginally improve 
this dearth. The 2004 surveying revealed that the variability of the different mound 
distributions and patterns may be much more diverse than previously thought. However, 
this data set is still being processed and will be presented later. 
Central Burial Mounds/Burial Chambers 
We have not yet completed any archaeological excavations of undisturbed mounds. 
Such excavations will commence following the conclusion of surveying. We believe that 
the survey data will allow us to improve our selection process when identifying mounds for 
excavation. However, increasing incidences of looting have resulted in the destruction of 
many mounds through clandestine excavations. Inexperienced, non-sanctioned excavators 
have wreaked tremendous, irreparable damage, particularly as they have not yet learned 
to use stratigraphic variation and changes in soil densities to select sites for excavations. 
North к 
0 50 100 150 200 
Meters 
jflfl Deer Stone Complex 
Г О s4uare or Circular Fence 
© Central Mound 
О Small Mound or 
Small Ring Feature 
Figure 5.11. Four 
squared and two 
circular mounds 
located adjacent 
to the deer stone 
complex at Ulaan 
Tolgoi. The deer 
stone complex 
includes five deer 
stones, two medium 
size circular 
mounds and 
approx-imate 650 
smaller stones. 
6 8 f~rohlich et al. 
However, during the 2003 season at Soyo we witnessed a new generation of looters in action, 
making it obvious that slowly, clandestine excavations are becoming more sophisticated 
and better organized. 
Observations of the buried remains revealed by both sanctioned and clandestine 
excavations have verified that all exposed central mounds included remains which could 
be identified as human. We also found that exposed external structures were either empty 
or included horse skeletons, most often crania, mandibles, and a few cervical vertebrae. 
Until the human and horse remains have been dated we cannot determine whether the 
external structures and central mounds represent contemporaneous or asynchronous 
relationships. 
During the 2004 season we excavated two previously looted tombs in the Soyo 
area and north of the Khugiin Gol river, and found human remains in the central burial 
chamber and a horse skull and cervical vertebrae remains in one of five external mounds 
(Figure 5.12). We failed to find any material of interest within any of the tested small ring 
features. 
Analysis of (Jiaan ~j~olgoi 2)urial Mounds (2005 ,3urvet)) 
A total of 87 mounds were identified within a 16.8 square kilometer area west, 
northwest, and northeast of the major deer stone monument located 6km west of Ulaan 
Tolgoi. The study area was defined in relation to topographical features. It is believed 
that 
all mounds within the search area have been recorded. 
Each mound was recorded by the Ashtech/Magellan Locus GPS system (n = 79). 
Eight additional mounds, identified the last day of surveying, were recorded by our hand¬ 
held units (n = 8). These eight mounds were also recorded in 2004 as part of our quality 
control of data integrity. 
The distribution between the various classes (I, II & III) follow the pattern found at 
Soyo. The larger mounds are found at the lowest levels of the hills and on the flat steppe, 
while the smallest mounds are found at higher elevations. Two mounds, (E03-29 and E03- 
30), exhibited significantly different architecture and may belong to different time periods. 
Mound E03-29 appears to be a typical slab burial with vertically placed flat stones making 
up the centrally-located burial chamber as well as the four walls creating the squared fence 
around the central mound (Figure 5.13). Mound E03-30 included a squared fence, and 
several small mounds. However, instead of locating such small mounds externally east or 
west of the fence, they were all placed within the four comers constituting the surrounding 
fence. One additional burial chamber was placed adjacent to the central mound. Apparently, 
this burial chamber was added at a later time, as indicated by the manner in which the 
stones were ‘attached’ to the original central mound (Figure 5.14). The remaining mounds 
appear to follow the architectural pattern described earlier. 
£)urial fvjounds 62 
Table 5.3. Distribution of mounds with circular and squared fences. Table does not 
include 110 mounds visually recorded in 2004 about 5 km west of Ushkin Uver. 
Circular Sqaure No Data Total 
Ulaan Tolgoi 55 53 10 118 
Soyo 121 73 84 278 
Ushkiin Uver 4 9 11 24 
Total 180 135 105 420 
Ulaan Tolgoi: Squared Fences vs. Circular Fences 
Based on 420 mounds recorded during the 2003 and 2004 seasons we identified 180 
mounds (43%) that included a circular fence, 135 mounds (32%) that included a squared 
fence, and 134 mounds (32%) without a fence (Table 5.3). The Erkhel Lake area yielded 
51% of mounds with a circular fence and 49% of mounds with squared fences (mounds 
with no fences have been excluded). The same numbers for the Soyo area are 62% and 
38% for those with circular and squared fences respectively. In the Ushkiin Uver area we 
recorded 31% of mounds with circular fences and 69% with squared fences. However, 
the Ushkiin Uver data includes a total of 13 mounds only, thus these numbers may be 
significantly flawed (Table 5.3). We believe that the Erkhel Lake data represents the most 
accurate data. The Soyo data is flawed by the adding of more than 60 Class I mounds around 
the Khugiin Gol river, and at the same time, not yet completing the search for Class II and 
Class III mounds on the southern hillsides north of the river. We argue that the distribution 
of different types of fences follows an almost 0.50 to 0.50 ratio and that added information 
based on upcoming surveys will support this assumption. At the present time, we do not 
believe that our data represents a normal distribution. The following statistics are based 
on data from the 2003 survey at Erkhel Lake only. 
Eighty-two mounds, out of 87 recorded, could be identified either as including a 
circular or a squared fence surrounding the central mound. Of the 82, 50% (n = 41) were 
recorded as squared and 50% (n=41) as circular. Five mounds did not yield any information 
regarding surrounding walls, most likely because of erosion or because they belonged to 
Figure 5.12. Dashzeveg 
Bazargur (left) and Tsend 
Amgalantugs excavating 
small mound feature 
in the Soyo mound no. 
S04-40 located north of 
the Khugiin Gol River. A 
horse cranium, mandible 
andfour cervical 
vertebrae were identified 
and collected for dating. 
Human skeletal remains 
were found in the robbed 
center mound. Nothing 
was found in an excavated 
small ring feature. 
70 Г"roblich et al. 
Table 5.4. Squared mound statistics. JJlaan Tolgoi area only. D1 to D4 represent 
directions of linear lines (azimuths) between corner points. 
N Min Max Mean SD 
D1 35 331° 65° 11.8° 24.2 
D2 36 59° 149° 99.1° 24.6 
D3 35 332° 70° 11.5° 25.7 
D4 35 64° 145° 103.7° 23.4 
a different time period. At this time we do not have any indication as to why the central 
mounds are surrounded by either circular or squared fences. Also, we cannot compare the 
average sizes directly because of the different geometrical patterns. However, by showing 
significant and positive correlations between center mound diameters of mounds with 
the dimentions of circular and squared fences, the diameters can be used as an indicator 
of differences within the basic mound architecture. For example, the average maximum 
diameter of the central mounds with circular fences is 8.0 m, and 8.3 m for mounds with 
squared fences. Showing similar sample size and standard deviation, the correlation 
coefficient (r) between circular fence diameters and central mound diameters is very high 
(r = 0.904, P = 0.000). Correlations between the central mound diameter and any of the four 
linear walls making up the squared fences are similarly very high (0.742 < r < 0.799, P = 
0.000). These results allow us to use central mound diameters for both types (circular and 
squared) as reflections of maximum mound sizes. Consequently, Student-t statistics, based 
on central mound diameters, show no group differences between mounds with squared 
fences and mounds with circular fences (t = 0.346, DF = 67 and P = 0.730). Based on this 
analysis, we conclude that there is no size difference between mounds with squared fences 
in comparison to mounds with circular fences. 
We hypothesize that the choice between either of the geometrical types is based on 
the presence of either a male or a female body within the burial chamber (central mound). 
This can only be verified by excavations of burial chambers and a subsequent analysis of 
the human skeletal remains. If our hypothesis is accepted we may be able to deduct further 
conclusions, particularly in regards to sex, gender, and status, about the people building 
the mounds. For example, if the selection of type (circular or squared) is related to the sex 
of the interred person, and there is no significant variation between the systems in regard 
to size we may argue for the presence of a more egalitarian society. This may be expected 
within nomadic or semi-nomadic cultures rather than in sedentary cultures. So far, our 
sex determination of skeletal remains found in looted burials is tentative, rudimentary, 
and based on very low sample sizes, and is consequently insignificant for support of the 
hypothesis. A much larger sample size of human skeletal remains from archaeologically 
excavated mounds will be require for further testing and possible confirmation of the sex 
and gender based hypothesis. 
Additionally, influences on the directional orientation of the four walled, square 
fences are under contention. Francis Allard argues that astronomical knowledge informed 
Bronze Age builder’s directional plans. While we have not yet completed analyses regarding 
explicit selection processes for direction, in 2003, we recorded the direction of each of 
Eburial M ounds 71 
Figure 5.13. Slab burial 
at Ulaan Tolgoi (Mound 
E03-29). Matt Gallon 
recording mound 
features. 
the four wall segments connecting comer points in mounds with squared fences. Such 
segments are not necessarily linear but can be a non-linear, curved arc connecting two 
comer points. The directions have been calculated using projected linear chords between 
comer points. Such chords are derived from the Locus GPS mapping software where all 
points are projected onto a horizontal plane defined by the map projection (UTM, North, 
Zone 47, WGS84). In practice, this creates and allows us an independence from variation 
between the true geographic meridian and the magnetic meridian. In 2004 we recorded 
the direction of squared fences using a traditional compass and adjusting for the variance 
between magnetic meridian (magnetic north) and the geographical meridian (true or 
geographic north). A comparison of the 2003 with the 2004 readings revealed marginal if 
any differences in the results. 
As such, our directional readings are comparable with readings made by Bronze 
Age people, utilizing astronomical knowledge, such as the position of the celestial north 
pole. However, we may still have to correct some of our data as variations between celestial 
directions and squared wall directions may vary depending on how the latter value was 
recorded, i.e. from a slope or horizontal distance. We have projected directions of chords 
without finding a specific pattern and suggest that direction is a functional choice related 
to surrounding topographical features. In the case of larger mounds, especially Class I 
mounds, the choice may be related to directions and placements of entrances and other 
architectural features. However, influences on direction may prove much more complex. 
The average directions of each of the four walls constituting the squared fences 
are given in Table 5.4. Standard deviations and sample sizes are similar and the averages 
of two almost parallel lines are almost similar (11.5° vs. 11.8°, and 99.1° vs. 103.7°). This 
variation, however, is large enough to create variation between the lengths of parallel lines. 
Consequently, the average lengths of parallel lines are respectively 15.6m vs. 16.4m, and 
14.3m vs. 14.9m. (Table 5.5) In short, the squared mounds are slightly longer in a north- 
south direction than in the east-west direction. 
We have not included any error potentially produced by using data from a horizontal 
map projection rather than the more relevant use of slope distances. This does not create 
a problem for the large mounds situated on the flat steppe (Class I), and on the lower 
72 fTohlich et ai. 
Figure 5.14. Small 
chamber added to 
the external part 
of center mound at 
Mound E03-30. 
elevations (Class II). However, data from mounds that are defined as Class III and located 
at higher elevation may produce significantly different results because of the consequent 
large discrepancy between slope distances and horizontal distances. Therefore differences 
in the lengths between perpendicular pairs of lines may become more significant given 
use of slope distances instead of horizontal distances, since the slope is frequently in a 
north to south direction. 
Spatial Distribution of Mounds 
During the fall of2004 all positional data collected for each mound were entered into 
a Geographical Information System (GIS). GIS creates an interface between relational data 
base information and a graphic display. This allows us to view and evaluate our information 
in a graphical mode based on access to topographical maps, and remote sensing data such 
as Ikonos, Quick-Bird, Spot and Landsat. At this time we have processed the entirety of 
positional information, size and shape data, class data, and records pertinent to numbers 
and location of external structures such as small mounds and small ring features. This 
information may be viewed, in part, in Appendix 1. 
At this time we are using Russian 1:200,000 topographical maps and a series of 
orthorectified Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) imagery. The Landsat images are based 
on the combination of visual bands (no. 2), and two infra-red bands (no. 4 and no. 7), 
creating a natural, color-like image. We have obtained a complete Landsat coverage of 
Mongolia. As all of the images are geo-referenced, we can select mounds to be plotted 
using a pre-defined symbol showing a spatial distribution in a defined area. Additionally, 
the software (ESRI/Arclnfo and Leica/Erdas) can be requested to use different colors or 
shapes for various attributes assigned to each mound in the data base. For example, all 
the mounds in the Soyo area could be represented by small circles, using blue for mounds 
with squared fences and red for mounds with circular fences. Or various classes of mounds 
could be represented with different sizes, shapes and/or colors. GIS’ power lays in that the 
information displayed is in an inherently dynamic state. Criteria for display and consequent 
interpretation can be altered depending on the question, category and the information 
selected from the data base. 
£)urial [\/|ouncls 75 
Table 5.5. Squared mound statistics. Ulaan Tolgoi area only. LI to L4 represent length 
of linear distances between corner points. 
N Min Max Mean SD 
LI 35 5.0 m 58.0 m 15.6 m 11.0 
L2 36 5.0 m 47.0 m 14.3 m 9.2 
L3 35 4.5 m 57.0 m 16.4 m 11.5 
L4 35 5.0 m 50.0 m 14.9 m 10.2 
In all of the figures depicting the distribution of mounds, there will be a certain, 
intentional overlap of the symbols representing the position of the individual mounds. This 
may be attributable to a double recording of a mound, especially if the mound is located in 
an overlapping area surveyed both in 2003 and in 2004. In general, the relative symbol size 
used to depict the mounds exceeds the actual size of the mound, producing an overlap. The 
relevant statistics can be viewed in Appendix 1 (mounds) and Table 5.6 (deer stones). The 
precision selected for mounds is one second of arc of latitude (2.8m) and one second of arc 
of longitude (1.2m). For deer stones, the numbers are 1/10th of a second of latitude (0.3m) 
and 1 /10th of a second of longitude (0.12m). This precision in the displayed coordinates far 
exceeds the precision obtained with the Garmin GPS-12 receiver, which at the best gives 
us a precision of between 6m and 10m, but corresponds well with the precision obtained 
by the Locus GPS receiver with a precision of better than 0.3m. However, this is further 
complicated by the spatial resolution of the used map image. For example, Landsat images 
produce a pixel size of 15m by 15m. Accordingly, the high precision we obtain from the 
GPS receivers becomes rather irrelevant when using Landsat images. However, when the 
same data is used with images with significantly higher resolution, such as the QuickBird 
remote sensing images (resolution between 0.60m and 1.0m.), then only Locus receivers 
will produce a product of similar precision. In practice, we suspect that the deer stone 
locations are accurate to within 0.5m and that the center location of each mound is accurate 
to within 10m. The exception to this is the center coordinates for a majority of the Ulaan 
Tolgoi mounds which should be accurate to within 0.5m. 
We have not included the elevation (ellipsoid height) because of the known 
inaccuracies of this variable when using single unit GPS receivers. However, we have 
very accurate ellipsoid heights for each recorded point measured by the Locus receivers 
and will include such data in the tables when the potential for correcting the Garmin data 
has been fully explored. 
Soyo Tolgoi 
The 2004 season expanded our survey to the north of the Khug River. A total of 
278 mounds have been recorded and although related data is still undergoing analysis, 
information related to spatial distribution and clustering has been generated (Table 5.1). 
In the area to the north of the Khug River, surveying was only carried out for Class I and 
Class II mounds, leaving a potentially large number of Class III mounds yet to be identified 
on the southern hillsides facing the river. 
7+ fTohlich et al. 
Table 5.6. Deer stone locations recorded to 1/10 of one second. Deer stones at Ushkiin 
Uver and Ulaan Tolgoi, all recorded individually (Locus GPS receivers). General 
location, only recorded for deer stones at Soyo and locations between Ulaan Tolgoi and 
Ushkiin Uver (Germin GPS-12 receiver). 
ID LOC YEAR TYPE N LATITUDE LONGITUDE 
UU-DS-1 Ushkiin Uver 2003 Deer Stone 1 49° 39’ 19.1” 99° 55’42.1” 
UU-DS-2 Ushkiin Uver 2003 Deer Stone 1 49° 39’ 19.5” 99° 55’42.1” 
UU-DS-3 Ushkiin Uver 2003 Deer Stone 1 49° 39’ 20.0” 99° 55’42.0” 
UU-DS-4 Ushkiin Uver 2003 Deer Stone 1 49° 39’21.4” 99° 55’39.0” 
UU-DS-5 Ushkiin Uver 2003 Deer Stone 1 49° 39’ 20.1” 99° 55’38.8” 
UU-DS-6 Ushkiin Uver 2003 Deer Stone 1 49° 39’ 19.3” 99° 55’39.1” 
UU-DS-7 Ushkiin Uver 2003 Deer Stone 1 49° 39’ 19.0” 99° 55’ 39.2” 
UU-DS-8 Ushkiin Uver 2003 Deer Stone 1 49° 39’ 18.9” 99° 55’ 39.0” 
UU-DS-9 Ushkiin Uver 2003 Deer Stone 1 49° 39’ 18.5” 99° 55’39.0” 
UU-DS-10 Ushkiin Uver 2003 Deer Stone 1 49° 39’ 18.4” 99° 55’ 39.0” 
UU-DS-11 Ushkiin Uver 2003 Deer Stone 1 49° 39’ 17.7” 99° 55’ 39.9” 
UU-DS-12 Ushkiin Uver 2003 Deer Stone 1 49° 39’ 17.6” 99° 55’39.3” 
UU-DS-13 Ushkiin Uver 2003 Deer Stone 1 49° 39’ 17.5” 99° 55’39.3” 
UU-DS-14 Ushkiin Uver 2003 Deer Stone 1 49° 39’ 16.6” 99° 55’39.0” 
EL-DS-1 Ulaan Tolgoi 2003 Deer Stone 1 49° 55’ 54.5” 99° 48’ 15.1” 
EL-DS-2 Ulaan Tolgoi 2003 Deer Stone 1 49° 55’ 54.6” 99° 48’ 15.0” 
EL-DS-3 Ulaan Tolgoi 2003 Deer Stone 1 49° 55’54.9” 99° 48’ 14.8” 
EL-DS-4 Ulaan Tolgoi 2003 Deer Stone 1 49° 55’ 55.4” 99° 48’ 14.2” 
EL-DS-5 Ulaan Tolgoi 2003 Deer Stone 1 49° 55’ 55.7” 99° 48’ 14.0” 
S-DS-1 Soyo 2003 Deer Stone 1 50° 58’37.0” 99° 22’26.5” 
S-DS-2 Soyo 2003 Deer Stone 2 50° 57’07.1” 99° 20’47.1” 
DS-COMPL Ul. Tolg.-Ushk. 2004 Deer Stones 5 49° 48’54.0” 99° 54’ 02.8” 
One objective for future research in the Soyo area is to verify the extent of the 
mound distribution. At this time we lack information on mound distribution outside of areas 
surveyed in 2003 and 2004. We observed some Class I and possibly some Class II mounds 
during commutes between Soyo and Ulaan Tolgoi and between Ulaan Tolgoi and Ushkiin 
Uver, however the full extent of mounds between these regions remains unknown. 
We have defined three major clustering of mounds within the Soyo distribution: 
Areas A, B, andC (Figure 5.15). Area A, measuring 10.5km,2 includes 97 mounds of which 
most are defined as Class 111 mounds (on southern hillsides). Within this group there are 
four distinct clusters, all located between the base of the hills and the tops (Figure 5.16). 
Each cluster includes between 20 and 30 mounds and appears to be located on parts of 
the hillsides that, most notably, face south. Additionally, there exists space, quite similar 
in appearance an orientation, available between these clusters where mounds might be 
positioned and still meet the southern hillside criteria. We may find additional criteria for 
this clustering following the processing of all of the recorded survey data and completion 
of further archaeological excavations. 
Area В includes mounds surveyed during both the 2003 and 2004 seasons. It 
measures about 18.3km2 and includes 60+ mounds. A majority of these mounds are Class 
I mounds, defined by their location on the flat steppe (Figure 5.17). Clustering of smaller 
groups of mounds appears in some areas especially closer to the Khug River. We hypothesize 
that the original number of mounds was significantly higher and that some mounds have 
£)urial Mounds 75 
Figure 5.15. Landsat image of Sovo area, West Darkhat Valley. Areas А, В & C enlarged 
in Figures 5.16, 5.17 & 5.18. Image size: 20.5 x 23.9 km. Class 1,11 and III mounds 
depicted respectively as white circles, grey circles and black circles. Two deer stone 
sites depicted as black triangles (in Area C). Grey surface colors represent flat steppe 
land. Black/dark grey colors depict forest. And light grey/white colors depict slopes with 
little or no vegetation coverage. 
been significantly eroded by changing flow directions of the Khug River. In general, the 
Class I mounds found within this cluster are significantly larger than similar numbers in 
other areas with Class I mounds. Also, since the hills north of the Khug River have not 
yet been fully explored, we expect to add a significant number of Class II and Class III 
mounds to our data base following complete survey of the area. 
Area C, measuring 16.4 km,2 includes two small clusters of mounds containing 23 
and 21 mounds respectively. A majority of the mounds, especially in the eastern cluster, are 
Class II mounds, located in the border areas between hillsides and the flat steppe (Figure 
5.18). Except for being located in an east-west direction on the upper level of a steep bank, 
there seems to be no geographical or geological reason for isolating these two clusters. 
The eastern cluster includes two locations with deer stones (marked as black triangles in 
Figure 5.18). Both deer stone locations are close to the mounds and both have been exposed 
to severe clandestine excavations and robberies. At the first deer stone site, there are two 
deer stone fragments measuring 40cm by 41cm by 29cm and 94cm by 49cm by 25+/- cm 
respectively. The larger stone includes carvings similar to those found on deer stones at 
Ushkiin Uver and Ulaan Tolgoi. The second deer stone site, located within a small cluster 
of three mounds, includes two deer stone fragments. These mounds are slightly larger in 
76 f roblich et a!. 
dimension than the rest of the mounds within the cluster. The stones measure 297cm by 
45cm by 20cm and 125cm by 37cm by 11cm respectively. 
We have concluded that the Soyo area includes several clusters of mounds, all 
exhibiting different distribution patterns. This variation cannot be explained strictly by 
changes and variations found in the landscape, and correspondingly, must have some 
dependence on additional factors. These may include factors related to kinship, social status, 
economical status, spirituality or the variation may even be attributable to mounds and 
mound clusters belonging to different archaeological time periods. Many of these issues 
may be resolved with the integration of results from future archaeological excavations. 
Ulaan Tolgoi - Erklhel Area 
A total of 87 mounds were surveyed west of the Ulaan Tolgoi site in 2003; all but 
8 of which were mounds recorded using Locus GPS receivers. An additional 31 mounds 
were recorded, mostly located in the hills northwest of Erkhel Lake (Figure 5.19). Three 
clusters have bee isolated: Cluster A with 64 mounds, located on the southern facing hills 
west of the deer stone complex (Figure 5.20); Cluster В with 10 mounds, located north of 
the deer stones; and Cluster C with 26 mounds, located about 6 kilometers east-north-east 
of the deer stones. No mounds were recorded between Clusters В and C. A small cluster 
Figure 5.16. Soyo area A. Four clusters of mounds all located on southern hill sides. 
Class I, II and III mounds depicted respectively as white circles, grey circles and black 
circles. Black areas represent forest growth and grey areas steppe or grass growth. 
Image size: 3.6km x 3.3km. 
£)urial Mounds 77 
Figure 5.17. Soyo Area B. Class I mounds (white circles) clustering around the Khug 
River. About five Class II mounds (grey circles) located at the lower hillsides to the 
northeast. Area measures: 4.1km x 5.0km. 
of 16 mounds was identified on two small hills located about 2 kilometers northeast of the 
deer stones. Compared to the clustering found within the Soyo Area A, no such patterning 
is visible at Ulann Tolgoi. The majority of the 64 mounds in Area A are Class II and III 
mounds, thus found on the southern facing hillsides, while the mounds found around the 
deer stones are all Class I mounds. The Class II mounds are located on a large slightly 
hilly plateau connecting the hillsides with the steppe. The Class I mounds surrounding the 
deer stones appear to be associated with the deer stone complex, as discussed above. The 
Class III mounds located in the hills do not cluster into groups as observed in the Soyo 
area but appear to be positioned on the surfaces with the least slope, taking advantage of 
the few flat areas found on the hillsides (Figure 5.20). A few mounds in Area A have been 
looted, yielding some human remains. 
Ushkiin Uver 
The 14 deer stones at Ushkiin Uver are surrounded with burial mounds. They are 
all Class I mounds. We have recorded 24 mounds. This comprises only a small fraction 
of all the mounds, including Class II and Class III mounds located in the hills toward the 
west of the deer stone complex. In June of 2004 we observed roughly 100 mounds on the 
southern hillsides between 3.6km and 5.5km west-south-west of the deer stone complex 
(Figure 5.21). These mounds were observed and recorded from the top of adjacent hills, 
and consisted largely of Class II and Class III mounds. An additional 10 + Class I mounds 
were observed on the steppe toward the deer stone complex. 
j~~rohlich et al. 75 
Figure 5.18. Soyo Area C. Two clusters of mostly Class 1 mounds (white circles and to 
the west) and Class II mounds (grey circles and to the east). Two sites within the eastern 
cluster include deer stones (black triangles). Area measures 4.0km x 4.4km. 
The Ushkiin Uver mound complex may become the largest and most comprehensive 
of the three studied areas. The deer stones and the mounds so far identified to the west are 
all situated within a major complex of hills all very suitable, at least from a geographical 
and geological point of view, for mound locations. We argue that this approximately 
36km2 complex of small mountains and valleys may yield a significantly high number of 
mounds. 
discussion and Conclusion 
Our analysis of the spatial variation of mounds based on survey data in three distinct 
areas in the Hovsgol aimag has proven that it is possible to collect high quality survey 
data using a combination of advanced GPS receivers and traditional surveying methods. 
Further, integrating data into a GIS system makes it possible to view and conceptualize the 
interactions and relationships of various combinations of variables in a graphic environment. 
Currently, our data has been processed via very simple analytical methods to our data, 
allowing a basic familiarity with the data. With partial focus on the responses of one or two 
variables when exposed to a second or third variable with alterable values, we have explored 
such issues as how size variables alter as elevation decreases and increases and how the 
distribution of circular and squared mounds varies in the context of the different mound 
faunal [\4ounds 79 
Figure 5.19. Ulaan Tolgoi research areas. Image measures 10.6km x 9.6km. Each 
mound, including all types and classes, are depicted by a white circle. Deer stone 
complex including 5 deer stones depicted by black polygon. Mounds to the west and 
north of deer stones recorded in 2003 and mounds just northwest of Erkhel Lake 
recorded in 2004. 
Figure 5.20. Ulaan Tolgoi Area A. Mounds with circular fences and squared fences are 
depicted as white circles and squares, respectively. Mounds with no fences are depicted 
as white triangles. Because symbol size exceeds more than 100 meters, mounds located 
close to each other may be ‘covered ’ by a single symbol only. 
Area measures 4.4km x 4.1km. 
80 I-rohlich et al. 
Figure 5.21. Mounds located about 5km west of the Ushkiin Uver deer stone complex. 
Distribution is schematic and is based on visual observation, only. 
classes. Beneficially, our increasing familiarity with the data and continued processing of 
the results from the 2003 and 2004 field seasons allows us to coherently identify areas in 
need of additional research, as well as additional and innovative research questions, and 
sophisticative areas of future research and field work. 
Below are summarized results pertinent to classes, clustering, shape, and mound 
distribution: 
(1) Mounds are found on the flat steppe (Class I), on southern hillsides (Class III), and 
in border areas between hills and steppe (Class II). They are classified by size, with Class 
I mounds being the largest and Class III the smallest. Each class includes approximately 
one third of the mounds recorded in 2003 and 2004. These fractions may change when 
we have completed surveys in areas both with known mounds and in those where Class 
III mounds may be present. All three classes are represented in areas where mounds are 
identified. However single mounds or small clusters of Class I mounds may be found 
in isolated areas. We argue that Class I mounds may be younger then Class II and Class 
III mounds, and that mounds identified as khirigsuur may represent a temporal variation 
spanning across several archaeological time periods. 
(2) Mounds cluster into groups. Landscape variation, such as different slope distances, 
influences the location of mounds. When mounds are located on southern hillsides (Class 
s I £>urial Mounds 
Figure 5.22. Landsat image depicting area between Erkhel Lake and Ushkiin Uver. 
Ellipsoid areas represent 2003 and 2004 research areas. Irregular hexagon covering 
areas between Erkhel Lake and Ushkiin Uver represents area to be surveyed in 2005. 
Deer stone sites are identified as black triangles. In addition to the Ulaan Tolgoi and 
Ushkin Over deer stone complexes, a small complex including six deer stones is located 
around midway between Erkhel Lake and Ushkiin Uver (See Table 5.6). 
Ill) the builders tend to select the most horizontally level locations. This also appears 
to influence the direction of squared fences, optimizing the use of the most horizontally 
oriented surfaces. In some cases the clustering of mounds cannot be associated with 
landscape features. We argue that clustering is also caused by factors such as kinship, 
sociality and economics, and possibly spiritual factors. Most likely, the location of each 
mound is a product of many components of which slope distances, hillside location, and 
social factors are just a few. 
(3) We found approximately equal numbers of mounds with squared and circular 
fences. In the Ulaan Tolgoi area, the distribution is proportional, exactly half and half, while 
in the Soyo area the mounds with circular fences appear to outnumber the mounds with 
<32 Prohlich et al. 
squared fences. We have not identified any correlation between fence type and landscape 
patterns. We argue that the two fence types represent a selection process based on kinship, 
gender or socio-economic factors. At this time we hypothesize that different fence types 
are related to the gender of the interred individual. This assumption will be tried through 
attempting to analyze Bronze Age Mongolian conceptions of gender and through more 
comprehensive excavations to determine the sex of individuals within central mounds. As 
of yet, excavations and skeletal analyses have been restricted to looted mounds. And the 
male and female sample sizes are too small for reliable hypothesis testing. 
(4) We have not yet determined if high density groups of mounds are present between 
known groups such as the Soyo and Ulaan Tolgoi or if mounds are found randomly in the 
landscape in high and low densities in relation to factors such as the presence or absence 
of deer stones. We have learned that between 50% and 75% of the mounds are very 
difficult to identify visually. This is especially true for Class III mounds. Consequently 
we would need to survey a number of areas between known mound locations to obtain 
a full understanding of the complete spatial distribution and variation. It is unlikely that 
we will find major groups of mounds similar in size to those found at Ushkiin Uver and 
Ulaan Tolgoi. However, some Class I and possibly Class II mounds have been observed 
between these groups. This represents an invitation to take a closer look at the more than 
530 km2 of hills and valleys located between Erkhel Lake and Ushkiin Uver. Surveying 
these areas through extensive foot survey in pursuit of our objectives will be one of the 
next areas of focus (Figure 5.22). 
AA nowledgments 
The burial mound survey was administratively supported by ‘The Deer Stone 
Project’ directed by William Fitzhugh of the Smithsonian’s Arctic Studies Program. 
Monetary support was derived from our museum’s CT Laboratory (travel, equipment, 
supplies, and logistics), the Smithsonian’s Department of Anthropology (travel support 
for Bruno Frohlich and David Hunt), The Deer Stone Project (travel expenses covering 
Matt Gallon and ‘within Mongolia’ logistics during the 2003 and 2004 field seasons), the 
Mongolian Academy of Sciences (salaries, logistics and supplies during the mass burial 
excavations), and private funds (supplies, travel, equipment and logistics). We enjoyed the 
company of many new friends both in the field and in Ulaanbaatar including T. Galbaatar 
(President of the Mongolian Academy of Sciences), D. Tseveendorj (Director of the Institute 
of Archaeology), B. Enkhtuvshin (Vice-President of the Mongolian Academy of Sciences); 
the late S. Idshinnorov (Director of the National Museum of Mongolian History), and J. 
Batsuuri (Director of the Mongol Tolbo Association). Our visit made us appreciate the 
hard work, great enthusiasm and support of researchers, academics, and students, including 
Ochirhuyag Tseveendorj, Ts. Ayush, and Jamsranjav Bayarsaikhan, of the National Museum 
of Mongolian History. Kevin Robinson and Scott Stark of the University of Pittsburgh added 
a fresh and friendly component to our research by sharing their experience with sediment 
core sampling for the study of late Holocene climatically variations. Matt Gallon was the 
perfect and very productive assistant during the 2003 survey, and Julie Singer (2003) while 
faunal Mounds 55 
collecting insects (mostly beetles), for our museum’s Department of Entomology, assisted 
us during some of the mound surveys with data recording and photography. In 2004 the 
survey team included Dashzeveg Bazargur, Batshatar Erdene and Tsend Amgalantugs with 
assistance from Andrea Neighbor who was ‘on loan’ to us from Bill Fitzhugh’s deer stone 
team. At the Smithsonian Institution we enjoyed productive and positive discussions with 
William Fitzhugh, William Honeychurch and Daniel Rogers. David Hunt has been our 
friendly and very productive collaborator on many issues ranging from forensic research 
to collection management. We also enjoyed many great discussions on paleobotany, 
environmental changes and bio-diversity with Steven Young (Center for Northern Studies, 
Sterling College), Clyde Goulden (Institute for Mongolian Biodiversity and Ecological 
Studies) and Edward Nef (Inlingua Language Service Center). Finally, the editorial support 
from Helena Sharp, Molly Zuckerman and Evan Garofalo has been priceless. 
Typical Class I mound. Most Class I mounds are located on the flat steppe and are in 
general significantly larger than Class II and Class III mounds, (photo: Frohlich) 
54 J-roblich et al. 
Mongolian Abstract 
Хѳвсгѳл аймгийн нутагт 2003, 2004 онуудад хийсэн хайгуулын 
явцад илруулэн олсон булш, хиргисууруудийг буртгэх ажлын 
урьдчилсан ур дунгээс 
Бруно Фролих 
Смитсонийн Институт дэх Байгалын Туухийн Yндэсний Музейн 
Антропологийн Тэнхим 
Базарсадын Наран 
Монголын Шинжлэх Ухааны Академийн Археологийн Хѵрээлэн 
2003-2004 оны зуны турш Монголын хойд хэсгийн Хѳвсгѳл аймагт 
Хурлийн уеийн булш хиргисууруудийг буртгэхээр Монголын Шинжлэх Ухааны 
Академ болон Смитсонийн Институтаас бѵрдсэн баг хамтран ажилласан юм. 
Эдгээр булшнуудыг “хиригсуур” хэмээн нэрлэж заншсан бѳгѳѳд Монголын тѳв 
болон хойд хэсгээр ѳргѳн тархацтайгаар байрлаж байдаг нь ажиглагдсан юм. 
Булшнуудын тархацыг судлаж, булш бутээгчдын хаана ямар аргаар булшаа 
бутээж байсан шалгууруудыг таньж мэдэх нь манай судалгааны ажлын гол 
зорилт байсан юм. Ууний ур дунд бид нар зарим нэг булшны байрлалтын 
уялдаа хамаарлыг олж ажигласан боловч тархацыг нь хараад ѳѳр хоорондынх 
нь онцлогийг тайлбарлах боломжгуй санаандгуйгээр энд тэнд байрласан булш 
ч бас тааралдаж байв. Эдгээр булшнуудыг олон тооны булш малтаж судласны 
эцэст арай илуу ур дунтэй шинжилгээ хийх боломжтой. 
Бидний судалгааны ажил статистикийн судалгаанд тохирохуйц олон 
тѳрлийн хэмжээг дээж болгон цуглуулахад тулгуурласан байв. Зйвхйн ердийн 
(нормал) тархацыг илэрхийлсэн тоо баримтыг л ашигласнаар судалгаа 
шинжилгээний уйл явцад алдаа гажилт гарахгуй гэдэгт бид итгэлтэй байлаа. 
Манай судалгааны ажил хоёр ѵе шатаас бѵрдэж байв: 1) эвдэж гэмтээлгѵйгээр 
хайгуулын ажил хийх ѵе шат, 2) малтлагааны ѵе шат. Бид хайгуулын ажлаа 
Уушигийн ѳвѳр орчмоор (п=125), Эрхэл нуур хавиар (п=120), Соёо орчимд 
(п=270) туе туе хийсэн бѳгѳѳд нийтдээ 515 гаруй булш буртгэн авсан юм. 
Булшийг буртгэн авах болон судлан шинжлэхдээ бид тѳрѳл бурийн 
арга техник хэрэглэсэн бѳгѳѳд уунд булшнуудын ялгааг хэмжихэд ашигласан 
Locus GPS -ийн Ashtech/Magellan (0.15-0.30 метрийн нарийвчлалтай) гэсэн 
хоёр нэгдмэл систему уд орно. Булшнуудын ялгааг хэмжихдээ Locus системээс 
гадна Garmin GPS-12 (6 -10 метрийн нарийвчлалтай) системийг соронзон 
луужин болон метр хэмжигч туузтай зэрэгцуулэн ашигласан. Эдгээр ѳѳр ѳѳр 
арга техникуудийг хэрэглэхэд булшнуудын ойролцоогоор 25 хувь нь дор хаяж 
хоёр удаа давхцаж тэмдэглэгдеэн бѳгѳѳд эдгээр арга техникийн нарийн зйв 
хэмжилтийг тодорхой болгоход бидэнд маш их туе болж байсан юм. Эдгээр тоо 
баримтууд DBMS буюу Too баримтыг зохицуулах системд хадгалагдан улдеэн 
бѳгѳѳд уунд уртраг, ѳргѳрѳг, далайн тувшнээс ѳргѳгдеѳн хэмжээ, хашлаганы 
тѳрѳл, ангилалт, урт ѳргѳний харьцаа, бага хэмжээний булшны гаднах хурээ 
гэх мэт булшны гадаад бутэц зохион байгуулалт зэрэг багтеан болно. Орост 
хэвлэсэн 1:200.000 -н хэмжээст газрын зургийг буулган векторт шилжуулэн 
Landsat 7 -н зурагтай (2,4 ба 7) хамтруулан Газарзуйн Мэдээллийн Системийн 
faunal Mounds 55 
(GIS) ундэс бааз болгон хэрэглэсэн болно. Алфа тоон баримт ба векторын 
графикийг хамтруулан хэрэглэснээр цуглуулсан мэдээллээ чухам ямар арга 
хэлбэрийг ашиглаж судлан унэлж дугнэх боломжийг бидэнд олгосон ба энэ нь 
ѳѳр аргаар бол биелэгдэх боломжгуй юм. 
Бидний одоогийн байдлаар хурсэн урьдчилсан ур дун нь булшнуудыг 
ангилан ялгаж танихад тулгуурласан бѳгѳѳд энэ нь цаашдын судалгаанд 
мэдээллуудийг тѳрѳл зуйлд хуваахад хэрэгцээтэй алхам болох юм. Жишээлбэл: 
булшнуудын ойролцоогоор 50% нь тойрог хэлбэрийн ханан чулуунуудаар (тойрог 
хэлбэртэй хашлага), 45% нь дйрвйлжин хэлбэрийн хашлагаар хѵрээлэгдсэн 
байгаа ба 5% нь огт хашлагагуй байна. Энэхуу нудэнд шууд тусах ажиглалт 
нь бидний булшнуудыг тѳрѳл зуйлд ялгах анхны ангиллын шалгуур хэмжуур 
болсон. Уунээс гадна бид булшнуудыг газарзуйн байрлалынх нь хувьд 3 хэсэгт 
ангилсан. Тухайлбал, 1-р ангилалд тал газар байрлах булшнууд (ойролцоогоор 
25%), 2 р ангилалд уул толгодын хормой бэлд байрлах булшнууд (ойролцоогоор 
25%), 3-р ангилалд уул толгодын хормой бэлээс дээш дунд хэсгээр байрлах 
булшнууд (ойролцоогоор 50%) туе туе багтеан байна. Энэ ангилал нь булшны 
том жижигтэй салшгуй холбоотой болох нь ажиглагдеан ба уунд: том хэмжээтэй 
булшнууд ихэнхдээ 1-р ангилалд багтах газар, бага хэмжээтэй булшнууд 3-р 
ангилалд багтах газар туе туе байрлаж байсан бол дунд зэргийн хэмжээтэй 
булшнууд 2-р ангилалд багтах газар байрлаж байсан. Чухам яагаад булшны 
гадуур тойрог эсвэл дѳрвѳлжин хашлага сонгодог байсан талаар тайлбарлах 
ажиглалт дугнэлтийг бид одоохондоо хийж амжаагуй байгаа. Ѳѳр ѳѳр хэлбэртэй 
хашлаганууд эдгээр гурван ангилалд багтах булшнуудад ижил харьцаатайгаар 
тааралдаж байсан ба хашлаганы хэлбэр нь булшны хэмжээнд болон байрлалын 
ангилалтай тѳдийлѳн холбоо хамааралгуй бололтой. Хашлаганы хэлбэр нь 
оршуулсан хуний эрэгтэй эсвэл эмэгтэй байсантай холбоотой эсвэл нийгэм 
эдийн засгийн хучин зуйлууд хашлаганы хэлбэр сонгоход нѳлѳѳлж байсан эсэх 
нь бидний хувьд одоогийн байдлаар танигдаагуй маргаантай сэдэв болж байна. 
Булшнууд хашлагагуй байх хоёр онцгой шалтгаан байж болно. Уунд: Цаг 
хугацааны хувьд ѳѳр ѳѳр (Жишээ нь Хуннугийн уе) ба он цагийн турш элэгдэж 
угуй болсон эсвэл ургамал ногоо ургаж бурхсэн шалтгаанууд орж байна. Бидний 
бас нэгэн ажигласан зуйл бол 2 ба 3 р ангиллын булшнууд уул толгодын урд 
зугт нь эсвэл ойролцоо байрлаж байсан бѳгѳѳд маш цѳѳн тооны булш (5+/-) 
хойд зугт нь байрлаж байсан. 
Бидний цуглуулсан тоон баримтын судалгаагаар булшнууд маш олон 
тоогоор уул толгодын урд хэсэгт бѳѳгнѳрсѳн ба ингэж шавж байрласнаар ихэнх 
тохиолдолд ѳнцгийн зайн ѳѳрчлѳлт гэх мэт газрын ѳвѳрмѳц тѳрх байдалтай 
холбоо хамааралтай байж чадахгуй болох нь бидэнд харагдеан. Гэхдээ зарим 
тохиолдолд холбоо хамаарал ажиглагдеан ба бид 2004 оны судалгааныхаа 
ажлын уеэр 1 ба 2-р ангиллын булшнуудыг Соёогийн хойд ба зуун хойд хэсгээс 
буртгэсэн билээ. Ингэхэд ихэнх нь (51 +/-) голын ойр орчмоор байрлаж байсан ба 
1 р ангиллын булшнууд тааралдаж байсан. Энд тааралдаж байсан 1 р ангиллын 
булшнуудын тархац нь ѳѳр газарт байрлах 1-р ангиллын булшнуудын тархацаас 
эре ѳѳр болох нь харагдаж байсан. 
Бидний урдаа тавьсан зорилго бол илуу их хэмжээний газарзуйн 
байрлалыг хамарсан булшнуудын олон талын судалгаа, дэлгэрэнгуй хайгуул 
хийх юм. Бид булшинд малталт хийхээс зайлехийж байгаа юм. Гэхдээ зарим нэг 
хумуусийн буруутай уйл ажиллагаанаас болон булш ѳмнѳнь тоногдеон эсвэл 
суйтгэгдсэн байвал бид булшаас шарилын яс, булшны гадна хэсгээс морьны араг 
86 БгоЫісЬ et al. 
ясны хэсгууд (гавлын яс, нурууны нугаламны яс гэх мэт) зэргийг дээж болгон 
авахад бид цагаа зарцуулсан. Булшны функцийн тал дээр бид одоог хуртэл санал 
зѳрѳлдѳн маргалдсаар байгаа билээ. Тоногдсон болон суйтгэгдсэн булшнаас 
цуглуулсан шарилын араг яснууд (хуний ба морьны) мѳн туунчлэн бутан чулууны 
цогц бурдэлтэй хамаарах араг яснууд (морьны) аль цат уед хамаарах нь бидний 
маргаад байгаа ярвигтай системийг ойлгож учрыг нь тайлахад ихээхэн туе нэмэр 
болно гэж бид найдаж байгаа. 
Бид 2005 оны судалгааны ажлаараа 2 ба 3-р ангиллын булшнуудыг 
Соёогийн хойд хэегээр ургэжлуулэн буртгэж тэмдэглэхээр тѳлѳвлѳж байгаа. 
Туунээс гадна, 2004 онд буртгэсэн булшнуудын 25% орчмыг тоон баримтаа улам 
лавшруулан чанартай хѳтлѳх ууднээс дахин буртгэх болно. Уушигийн ѳвѳрийн 
баруун урд хэегийн буган чулууны орчмоос 100 гаран 2-р ангиллын булш болон 
10-аад 1-р ангиллын булшнууд туе туе ажиглагдан буртгэгдеэн. Харамсалтай 
нь энэ буртгэл бидний дээр дурдагдеан арга техникээр хийгдэж чадаагуй бѳгѳѳд 
бид дахин буртгэхдээ дээрх аргыг хэрэглэх мѳн Уушигийн ѳвѳр орчмын хѳрш 
зэргэлдээ хэсэгт бас судалгаа шинжилгээ хийхээр бид зорилт тавьж байгаа. Эцэст 
нь хэлэхэд булшнууд хэрхэн хэсэг буртээ ялангуяа буган чулуунуудын хэегээр 
ургэлжлэн тархдаг эсвэл хэрхэн тархац нь тасалддаг талаар бид одоохондоо 
бурэн гуйцэд ойлголттой болж амжаагуй байгаа. Тийм учраас бид ѳргѳн 
хурээний хайгуулын ажлыг хойноос урд зуг уруу чиглэлтэйгээр Уушигийн ѳвѳр 
болон Эрхэл нуурын хоорондох газарт хийхээр тѳлѳвлѳж байна. 
faunal Mounds 57 
шшяшшшшт 
twne&xi 
Ulaan Tolgoi khirigsuur mound complex south of the deer stone site, (photo: Frohlich) 
P)ronze 
(Jse о 
Age B> uri a i M oun ds in N о rth ern Mongolia: 
fGIS in Identifying Spatial and emporal 
Variation 
Eliza Wallace and Bruno Frohlich, Department of Anthropology 
National Museum of Natural History 
Smithsonian Institution 
Introduction 
The landscape of Northern Mongolia is covered with small hills of stones that mark 
the locations of burials. These Bronze Age burial mounds, otherwise known as khirigsuur 
or kurgan, are the subject of a great deal of study and curiosity in the archaeological 
communities of Russia, Mongolia, Europe, and America. They consist of a circular pile of 
rocks suiTOunded by either a perfectly circular ring of rocks or four linear walls forming 
a square (Figure 6.1). Some mounds lack these walls because of erosion or other factors, 
which may include differing time periods. Many of the larger burial mounds are surrounded 
Figure 6.1. Class I mounds (located on the flat steppe) at Soyo. Each mound consists of 
a center mound surrounded with either a circular or squared fence. 
*9 
Figure 6.2. Three of the five deer stones at U/aan Tolgoi. The deer stones are 
surrounded by more than 650 stones. Two Class I mounds in the background partly 
obstructing the Russian jeep. 
by smaller external mounds. Some are sufficiently large that they are visible from a distance 
while others are much smaller and can be seen only in close proximity. 
We believe that some selection criteria were used for the placement of these mounds, 
and we will use Geographic Information Systems (GPS) in order to uncover patterns. 
Although some basic trends are visible from the ground, many patterns are only visible when 
viewed on a map. We believe that discovering these patterns will lead us to the underlying 
reasons for mound placement as well as give us directions for future fieldwork. 
Description of data 
Most of the burial mounds in question can be grouped into two general types based 
on the shape of their surrounding walls: circular and square. However, the shapes of several 
mounds cannot be categorized since they lack surrounding walls. 
There are three basic categories of mounds, aptly labeled Class I, II, and III. These 
classifications are based on location within the countryside. Class I mounds are located 
on the flat steppes, Class II on higher ground, on the edges of hills, and Class III on the 
tops of hills. Mound location strongly correlates with mound size. Class I is the largest, 
with approximate average diameter of (20m); Class II is smaller (10m), and Class III is 
the smallest (6m). 
Possible patterns of distribution and reasons for mound placement are largely 
unknown. In some areas, mounds occur in higher concentrations in close proximity to 
?o Wallace and f’Yohlich 
• • 
•••«** 
Figure 6. За & 6.3 b. Soyo area A depicting large concentration of mostly Class III 
mounds on southern facing hill sides. Top image includes Landsat image (grey colors 
and black colors represent grass coverage and wood coverage, respectively. Bottom 
image shows the mound distribution depicted on geo-referenced Russian topographic 
map. Image size: 3.6km x 3.3km.) 
£>ronze Age urial Mounds 9 I 
stone monuments commonly referred to as ‘deer stones’. Deer stones are large, upright 
stone monoliths of consistent shape named for the deer carvings that cover their surfaces 
(Figure 6.2). Field observations support close association between large groupings of 
mounds and deer stones. 
The builders may have also have based selection criteria on geographical features. 
For example, mounds appear almost exclusively on the southern slopes of hills, possibly 
in relation to southern slopes almost never being forested, whereas northern slopes, which 
rarely bear mounds, being consistently forested. These and other possible relationships will 
be thoroughly explored through the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS). 
Application of GIS methods 
Geographical Information Systems (GIS) is a very powerful type of mapping 
software that allows the user to combine various types of geographical data for analysis. 
This software can be used for analysis of any dataset that includes information on 
geographic location. Data sets that can be incorporated into this system include point data 
from geographic coordinates, digital elevation models, and even scanned maps. The user 
has complete control over how the GIS is constructed based on the goals of the project. In 
our case, since we wish to uncover the mound builders’ criteria for mound placement, we 
will use the GIS to search for patterns in mound location. To achieve our research goals 
most efficiently, an intentionally simplified GIS system was utilized. 
The goals of the project dictate the way that infonnation was collected and has been 
displayed. Since any patterns would occur on a large scale, our geo-databases included 
the center points of the mounds. From this a shape-file was created that plots the burial 
mounds as points overlaying maps and images of the local terrain, so that patterns in the 
burial mounds in relation to each other, the deer stones, and geographical features would 
become apparent. Coordinates of the deer stones were included in another layer in the 
GIS. Any vague impressions of patterning from ground observations can be confirmed or 
rejected by viewing these mounds in relation to the landscape. 
Additionally, this software allows for quick production of maps that differentiate 
geographic data based on any relevant factor or factors that were originally included as a 
field in the geo-database. In this case, simply using different symbols for different shapes 
and types was the most useful for discerning patterns. 
Relying on multiple base-maps has also proven very useful in this project. We were 
able to look at the mound locations overlaying geographical data that were displayed in 
two different ways. In this case, one background image that was taken from space and 
resembles a photograph and another background image that is simply a scanned or digitized 
map were used. On each, terrain and ground-cover are clearly visible, but in different ways. 
As a result, alternating between the two can reveal more patterns than could be seen on 
either map alone (Figure 6.3). 
Data 
During the 2003 and 2004 field seasons, the Soyo and Erkhal areas were surveyed 
22 Wallace and Ь roblicK 
Figure 6.4. Landsat image measuring approximately 49km2, showing the distribution of 
Class I, II & III mounds respectively depicted as white, grey, and black circles. The total 
number of mounds recorded in the Soyo area is 278 and includes four deer stones found 
at two sites. 
and center points of the burial mounds were recorded. The points taken in the Soyo area 
were recorded using a handheld GPS receiver with 5m to 1 Om precision. The Erkhel points 
were recorded using a dual receiver GPS system with 15mm to 30mm precision. 
Due to project goals, time, and funding constraints, only a limited number of 
variables—concerning information with the highest priority—were recorded. Rather than 
take points around the circumference of each central mound and surrounding wall, the center 
points and a maximum diameter were recorded. Since the size of the surrounding walls 
correlate with the center mound diameter, points were not taken to record their diameter. 
In the Erkhel area, circumference points and points defining distinguishing 
characteristics were all recorded with the Ashtec-Magellan locus system. In the Soyo 
area, lower precision handheld GPS units were used to record center points. Depending on 
logistics such as weather, some mounds were also recorded with a compass and measuring 
tape. 
Center points were taken with the GPS system. Latitude and Longitude were 
recorded in the WGS 1984 system using various formats including Decimal Degrees, and 
Degrees, Minutes and Seconds. These units were all converted to Decimal Degrees later 
for the purposes of standardization and simplicity. 
In addition to mound type, location, and position, the team recorded other relevant 
bronze Age 5 urial Mounds 95 
information, including the classification (Class I, II, and III), the number of visible external 
mounds, the number of stone rings, whether or not human remains were visible in the 
chambers of mounds that had been previously looted, and any additional comments. 
Since our goal is to analyze relationships between mound location and geography, 
these geo-databases were used in conjunction with our other data. In order to have a 
background image to compare the points with, we purchased a group of commercially 
available Landsat images. This system records light reflectivity of different bands, some 
visible, and some not. We used images that included bands 2,4, and 7, which were assigned 
colors that would make it look like a color photograph. The resolution of these three bands 
is 30m x 30m. Overlaying these three bands is a panchromatic band that has a resolution 
of 15m x 15m. Thus producing a resolution about four times higher than the bands that 
include only three basic colors. 
Although these images look similar to satellite photographs, there are several 
important differences. First, the image was created by compiling recordings of reflectivity on 
three bands. Those bands were then colored to most accurately mimic the actual landscape. 
Water appears purple-blue, for example, and cliff faces appear whitish-gray. This means 
that even if the resolution were high enough, the burial mounds still may not be visible in 
these images if they reflect light in the same way that the surrounding landscape does. 
Fortunately, terrain is visible in these images. We can quite clearly see the crests of 
hills, for example. In this area of northern Mongolia, trees cover only the northern slopes 
of hills, and this tree cover stops almost exactly on the crest. The trees appear as a darker 
green color on these images due to a difference in reflectivity. 
We also have several digitized Russian maps at our disposal. These maps include 
contour lines of uncertain accuracy, place names, etc. The series of maps we are using are 
on a 1:200,000 scale. These maps were geo-referenced to the Landsat images by matching a 
number of control points such as river divergence points and other distinguishing landmarks. 
Overall, these maps correspond to the Landsat images very well. They are useful when 
paired with the Landsat images because they show relief in contours, supplementing that 
which is visible on the Landsat images. 
Since the accuracy of the elevations accompanying the contour lines of these maps 
is dubious, no attempt has been made yet to vectorize those lines for the creation of a digital 
elevation model. If these lines are accurate at least in relation to one another, the resulting 
digital elevation model could be useful for the creation of a slope map if not an elevation 
map. This possibility will be considered in the future. 
Results 
Visual analysis of the locations of the Bronze Age burial mounds in relation to each 
other and to the local geography does yield some visible patterns. After more study, these 
patterns may be used to create a general profile of burial practices for the builders that can 
then be confirmed or rejected using data from other areas. The results reported in this paper 
are based only on the mounds in the Soyo area, since the 2003 survey data from Erkhel is 
not yet in a final form. 
9+ Wallace and j- roblich 
After merely displaying the mounds as points over a background of Landsat images, the 
only clearly visible pattern is that the builders preferred not to locate their burial mounds 
in inaccessible areas, such as cliff faces. However, the symbolic differentiation between 
mound shapes and classes (discussed above), does yield some interesting results. 
When the mounds are differentiated by the shape of the surrounding walls, it is 
difficult to see any real pattern. Square walled to circular walled burial mounds occur in 
equal proportion, approximately half and half. The lack of apparent patterning may be 
explained by the current proposition that the dichotomy in wall shape maybe in relation 
to the attributed gender of the interred individual. Further excavations and corresponding 
determination of individuals’ sex are needed. 
Consistent with field observations, nearly all Class I mounds are located on the 
flat steppes near the river, while Class II and III mounds are located on higher ground 
(Figure 6.4). The reasons for this difference are currently unknown, but could include 
chronological factors. 
Closer inspection of certain densely covered areas reveals more subtle evidence 
of selection criteria based on geography. For example, the Class II and III mounds on a 
large southern hill are clustered in four groups. The slope of this hill is roughly consistent 
all the way across. However, the Russian maps show that the clusters correspond with the 
southern-facing areas of the hillside rather than the southeast- or southwest-facing areas. 
This grouping could be related to ground cover or other geographic features that are directly 
related to slope orientation. 
In the southeastern sector of the Soyo area, another interesting pattern appears. A 
group of Class II mounds forms a line. A whitish-gray slash appears beneath this line in 
the Landsat images. Field notes and the Russian maps confirm that this slash represents a 
ridge. Two deer stones also rest in this area. These factors could signify selection criteria 
based on both geographical and cultural factors. 
(Conclusion 
In several instances, our Geographic Information System has revealed patterns in mound 
placement that would not have otherwise have been discovered. Even when relative mound 
location is plotted or sketched into field notes, the visible groupings revealed by GIS are 
not noticeable. However, even a simple overlay of the mound locations as symbols on the 
Landsat 7 images reveals the presence of some selection process based on geographical 
and cultural criteria. 
95 £)ronze Age £>urial Mounds 
Mongolian /\bstract 
Монголии умард нутаг дахь хурэл зэвсгийн уеийн 
булшуудыг GIS буюу Газарзуйн Мэдээллийн Систем 
ашиглан буртгэсэн нь 
Элиза Уолас ба Бруно Фролих 
Смитсонийн Институт дэх Байгалын Тѵѵхийн Ундэсний Музейн 
Антропологийн Тэнхим 
Монголын тал нутаг хиригсуур хэмээн нэрлэгдэх эртний дурсгалаар баялаг 
билээ. Эдгээр булшуудыг Монгол, Оросын судлаачид бага хэмжээгээр судласан 
бѳгѳѳд суулийн уеэс Ази, Европ, Америкийн судлаачид ѳргѳн хурээтэйгээр 
судлаж байна. Эдгээр булшнуудын зарим нь маш том хэмжээтэй байхад зарим 
нь археологичдийн мэргэжлийн хурц нудээр ч харахад анзаарагдамгуй жижиг 
байх нь олонтаа тохиолддог. Монголын умард бусийн нутаг Хѳвсгѳл аймагт 
хийсэн судалгааны ажлуудын нэг болох хурлийн уеийн булшны буртгэл дээр 
тулгуурласан дугнэлтийн талаар бид энэ судалгааныхаа ажилд тусгасан 
билээ. 2003-2004 оны хооронд явагдсан хайгуулын ажлийн хѵрээнд 500 гаруй 
байршлыг тодорхойлсон бѳгѳѳд бид хэлбэр хэмжээ болон тархалтаас хамаарсан 
мэдээллуудийг бѵртгэн авсан. Энэ удаад бид Газарзѵйн Байршил тогтоох 
системийн буюу Ashtec/Magellan Locus GPS-p 20-35 мм-ийн нарийвчлалтайгаар, 
Garmin GPS-12-н тусламжтайгаар 6-10 метрийн нарийвчлалтайгаар туе туе 
хэмжин мэдээллийг буртгэн авсан болно. Эдгээр GPS-ийн бУртгэлийн ур 
дунд газар нутгийн 7 зураг (2, 4, 7-р хэсэг) болон Оросын байрлал зуйн газрын 
зураг нь GIS буюу Газарзуйн Мэдээллийн Систем -ийн программ хангамжинд 
хэрэглэгдеэн юм (Газарзѵйн Мэдээллийн Систем, ArcView 8.3). GIS системийн 
технологийг ашиглах нь маш чухал ур дунтэй байсан бѳгѳѳд дараа дараагийн 
хайгуулын ажилд шинэ таамаглалууд дэвшуулэн шинжлэх хэрэгсэл болох нь 
дамжиггѵй гэж узэж байна. 
GIS буюу Газарзуйн Мэдээллийн Систем нь газрын зураг тодорхойлох 
программ хангамжийн маш оновчтой арга хэлбэр бѳгѳѳд хэрэглэгч тѳрѳл 
бурийн газарзуйн буртгэл мэдээллийг хамтатган судалгаа шинжилгээндээ 
ашиглах боломжтой. Газарзуйн байрлалын талаарх мэдээлэл гэх мэт ямар нэгэн 
цуглуулсан тоон баримт мэдээллуудийн бурдэл дээр анализ хийн шинжлэхэд 
энэ программ хангамж нь хэрэглэгдэж болно. Газарзуйн координатын тоон 
узуулэлтууд, далайн тувшнээс дээшх дижитал загвар, газрын зургийн хуулбарт 
байгаагаар гэх мэтчилэн мэдээллийн бурдлийг энэ системд оруулж болно. 
Судалгааны ажлын зорилгодоо тохируулан, хэрэглэгч ѳѳрийн GIS системийг 
хуссэнээрээ бурэн удирдаж зохион байгуулах боломжтой. Бид нарын хувьд 
зорилго маань эртний булш бутээгчдийн булшаа байрлуулах шалгуурыг 
илруулэх явдал байсан учир бид булшны байрлалтын хэв шинжийг тодруулахаар 
GIS системийг хэрэглэсэн билээ. Энэ зорилготоо хамгийн ур дунтэйгээр хурэхийн 
тулд бид GIS системээ энгийн хэлбэрээр ашигласан болно. 
Бидний гаргахыг хуссэн булшны тархацын хэв маяг маань ѳргѳн 
хэмжээний масштабыг хамарсан учир тухайн орон нутгийн газрын зураг 
дурслэл дээрх булшнуудыг цэгнуудээр илэрхийлэх дуреэн тэмдэглэгээг бид бий 
болгосон. Ингэснээр бид булшнуудын тархацын хэв шинжийг ѳѳр хооронд нь 
'у 6 Wallace and f“rohlicb 
болон газарзуй геологийн онцлог талаас нь судлах хайх боломжтой болсон юм. 
Хайгуулын ажлын уеэр ажигласан санаа сэтгэгдл ууд нь эдгээр булшнуудыг газар 
нутгийн байдалтай нь харьцуулан харсаны дараа батлагдах эсвэл бур няцаагдах 
боломжтой. Туунээс гадна, газарзуйн тоон баримтаас уудэн гарсан асуултуудыг 
бурдуулснээр хэлбэр гэх мэт бусад олон хэлэлцэгдсэн ангиллын хэв шинжийг 
тайлбарлах боломжтой. Arc-View программ хангамж нь булшны газарзуйн тоон 
баримтыг багтаасан зарим нэг хучин зуйл ууд дээр тулгуурлан хооронд нь ялгаж 
салган газрын зургуудыг хурднаар бий болгох чадвартай. Бидний хувьд хэлбэр 
хэмжээнд зориулан ѳѳр ѳѳр тэмдэглэгээг энгийнээр хэрэглэх нь хэв шинжийг 
ялгахад хамгийн тохиромжтой арга байсан. 
Олон тѳрлийн газрын зураг дээр тулгуурлах нь маш хэрэгтэй арга болох 
нь ажлын уеэр батлагдсан ба бид хоёр ѳѳр аргаар илэрхийлэгдэж буй газарзуйн 
тоон баримт дээр тулгуурласан булшны байрлалыг олж харах боломжтой 
байсан. Жишээлбэл, сансрын хиймэл дагуулын тусламжтайгаар авсан ердийн 
фото зураг шиг харагдах дѵрс зурагнаас гадна бидэнд дижитал хэлбэрт оруулсан 
энгийн газрын зурагнуудаас бурдсэн дуре зурагнууд бас бидэнд байдаг байсан. 
Газар нутаг болон газрын гадаргын зураг аль аль дуреэнд харагдахуйц байдаг 
байсан боловч хоёр ѳѳр байдлаар харагддаг байсан. Тийм учраас энэ хоёр 
дурсийг ээлжлэн харах буюу зарим тохиолдолд хамтруулан ашигласнаар нэг 
газрын зураг хэрэглэснээс илуу олон хэв шинжийг олж илруулэх боломжтой 
болж байлаа. 
Бидний ажиллагааны анхны загварууд маш энгийн бутэцтэй байлаа. 
Таамаглал болон загварууд аль болох энгийн байлгах нь дугнэлтийг 
харьцангуйгаар тургэн гаргаж улмаар дараагийн шинээр урган гарсан 
судалгааны ажил руу шилжихэд хялбар болгож байлаа. Ийм учраас бидний 
ажилд GIS систем нь хамгийн чухал хэрэглуур болж байлаа. Ерѳнхийдѳѳ хэлбэр 
хэмжээ бусад ангилалууд болон гаднах бутцийн одоо байгаа байдал, алга болсон 
хэсэг, далайн тувшнээс дээр орших байдал зэргээр цуглуулсан олон хэмжээст 
тоо баримт нь судалгааны ажлыг хялбар болгож байдаг. Ингэснээрээ бид зѳвхѳн 
хоёр хучин зуйлийг сонгон булшны хэв шинжийг тодорхойлоход ашиглахад 
амархан болж байсан. 
GIS систем нь булшны тархалтанд шинэ хэв шинж илруулэхэд дѳхѳмтэй 
хэрэгсэл болж байв. Хайгуулын ажлын уеэр уул дов толгодын ѳмнѳд хэсэг 
дэх булшнуудын хэв шинж нь аль хэдийн ажиглагдеан байсан бол тодорхой 
сонгосон хэегийн бѳѳгнѳрсѳн булшнууд нь хайгуулын уеэр ажиглахын аргагѵй 
байсан. GIS системийн тусламжтайгаар зарим нэг тойрог мѳн дѳрвѳлжин 
хэлбэртэй ховор тохиолдох булшнуудыг тодорхойлох боломжтой байсан ба 
эдгээр ховор тохиолдох булшнууд нь ихээхэн хэмжээний булшыг малтах уед 
олдох боломжтой байсан байна. Ѳѳрсдийн цуглуулсан тоон баримтуудыг шинэ 
баримтаар баяжуулах ялангуяа ѳмнѳ нь хайгуулын ажил хийгдэж амжаагуй 
газруудаас цуглуулах нь бидний дараагийн алхам юм. 
GIS систем нь бидний дараагийн судалгаанд чухал хэрэгсэл хэвээр байх 
болно. Бид ѳѳрсѳддѳѳ байгаа бѳх тоон баримт, ялангуяа хайгуул, малталгаа, 
фото зураг гэх мэт мэдээллийг олон хэмжээст тоо баримтандаа бурдуулэх 
бѳгѳѳд энэ нь GIS системийн программ хангамжинд багтаж интернетээр бусад 
судалгааны ажил хийж байгаа хумууст бас ашиглагдах боломжтой болно гэж 
бид тѳлѳвлѳж байна. 
ifxonze Age faunal Mounds 97 
Tsaatan woman riding reindeer in Menge Bulag summer tundra, (photo: DePriest) 
98 
7 
~Ysaabug, ~]~saahag; saatan: /\n p thno-}^ coiogt) of 
Mongolia’s Dubba Reindeer Merd ers1 
Paula T. DePriest 
Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and Education 
Department of Botany, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution 
The Mongolian Tsaatan, literally ‘reindeer possessing people,’ are nomadic hunter- 
gatherers and reindeer herders of the Sayan Mountains of northwestern Mongolia (Plumley 
2002) (Figure 7.1). They traditionally speak ‘Hovsgol Uigur,’ a dialect of Tuvan that is 
heavily influenced by Khalkha Mongolian. At present an estimated 200 people speak 
‘Hovsgol Uigur’ and 235,000 speak speak Tuvan. These languages are related to the 
ancient Turkic ‘Uighur’ language (attributed to Bat-Ochir Bold in Z. Enebish, 2001). The 
Tsaatan are ethically related to reindeer herders in the Sayan Mountain Regions of the Tuva 
Autonomous Region and the Tofalars in eastern Siberia, Russia (Figure 7.2). The group 
calls itself ‘Dukha,’ which may represent the Chinese name for Tuva - Dubo - and is one 
of a series of orthographic variants of Tuva — Tofa, Tuba, Tuha, and Tyva. 
The Tuvan reindeer herders of Mongolia and Tuva traditionally were in close 
contact through trading, intermarrying, and sharing of hunting territories. Indeed, until the 
Russian Revolution of 1918, the Sayan Mountain region of eastern Tuva and northwestern 
Mongolia were part of a single polity, ruled by a feudal Altyn-Khan. In 1921 Mongolia and 
Tuva became separate states under the protection of Russia, and in 1944 Tuva became a 
part of Russia. In part, the Mongolian Tsaatan are descended from Tuvan reindeer herders 
that crossed to Mongolia to avoid collectivization, according to reindeer herder Sanjim 
(personal comm.). Until a 1958 treaty, the Tuvan-Mongolian borders in this region were 
under dispute, and the breakdown of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s led to renewed 
tensions along this oorder. These tensions have closed the border in recent years, reducing 
contact among the reindeer herders and the extent of their traditional herding and hunting 
ranges. 
Today, the Tsaatan are one of the most southern reindeer herding cultures, pasturing 
hundreds of kilometers south of the reindeer herds of the arctic tundra. Reindeer herding in 
the Sayan Mountains is proposed to date back several thousand years, to the first millennium 
B.C. Sevyan Vainshtein, a leading Russian ethnographer, suggests that reindeer herding 
1 These terms are Mongolian for ‘Reindeer,’ ‘Reindeer Lichen,’ and "Reindeer People.’ 
72 
Figure 7. /. Map of Mongolia showing the location ofTsaatan reindeer herding in 
northwestern Mongolia. The insert map shows the location of LHaan Taiga in the Sayan 
Mountains, migratory area of the Tsaatan reindeer herders west ofDarkhat Valley, and 
the Mongolian borders with Tuva and Siberia. 
originated in this area (Humphrey 1980:9), developing from the hunting of wild reindeer 
to the use of semi-domesticated reindeer for meat production. Later, domesticated reindeer 
were maintained and used for transport between hunting and pasturing grounds and, perhaps 
under the influence of Turkic horse herding after the 10th century (Humphrey 1980:136-137), 
for riding and milking. Vainshtein hypothesizes that the Sayan reindeer herding cultures 
represent one of the oldest uses of reindeer for transport (citations in Humphrey 1980) 
and served as the center for the spread of reindeer culture throughout Siberia. Reindeer 
herding, transport, and riding is mentioned in texts as early as the 13th century (Humphrey 
1980:132); reindeer herding and pack-carrying is noted by Rashid al-Din, and reindeer 
pack-carrying and riding was mentioned by Marco Polo.2 Today, Tsaatan herders hold small 
numbers of reindeer, averaging in the twenties for each family group, to provide milk and 
cheese, hides and felt, transport and transportation and, only rarely meat (Figure 7.3a-f). 
These numbers and practices are completely consistent with the Vainshtein’s report of 
reindeer herding in a 1931 census of Tuva (Humphrey 1980:122). 
Of the approximately 400 Tsaatan in the Hovsgol Aimag (province), around 200 
in just over 32 family groups currently are nomadic reindeer herders. They are assigned to 
two sums (counties), Tsaggan Nuur and Ulaan Uul (2000 Mongolian Census). They live in 
summer camps to the east and west of the Darkhat Valley, in the watershed of the Shishhid 
Gol—a tributary of the Yenesei River draining through Tuva and Siberia into the Arctic 
Ocean. Together the camps herd approximately 700 reindeer, ‘tsaabug’ in Mongolian, 
2 “The people who dwell there are called Mescript, a rude tribe, who live upon the flesh of animals, the 
largest of which are of the nature of stags; and these they also make use of for the purposes of traveling 
(Komroff, ed., 2002: 97).” Or as translated by Yule “and these stags, I assure you, they use to ride upon 
(Polo et al., 1993).” 
1 OO riest 
Figure 7.2. Tsaatan 
reindeer herders wearing 
traditional dels examine a 
bear skull near Ulaan Taiga 
in the Sayan Mountains, 
northwestern Mongolia, 
August 2003. 
down from a maximum of several thousand during the Soviet-dominated eras. In contrast 
to wild reindeer of the high Arctic, these woodland reindeer do not migrate long distances, 
but instead are herded among different elevations. Individual herds, ranging from 10 to 
100 reindeers owned by a family group living in a canvas teepee called an ‘urts’ (Figure 
7.4a), move from high elevation summer feeding grounds on the alpine tundra to lower 
elevation winter feeding grounds in the deciduous larch taiga. In addition, some families 
have wooden huts in their winter camps (Figure 7.4b). 
During the summers of2001 -2004, we traveled to the seasonal feeding grounds west 
of the Darkhat Valley, near Ulaan Taiga. This area is the herding ground for approximately 
20 family groups in the western Tsaatan group. These family groups camp together in the 
summer in a feeding ground that is called ‘Menge Bulag’ (Figure 7.5). It is a cool, windy 
alpine meadow, with sufficient grasses, sedges, young shrubs, lichens, and adequate 
water to support the combined herd of at least 400 reindeer, and small numbers of other 
domesticated animals—horses, cows, and goats. The critical factor is the absence of biting 
insects, e.g. mosquitoes and warble flies, which are associated with reindeer weight loss 
due to herd agitation. The Tsaatan arrive in Menge Bulag in mid-June just after snow melt 
and remain there through the rainy season in July. 
The feeding ground is alpine tundra with meadows, marshes, birch shrubs, and fell 
fields zones. The grasses, sedges, herbs and green twigs are an essential source of protein 
and minerals for the reindeer in the early summer, although reindeer lichens, called bhag’ 
in Mongolian or ‘shulan’ (orthographic variant ‘shulung’) in Tuvan, are their mainstay. The 
meadows and marshes also are used for grazing horses (increasing efficiency of reindeer 
herding), and some cows, goats and sheep, which are an important supplement to their 
diet. In summer most of the reindeer herd wanders freely, while the calves and the reindeer 
used for milking and transportation are kept tethered near the camps. Lichens are found in 
all areas of the feeding ground, and in the birch shrub and fell-field zones they approach 
complete ground cover. In these two areas we identified approximately 30 lichen-forming 
fungal species, eleven of which are widespread and abundant. These abundant lichens are 
recognized by the Tsaatan herders and given traditional names (DePriest et ah, 2003). The 
Ц tbno-U cologq ЮІ 
Figure 7.3. Tsaatan reindeer uses and products: a. reindeer milking, b. reindeer cheese, 
c. reindeer hides used as pad for packsaddle on a cow, d. reindeer meat drying inside 
an urts (teepee), reindeer riding using a Mongolian saddle,/, reindeer transport using 
packsaddles. 
effects of reindeer grazing on lichens is especially obvious near the camp; the lichens there 
have been nibbled down but left rooted in soil or mosses - the rooting is critical for their 
recovery. In a more distant feeding ground, along the Jamts River (orthographic variant 
Jams), not used for the past 15 years, the lichens can reach depths of 10cm. Occasionally 
wild reindeer have been reported from this site (Syroechkovskii, 1995:104-105). 
In early August, the Tsaatan divide into smaller groups of three to five urts herding 
up to 100 reindeer. The groups disperse, moving several times over the next three months 
to find fresh pastures. With colder temperatures and fewer biting insects, the herds are 
102 {^ef7 nest 
Figure 7.4. Tsaatan shelters: a. Boyar s family in front of one of their three urts 
(teepees) in the fall pasture; h. one of Bayar’s huts adjacent to the larch forest in the 
winter pasture. 
moved to mid elevations in the shrub zones, where the dominant shrubs have turned in 
color to red or orange (Figure 7.6). 
Although most of the shrubs themselves are only used as food in the early spring, 
these communities offer adequate lichens for fattening the reindeer. In addition, the reindeer 
feed on grasses, sedges, and even horsetails (Equisetum) along the edges of small lakes and 
streams (Figure 7.7a). Reindeer are reportedly herded along one river just west of Menge 
Bulag, the Joloc, in the fall because of the abundant horsetails. During this season reindeer 
seek out mushrooms, especially boletes, often expressing a kind of “mushroom mania.” 
The herders control the herds to prevent individual reindeer from wandering away from 
the camps and becoming lost as they search for mushrooms. 
Although fattening the reindeer for winter is important, the fall pastures are 
selected based on additional factors. One is protection from predators, especially during 
the October rut. During late summer and fall as other prey diminish, packs of wolves hunt 
increasingly in the vicinity of the camps. To protect reindeer from the wolves, the herd is 
kept near the camp except for specific times in the morning and afternoon when they are 
herded onto the pasture and carefully watched. In one fall camp used by Bayar’s family 
(Figure 7.4a), the reindeer were penned into a small, protected valley by felled larch trees. 
This allowed the reindeer to feed freely throughout the day with protection from wolf 
predation. Another factor is the proximity of the camps to hunting and gathering. Tsaatan 
herders hunt throughout the year, but in the fall they increase their gathering activities. 
Two commonly gathered items are blueberries, gathered from the shrub communities in 
large quantities for immediate consumption, and pine nuts gathered in the lower elevation 
forest and stored for the winter (Figure 7.7b). 
In the winter, the herd is divided into even smaller groups associated frequently 
with a single urtz or winter hut. These winter camps are located in the larch forest margins 
to insure thin, loose snow and access to frost resistant grasses, and to provide adequate 
firewood for the herders (Figures 7.4b and 7.8). Lichens represent a major portion of the 
winter forage of domesticated reindeer, often 60-70% of their intake. Most of the lichens 
L thno-L cologij I 05 
Figure 7.5. Reindeer 
and cows on the summer 
pasture at Menge Bulag. 
Figure 7.6. Tsaatan 
children riding reindeer 
in the fall pasture. 
are on the forest floor covered by snow, and the reindeers crater through the snow layer to 
reach them. In addition, reindeer may also eat lichens off the tree boles, branches and rock 
cliffs. The herd is moved frequently when the snow becomes ice-crusted or too deep for 
effective reindeer cratering to reach vegetation. The larch forests are subject to frequent 
forest fires, often destroying the camps and winter huts (Figure 7.9). 
By spring the herd is weakened and near starvation. The winter of eating lichen 
carbohydrates without supplemental sources of proteins or minerals leads to softened bones 
and the reindeers cannot be ridden until they recover in the early summer (Zhigunov 1968:7). 
The herd is moved with care to areas of early snowmelt and grass and sedge germination 
(Figure 7.10). The spring pasture is an extensive area of natural springs and marshes that 
is reserved for use only in the spring. Lichens are abundant along the drier edges of these 
marshes, but grasses and sedges are the main fodder in this season. The spring pasture 
is diverse, with a large number of flowering species. When the herd arrives in the spring 
pastures it is often divided, separating out the fertile reindeer does for protection from 
disturbance and for access to optimal grounds during birthing. The calves bom during April 
or early May and the herd is kept on the low-elevation spring pasture as long as possible, 
104- [ТЭер nest 
Figure 7.7. Plants used by 
Tsaatan: a. horsetails along 
the Joloc River provide fall 
fodder, b. Tsaatan herder 
Sanjim collecting pine nuts 
in the fall. 
Figure 7.8. Urts poles 
standing in a winter camp 
with larch and pine trees. 
Figure 7.9. Evidence of 
forest fire in a larch stand. 
until warming temperatures in early June increase the number of biting insects and the 
snow has melted in the high-elevation summer pasture. In mid-June, the herders and their 
reindeer herd return to the summer pasture at Menge Bulag. 
The Tsaatan reindeer culture is threatened by lack of veterinary care for their reindeer 
herds, by loss of herding salaries and education systems provided through the Soviet 
system, by geopolitical partitioning of the traditional grazing grounds, and by intensifying 
pressures for more sedentary lifestyles. Furthermore, large-scale global warming and 
Lth ПО-Г coiogt) ) 
landscape changes potentially will degrade the feeding grounds. These factors threaten 
not only the ability of the herders to continue their hunting gathering lifestyle, but also 
threaten the extinction of this example of a traditional reindeer culture and the loss of 
their unique knowledge of reindeer herding. Without intensive study, the Tsaatan’s keys 
to understanding the origins of reindeer herding will be lost forever. 
Contact Address: Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and Education, Museum 
Support Center, 4210 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, Maryland 20746-2863, and Department of 
Botany, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, 10th and Constitution 
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20013-7012, e-mail: depriesp@si.edu. 
preferences 
DePriest, P. T., S. Lutz, S. Young, Ts. Tsendeekhuu, 
and \V. W. Fitzhugh, 2002. Traditional 
Knowledge of Lichens by Mongolia’s Dukha 
Reindeer Herders. In Mongolia’s Arctic 
Connections: The Hovsgol Deer Stone Project, 
2001-2002 Field Report, edited by William 
W. Fitzhugh. Arctic Studies Center, National 
Museum of Natural History. Washington: 
Smithsonian Institution, 33-36. 
Enebish, Z., 2001. “Reindeer People: Ancient Roots 
of Mongolian Traditions.” HAS Newsletter 
Online No. 26. [http:// www.iias.nl/iiasn/26/ 
regions/26CAl .html] 
Humphrey, C., ed. 1980. Nomads of South Siberia: 
The Pastoral Economies of Tuva, by Sevyan 
Vainshtein. Translated by Michael Colenso. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Piumley, D., 2002. Requiem or Recovery: The 21st 
Century Fate of the Reindeer-Herding Peoples of 
Geographical Central Asia.[http:// totempeople. 
hypermart.net/requiem.htm] 
Polo, M., H. Yule, and H. Cordier, 1993. The 
Travels of Marco Polo: The Complete Yu/e- 
Cordier Edition, Vol 1. New York: Dover 
Publications. 
Syroechkovskii, E. E., 1995. Wild Reindeer. 
Translated by P. M. Rao. Washington: 
Smithsonian Institution Libraries. 
Zhigunov, P. S., ed., 1968. Reindeer Husbandry. 
Second revised edition. Translated by M. 
Fleischmann. Jerusalem: Israel Program for 
Scientific Translations. 
Komroff, M., ed. 2002. The Travels of Marco Polo 
by Marco Polo. New York: Liveright. 
I О 6 fTef7 riest 
Mongolian /\bstract 
Цаа буга, Цаахаг, Цаатан: Духа буюу Монголын Цаатан нарын 
талаар хийсэн Угсаатны зуй-Экологийн судалгаа 
Паула Т. ДеПриест 
Смитсоны Хурээлэн дэх Байгалын Тѵѵхийн Ундэсний Музейн 
Ургамал судлалын тэнхим 
Духа буюу Монголын Цаатнууд нь Монголын баруун хойд хэсгийн Саяны 
нуруунд амьдрах цаа буга маллаж нуудэллэдэг анчин гѳрѳѳчин хумуус юм. 
Ѳѳрсдийн малладаг цаа бугын амьдрах нѳхцѳл нь болсон тундар болон тайгын 
билчээрийн тэжээлээс хамаараад цаатнууд нь мод, бут, эмийн ургамал, хаг, мѳѳг 
зэргийг эрт дээр уеэс уламжлан тун чадамгайгаар таниж мэдэн нэрлэж ирсэн 
байна. Альп тундарт зусах ба тайгад ѳвѳлжихийн хоорондох улирлын чанартай 
нуудлийнхээ уеэр тэд нэлээн олон тѳрѳл зуйлийн ургамлыг олж хэрэглэдэг байна. 
Морин суул (Equisteum sp.) гэх мэт эдгээр тѳрѳл зуйлийн зарим нэг нь цаа бугын 
маллагаанд зориулагдан Жолхын голын сав газраар намрын цагт олддог байна. 
Боргоцойн самар (Pinus sibirica) гэх мэт зарим нэг нь Дархадын хотгорын доод 
захаар орших ой хѳвчѳѳс ѳвлийн цагт идэш тэжээл хуримтлуулах зорилгоор 
хэрэглэдэг байна. Зарим нэг нь дээр уеэс уламжлал болон хэрэглэгдэж байсан 
боловч одоо хориглогдсон байна. Эдгээрт Бусийн голын хавь орчмоос зуны 
улиралд хус модны уйс цуглуулах уламжлалт зан уйлийн дагуу хус модны уйс 
(Betula sp.) туух зэрэг орно. Хамгийн сонирхолтой нь Жолх болон Жамс голын 
дархан цаазат цѳѳн газарт тааралдах Монголд ховордсонд тооцогддог жодоо 
(Aibes sp.) гэх мэтийн шилмууст моднууд Бѳѳгийн мѳргѳлд хэрэглэгдсээр ирсэн 
байна. 
Ю7 
I OS 
5 
{Ethnography of the West ~\~alga Tsaatan f^eindeer 
{“jerders 
Ts. Ayush 
National Museum of Mongolian History 
Research scientists of the National Museum of Mongolian History (NMMN) 
have participated in the Deer Stone Project jointly with the Smithsonian Institution of 
Washington DC for the last two years. In 2002, museum archeologist Ts. Ochirlniyag and 
ethnographer Ts. Ayush worked closely with Paul Rhymer and Caroline Thom, model- 
makers from the Smithsonian. Our group successfully made a latex mold for a deer stone 
with a human face, one of the monuments from the Ushkiin River Valley, 26 km west of 
Muren in Hovsgol Aimag. The Smithsonian Institution completed a fiberglass cast from 
the mold and brought a full-size replica of the deer stone to the NMMN in 2002. We then 
installed it in the museum’s “Ancient Mongolian History” gallery, and since then this deer 
stone cast has become one of the most popular archaeological exhibits in the museum. 
In 2003 our participation in the Project continued with the goal of excavating at 
archaeological sites near Lake Erkhel and Soyo, an area near the towns of Alag Erdene and 
Ulaan Uul, in Hovsgol Aimag. During this period we also conducted ethnographical research 
on the Tsaatan (Dukha) reindeer herders. Besides my involvement in the archaeological 
work, I conducted ethnographic research among the Tsaatan and gathered research data 
(Fitzhugh 2004). 
From an ethnographic point of view, the Hovsgol area is very interesting region. In 
the beginning of the last century ethnographically diverse tribes of Turkish and Mongolian 
origin lived here who differed slightly from each other in lifestyle, language dialect, 
cultural background, and population size. For example, the Darkhad, Tsaatan, and Ar 
Shirhtei Uriankhai people inhabited the western part of Lake Hovsgol, particularly from 
Ulaan Taiga to the Tengis River, while the Khasuud and Soyod Uriankhai people lived 
northeast of the lake. Buriat, Ovor Shirkhten Uriankhai, and Mongolian Uriankhai people 
populated the area around the Uilgan, Uuriin, and Arig Rivers, around the southern part of 
the lake. Furthermore, the Hotgoid people used to reside near Lake Delger, to the south. 
To one degree or another, they all still reside in these regions today. The historical dates 
and explanations for these ethnic group migrations are relatively dissimilar. 
The exact dates of the Tsaatan migration to this region are still unknown. During the 
theocracy period of Javzandamba Hutagt, Tsaatan resided adjacent to Mongolian tribes, and 
they likely belonged to one of the administrative tribal units. According to the population 
l op 
census in 1764, there were 192 reindeer recorded (Badamkhatan 1962) and from this fact 
we can assume that Tsaatan people had already migrated to their current location by the 
middle of the 18th century. In some previous researchers’ opinion, the Tsaatan consider 
themselves to be originally from the Uigar family and a branch of the Tuvan people who 
inhabit the region of East Soyon [usually spelled ‘Sayan’ in English usage — ed.] Mountains 
(Badamkhatan 1962, Badamkhatan 1965, and Potanov 1969). 
The current geographical territory of the Tsaatan includes the forest mountain 
taiga zone northwest of the town of Tsagaannuur, Hovsgol province. By their location, 
the Tsaatan are divided into two main parts, the western taiga and eastern taiga Tsaatan. 
During our June 2003 expedition we visited the western taiga Tsaatan while they were 
in their spring camp. More than 10 families were living in two separate areas called 
Shavartai Shanmag (“muddy place”) and Nuurtai Shanmag (“watery place”). There were 
five accommodations in Shavartai Shanmag, and two urts (Tsaatan tents) were owned by 
one town family (hot ail in Mongolian, a group of closely-related families). Three other 
urts belonged to another family. However, there were eight accommodations in Nuurtai 
Shanmag and one of the families owned four urts; another owned two urts and each of 
the last two families owned one. During our expedition we visited 9 of these 12 families 
to learn distinguishing quality of their lifestyle, home accommodation, food, and religion 
by means interviews conducted over three days. 
The Tsaatan still maintain their traditional methods of nomadic lifestyle including 
herding reindeer and hunting wild animals. In 1991, they privatized their reindeer herds 
and currently there are 15 families that own approximately 300 reindeer as their private 
property in the western taiga. The number of reindeer per family is not really equal; some 
families have 60-70 reindeer and an average family has 20-30 reindeer. A few families have 
less than 10 reindeer, and some have only a single reindeer. Moreover, each family has a 
small number of horses and some now keep cows and goats. Throughout their history, the 
Tsaatan have bred horses for a longer period than other Mongolian livestock, and horse 
breeding has come to play an important role in Tsaatan life. The Tsaatan use horses from 
the end of spring until autumn to carry loads. Also, they ride horses to hunt and transport 
goods between the towns and their taiga camps. Nevertheless, they do not use horses to 
cany loads when they migrate from one place to another. In addition, they rarely ride horses 
to herd reindeer. Although the Tsaatan have started herding other domesticated animals 
besides reindeer, with the exception of horses, it is nearly impossible to herd and care for 
cattle throughout the year in the forest mountain taiga zone. For that reason, some of those 
15 families are able to keep reindeer, cows, and goats in their summer camps. During other 
seasons, some leave reindeer with their relatives and move down from the mountain with 
their other animals. The remaining families leave their cows and goats with Mongolian 
neighbors and spend the winter in the mountain taiga with their reindeer. 
The Tsaatan raise their reindeer to carry goods, ride, milk, and occasionally to eat, 
but their primary use is for riding and carrying loads. Due especially to muddy and snowy 
areas in the taiga, for most of the year the Tsaatan ride only reindeer in their everyday 
activities, including moving around the steppe and mountains, herding reindeer, hunting, 
i io /Vjusb 
visiting neighbors, and traveling to town. The Tsaatan continue to maintain their traditional 
methods of breeding, raising, and using reindeer to the present day. In other words, they 
move their reindeer to new pastures during the four seasons of year consistent with their 
nomadic lifestyle. The 15 families we visited live relatively close to each other during the 
spring season. The period they reside nearby is the summer season when they camp together 
at Menge Bulag. For the duration of the autumn and winter season they live far away 
from each other in groups of at most two families. Herding reindeer is relatively simple 
and easy during the summer and winter; however, reindeer scatter all over the pasture to 
eat flowers, leaves and mushrooms during the spring and autumn. Therefore, the herders 
constantly have to chase and follow their reindeer during these periods. There are different 
methods to control their scattering, the most common being to loosely tie two or more 
reindeer together by their legs or to tie an animal’s head to its front leg. During the end 
of the spring and summer seasons, they milk reindeer twice a day, and after the morning 
milking they attach the young calf reindeer to its mother. But after the noon milking, they 
let the reindeer pasture with their young. At night, Tsaatan customarily tie female reindeer 
and their young to stakes near camp with a rope. Lately, some Tsaatan families having 
many reindeer have started using wooden fences for livestock, similar to the practice of 
Mongolian herders. Currently there are three families who use such fences. 
One of the cultural traditions related to the Tsaatan lifestyle is the use of various 
tools and devices for riding and loading goods on reindeer. The Tsaatan used to put a 
halter on young reindeer and use different saddles depending on the purpose, for riding 
or packing goods. They still keep these traditions in the present, but have adapted them, 
using a Mongolian saddle, which is smaller than their traditional saddle. The average 
family has at least two riding saddles and 6-7 pack saddles (yangirtsag in Mongolian). 
When they move from one place to another, they usually make two trips: first they carry 
all their belongings and then they move their home. It has been a common custom among 
the Tsaatan to borrow loading tools and necessities from neighbors and to help each other. 
One of the unique traditions related to packing is that every family prepares a special 
saddle (ermeelj) for a newborn baby. It is their custom to respect the ermeelj and place 
it in a special area in their home at the time they do not use it. The ermeelj has a unique 
fonn that differs from other saddles. It has upright pieces on both its front and backsides 
which are taller than other saddles. The East Sayan Tuva, Tofalar, and Mongolian Tsaatan 
still preserve this ermeelj tradition (Vainshtein 1972). 
Another cultural tradition of the Tsaatan is hunting. They go hunting during all 
seasons of the year, but especially from autumn to spring they hunt wild animals and fish 
in the rivers and lakes to obtain meat and fur to help meet their needs. Because the Tsaatan 
own a small number of cattle and do not use reindeer meat, there is the need to supplement 
their diets with wild animals, birds, and fish. They usually hunt deer, roebuck, female 
deer, wild pig, bear, grouse, and wood grouse, duck, and fish. They ride either reindeer or 
horses to hunt, and they shoot large animals such as deer, wild pig, and birds with guns. 
The Tsaatan use fishnets or fishhooks for fishing, while they set traps for smaller animals 
such as sable and rabbit. In the last few years, because increasing market demand, the 
L thnographtj of the saatan 
Tsaatan have started collecting deer and moose antlers to sell in addition to hunting. They 
ride reindeer to collect deer antlers when spring comes and snow melts. Last year, six 
families sold deer antlers with the value of approximately one million Mongolian tugrugs 
in the market. This amount of money is very helpful for buying their major food supplies 
such as rice and wheat. 
The Tsaatan live in their urts, traditional homes; however, some families have 
built small wooden houses or have put furniture in their urts. While the size of an urts 
depends on the number of family members and their financial status, the roof of a typical 
urts is constructed of 20-30 long slender wood poles. It is common to build urts larger 
during the summer in order to have a bigger space so that cool breezes can enter the house. 
Each family has a small iron stove and chimney pipe of 3-4 sections. This is more than 
the length of a typical Mongolian ger (traditional house tent) chimney pipe because the 
Tsaatan urts is taller than a ger. Moreover, Tsaatan families have begun to build wooden 
floors in the door area of the urts, and some families have covered the entire floor of their 
urts with wood planks. Also, many have gotten used to having small wooden beds in their 
urts. Three of the families within western taiga Tsaatan have built small wooden houses 
in which to dwell. But they are not able to live in these houses year-round; instead, one 
family lives in their house only during the summer, whereas the other two families spend 
their winters also in their houses and live in their urts for the rest of the year. In summary, 
the above newly-adapted homes make the Tsaatan’s life in their urts comfortable, clean, 
and warm. 
I will next speak about the Tsaatan diet and its traditions. The main sources of their 
food are reindeer milk products and wild animal meat. Additionally, they have gotten used 
to eating horsemeat and beef. However, they do not customarily eat reindeer meat. For 
example, last year there were only three families who prepared reindeer meat for their 
winter meals. We were told that four families had used horse meat and one family had 
used beef in their winter food preparations. In contrast, three families had only wild animal 
meat from hunting for their meals. Indeed, almost every family used wild animal meat, 
fowl, and fish. The Tsaatan eat mostly meat, rice, and flour during the cold season, while 
they eat reindeer milk products, pastry, bread, pancake, and fried dough during the warm 
seasons, from the end of spring through summer. 
Compared to other Mongolian people, the Tsaatan traditionally use lots of fowl 
and fish for their meals. They mostly boil fish or cook it in soups. There are two ways of 
cooking fish: frying and boiling. They fry smaller fish either on the stove or fire and prepare 
soups with larger fish. During the warm seasons, all families use reindeer milk products; 
however, the amount is not sufficient because they are not able to milk many reindeer and 
the productivity (milk yield) per reindeer is very low at this time of year. Families with 
more reindeer milk approximately ten reindeer, but most families milk only six or seven 
reindeer. There are some families who milk only four reindeer. Only a few families are 
able to use cow or goat milk during the summer. Besides making milk tea, the Tsaatan use 
reindeer milk to prepare yogurt, cheese, and dried curd, which is made in either large or 
small curd sizes. 
During the summer season they usually eat bread and pancakes with their milk tea 
and milk products. I would like to point out that the tradition of baking bread and preparing 
pastry has become an important factor in their food supply. Because they do not have 
enough cooking oil to fry dough like other Mongolians, baked bread is the main pastry in 
both cold and wann seasons. Currently, every Tsaatan family makes bread on the stove 
by using a large metal cooking pot, and their bread has a big round shape. The variety and 
quantity of their food supplies through the year often do not meet their food requirements. 
A particular problem is not being able to store and preserve meat as other Mongolians do. 
By the middle of spring, their stored meat is gone and they face a lack of nutrition in their 
diet. This continues until autumn when they can begin to hunt once again. 
The last part of this article is about Tsaatan traditional religion and beliefs that I 
learned during the expedition. In the present, the Tsaatan continue to practice shamanism, 
their traditional religion. There are two male shamans (zairan) and one old female shaman 
(.ndgan) among the western taiga Tsaatan. We met the udgan shaman and one of the zairan 
shamans, and they all had their traditional shaman costumes and other implements. The 
zairan keep their costumes and implements in a special cache. The udgan placed her 
paraphernalia in the position of honor in her urts and covers them with a curtain to hide 
them from view and harm. We tried to interview both shamans about shamanism and their 
religious beliefs, and also we wanted to take documentary photos of their costumes and 
implements. However, we did not have an opportunity to accomplish this goal. Instead, we 
collected some interesting details about a shrine, a special holy object that every Tsaatan 
family maintains and respects in their urts. 
All Tsaatan families keep a small object wrapped in a cotton bag in the position of 
honor in their urts. While some families keep one of these objects, others may have two. 
The names they use for these objects differs, such as “eeren,” “ongodand “sakhiul,” 
signify a “protecting spirit.” By tradition, Tagna and Soyon Dukha people call it only 
“eeren.” This object, called ongod, is wrapped in a cotton bag and contains tails, nails, and 
snouts of different animals, such as bears, squirrels, sables, and ducks. These things are 
wrapped and stitched with white, black, and blue-colored cotton pieces that may number 
Figure 8.1. Harness 
equipment and types of 
rope hobbles used to keep 
reindeer from wandering 
far from camp. 
P thnographq of the "f~saatan 
Figure 8.2. Reindeer herd¬ 
ers have recently begun 
to herd livestock typically 
herded by their Mongolian 
neighbors. 
Figure 8.3. Tsaatan 
children usually look after 
reindeer in the summer 
time. 
as many as several hundred. 
, A shaman gives this ongod to a family when a couple builds a new home or there is 
a newborn baby in the family. The shaman creates this sacred object for them, and the act 
of creation is called ongod bosgoh. The newly-created sacred object will protect and look 
after the wealth of the family and its destiny. The Tsaatan believe that the sacred object 
watches over them and takes care of them. Thus, every Tsaatan worships and respects it. If 
some disaster or bad luck happens in their life, such as a mamber of the family gets sick, a 
reindeer dies, or something proves unsuccessful, then they assume that protecting spirit has 
become enraged. In such cases they invite the shaman to console the spirit by wrapping, 
binding and putting more colorful cotton wraps onto the sacred object. The Tsaatan belief 
shamans belongs to the latest stage of historical development of shamanism. Specifically, 
they believe that shamans turn into protective spirits after their death and that this spirit 
continues to inhabit the shaman’s clothing and personal belongings. Moreover, they see 
i 14 /Vjush 
the objects as reflections of a human figure. It is interesting that they have maintained their 
traditions beliefs about the protective spirit. It is said that occasionally an ongodappears in 
the figure of bird or wild animal, especially as a bear. They often imagine the ongod as a 
bear and consider bears as protective spirits of the earth. The origin of this belief is closely 
related to ancient shamanism, which was common among the people of the Tagna-Soyon 
region and Siberian forest taiga. 
This research paper describes the results of the ethnographical research study on 
the Tsaatan in 2003. In conclusion, it is very important to do more research on Tsaatan 
traditional lifestyle and current situation to gain a realistic understanding of their culture 
and conditions. Currently, the Tsaatan are known as unique native people who maintain 
Figure 8.4. Reindeer being 
used to transport goods and 
supplies. 
Figure 8.5. A Tsaatan child’s 
reindeer saddle. 
C thnographi) of the ~j~saatan i 15 
/Vjush 
Figure 8.6. A community 
settled in three urts. 
Figure 8.7. Inside an urts. 
Figure 8.8. The interior of 
an urts. 
Figure 8.9. Preparing 
breakfast. 
Figure 8.10. Some types 
of foods made from 
reindeer milk. 
Figure 8.11. An ongon-sakhiul of a 
reindeer herding family. 
Г7 tbnographcj of the "У"saatan i 17 
Figure 8.12. The 100-year old Tsaatan reindeer herder shaman named Suyun. 
distinctive traditions and live in a beautiful natural setting. In fact, Tsaatan live in an 
extremely difficult environment, and their reindeer husbandry is not lucrative enough 
to meet their basic needs. They have little income other than trading a small number of 
antlers on the market. They would like to breed more Mongolian cattle and increase the 
size of their livestock, but a lack of finances makes this difficult to accomplish. Everything 
the Tsaatan need in order to live comfortably — housing, wann clothing, and sufficient 
food — is in critically short supply. Therefore, the Deer Stone Project joint research team 
sees an urgent need for the Mongolian Government to undertake an aid and cooperation 
project to increase the basic supply of rice, flour, vegetable oil, sugar, and canned meat to 
the Tsaatan people. 
Kef erences 
Badamkhatan S., 1962. Tsaatan Lifestyle. 
Ulaanbaatar, 3-10. (in Mongolian) 
Potanov, L. P., 1969. Ocherki narodnogo byita 
tuvintsev. Moscow, 48-77. (in Russian) 
Badamkhatan S., 1965. Hovsgol’s Darkhadethnic Vainshtein, S. I., 1972. Ethnographical History of 
group. Ulaanbaatar, 113-114. (in Mongolian) the Dukha. Moscow, 97. (in Russian) 
Fitzhugh, William W., 2004. Field Report on the 
Mongolian and American Joint Research Study 
in 2003 (Ethnography). Ulaanbaatar, 8-45. 
/Vjusb 
Mong°I|an Abstract 
2003 онд Цаатан нарын дунд явуулсан угсаатны зуйн судалгааны 
зарим ур ДУН 
Ц.Аюуш 
MYTM-н эрдэм шинжилгээний ажилтан 
Энэхуу илтгэлд 2003 онд “Буган чулуун хѳшѳѳ” тѳслийн хурээнд Хѳвсгѳл 
аймгийн Цагаан хуур сумын Цаатан нарын дунд явуулсан угсаатны зуйн 
судлагааны зарим ур дунгийн талаар авч узсэн болно. Тухайлбал цаатангуудын 
уг бус нутагт нуудэллэж ирсэн он цат эдуугээгийн нутагшилт, тэдний аж ахуйн 
уламжлал, нуудэл, уналга болон тээврийн тоног хэрэглэлийн онцлог, орон сууц, 
хоол ундны тѳрѳл зуйл, бэлтгэх арга, мѳн цаатангуудын бѳѳ мѳргѳлийн талаарх 
судлагааны хэрэглэгдэхуунд зарим ажиглалт, дугнэлт хийхийг оролдсон. 
Хѳвсгѳлийн бус нутаг нь угсаатны туухийн хувьд багагуй сонирхолтой 
нутаг. Ѳнгѳрсѳн зууны эхэн гэхэд энэ бус нутагт аж ахуй, хэл аялгуу болон 
соёлын талаараа зарим ѳвѳрмѳц ялгаа бухий турэг, монгол угсаа гаралтай том, 
жижиг хэд хэдэн угсаатны булгууд нутаглан сууж байсан. 
Цаатан нарын хувьд тэд яг хэдий уед энд ирж нутаглах болсоныг 
судлаачид тодорхой хэлээгуй байна. 1764 оны Шавийн тоо буртгэлийн дансанд 
“отог шавиас 192 цаа буртгэв” гэсэн мэдээнээс узэхэд 18-р зууны 2-р хагас гэхэд 
цаатангууд одоогийн нутагтаа нуудэллэж ирээд байсан нь лавтай байна. 
Эдугээ цаатангууд Хѳвсгѳл аймгийн Цагаан нуур сумын баруун болон 
умард бус нутгийн ѳндѳр уулын тайгад нутаглаж байна. Нэг айлд байх цааны 
тоо ихээхэн зѳрѳѳтэй, зарим айлд 60-70 цаа, ихэнх нь 20-н хэдээс 30 орчим 
цаатай, 10 хурэхгуй цаатай айл хэд хэд байгаагийн дотор ганцхан цаатай айл 
ч байна. Мѳн айл бур цѳѳн тооны адуутай, бас тэдний нэлээд нь суул уед ухэр, 
ямаатай болоод байна. Цаатангууд цаагаа голдуу ачих, унах, дулааны улиралд 
суу саалийг нь авах, маш бага хэмжээгээр махыг нь хунсэнд хэрэглэж байна. 
Цааны аж ахуйтай холбогдох соёлын нэг уламжлал бол уналга, ачилгын 
тоног хэрэглэл юм. Нэг айл 2-оос доошгуй эмээлтэй, 6-7 ачааны янгирцагтай, нэг 
буудлаас нѳгѳѳд нуухдээ нэг айл ихэвчлэн 2 удаа нуудэл хийдэг, эхлээд “зѳѳвѳр 
нуух” гэж эхний ачааг хургэдэг, дараа нь гэр орноо нуулгэдэг байна. 
Цаатангууд эдугээ уламжлалт орон сууц болох урцандаа амьдарцгааж 
байна, гэхдээ суулийн уед зарим айл жижиг модон байшин барьж суух, мѳн 
урцны дотоод тавилга зэрэгт зарим шинэ зуйл нэвтэруулээд байна. 
Цаатангуудын хоол ундны нэр тѳрѳлд цааны суу цагаа, ангийн гаралтай 
хоол хунс давамгайлж байна. Мун махан хунсэндээ адуу, бас суулийн уед ухрийн 
мах хэрэглэх заншил ч нэлээд дэлгэрч байна. Харин цааны махыг хоол хунсэнд 
тѳдийлѳн хэрэглэхгуй байна. Талх барих, туунийг хоол хунсэндээ хэрэглэж 
эхэлсэн нь цаатангуудын хувьд маш чухал зуйл болжээ гэж хэлмээр байна. 
Цаатангууд одоо хуртэл бѳѳ мѳргѳлийнхѳѳ шутлэгийг хаяагуй явна. 
Цаатан айлд ороход урцны хойморт жижиг даавуун ууттай зуйл ѳлгѳѳтэй байхыг 
хялбархан ажиглаж болно. Зарим айлд нэг, заримд нь хоёр ч ууттай ийм зуйл 
байдаг. Тэд уунийгээ “ээрэн”, “онгод”, “сахиул” гэхчилэн ѳѳр ѳѳрѳѳр нэрлэнэ. 
Бѳѳгийн онгод нь зарим уед шувуу, амьтдын дурээр узэгдэж, харагддаг гэх буюу 
1 і? Ethnography of the ~Тsaatan 
ялангуяа баавгайн дурээр онгоноо тѳсѳѳлѳх, баавгай онгоноо бур газар дэлхийн 
онгон-ээрэн гэх узэл ч хадгалагдсаар иржээ. Энэ нь Тагна-Соён, Сибирийн ой 
тайгаар оршин сууж байсан угсаатан-ард тумнуудийн эртний бѳѳ мѳргѳлийн 
онгоны тухай тѳсѳѳллийн ул мер гэж хэлж болно. 
Ер нь цаатангуудын амьдралын уламжлалт хэв маяг, тэдний ѳнѳѳгийн 
байдлыг цаашид нарийвчлан судлах, товчоор хэлбэл, тэднийг унэн зѳв ойлгох 
явдал чухал байна. Цаатан нарыг гоё сайхан байгалийн дунд ѳвѳрмѳц сонин 
дадал заншилаа хадгалж яваа ховорхон хумуус мэтээр ойлгомооргуй байна. 
Цаатангууд ѳнѳѳдѳр байгалийн хамгийн хунд нѳхцлийн дунд ашиг шим нэн 
бага аж ахуй эрхэлж байна. 
Bayandalai with leather lasso rounding up horses, (photo: Fitzhugh) 
1 20 
9.. 
Yourteenth Г enturt) Mummified [iuman (Remains from 
the Cj obi b^esert; Mongolia 
Naran Bazarsad, Institute of Archaeology 
Mongolian Academy of Sciences, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia 
Bruno Frohlich, Department of Anthropology 
National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution 
Natsag Batbold, Institute of Archaeology 
Mongolian Academy of Sciences, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia 
David Hunt, Department of Anthropology 
National Museum of Natural History 
Smithsonian Institution 
Introduction 
This is a candid and tentative report on a visit to a subterranean cave located in the 
southern Mongolian Gobi desert, close to the Chinese border. We will briefly describe the 
history of the cave, how we organized our expedition, what we found, and how we plan to 
proceed with our investigations. As with many anthropological projects that starts out with 
relatively unsophisticated planning in mind, we soon realized that this undertaking would 
yield a hidden treasure of data, a voluminous amount of information and many unexpected 
opportunities. Many hours of study and research are ahead of us. This will demand not only 
time and money but also challenge our proficiency in creating a true multi-disciplinary 
research environment. This is the story of how it all began. 
Background and Dating 
During the winter of 2003-2004, the Mongolian Academy of Sciences decided 
to investigate an underground cave located in the southern Mongolian Gobi desert that 
reportedly the cave included some mummified human remains. It became the duty of 
archaeologists and anthropologists in the Academy’s Institute of Archaeology to visit the 
cave and decide how to best protect its contents. Increased traffic in the area has made 
the cave generally known, especially among groups organizing tourist visits to this part 
of the Gobi. The Institute recognized this problem and, being concerned about damage to 
the remains, a small expedition was scheduled for the spring of 2004. The expedition was 
121 
О 200 400 600 
km 
Figure 9.1. Location ofHets Mountain Cave. 
organized as a joint venture between the Mongolian Academy of Sciences (represented by 
Naran Bazarsad) and the Smithsonian Institution (represented by Bruno Frohlich). 
The subterranean cave, also known as the Hets Mountain Cave, the Hun Agui (Human 
Cave) and the Hets Agui (Hard Cave) is located about 5 kilometers north of the Mongolian 
border with China and about 25 kilometers east of the 108° East Meridian (Figure 9.1). It 
was first brought to the attention of government officials in 1974 by local herdsmen but it 
took eight years for the cave to be visited by researchers from the Mongolian government. 
Around 1980, the General Secretary of the Mongolian Revolutionary Party, Mr. Adiya, 
learned about the cave and requested the Mongolian Academy of Science initiate a study 
of its contents. Consequently in 1982 the cave was visited by two scientists: archaeologist 
N. Ser-Odjav and physical anthropologist D. Tumen. They reported that the cave had been 
disturbed but still contained twelve bodies 
representing seven children between newborn 
and seven years, four males and females 
around 30 years old, and one 60 year old male. 
Ser-Odjav found ceramics from the Khitan 
period and also some woman’s pants and 
wooden plates. Based on these finds he dated 
the remains to around AD 10, thus about 2000 
years old. At this time we do not know what 
happened to these artifacts, however. Some do 
not agree with N. Ser-Odjav’s dating. Another 
possibility concerns a legend presently 
circulating between local herdsmen. The tale 
suggests that a local thief named Dashsamba 
Figure 9.2. Survey team. Left to right: 
N. Batbold, G. Sukhhaatar (driver), 
B. Erdene, B. Frohlich, T. Amgalantugs, 
and N. Bazarsad. 
22 5 azarsa d et 
Figure 9.3. Hets Mountain area. 
massacred his entire family during a killing rampage and later escaped criminal charges 
by fleeing across the border to China. Originaly a Buddhist lama, Dashsamba became a 
thief. This event should have taken place between 1937 and 1939, during the same period 
when the Stalinist regime in Ulaanbaatar was involved in mass executions of Mongolian 
Buddhist monks. 
Recently we submitted two samples for radiometric dating. The first sample (ID: 
Gobi 1C, Beta 203719) consisted of about 40 grams of rope made from animal fibers. The 
rope sample was part of an approximately 140 gram rope associated with body 1C. The 
second sample (ID: Gobi ЗА, Beta 203720) included human skin tissue obtained from an 
approximately 1 year old infant. The sample weight was approximately 25 grams and came 
from the infant’s abdominal area. The following results were received from Beta Analytic: 
Rope sample (Beta-203719): Conventional radiocarbon age: 470 +/-40 BP (where present 
is 1950), and the 2-sigma calibrated result: Cal AD 1410 to 1470 (Cal BP 540 to 480). 
Skin sample (Beta-203720): Conventional radiocarbon age: 560 +/-40 BP, and the 2-sigma 
calibrated result: Cal AD 1300 to 1430 (Cal BP 640 to 520). In both cases the INTCAL 
98 database was used for calibration. Thus using the 2 Sigma calibrated age, our samples 
range from AD 1300 to 1470. 
Logistics 
A small surveying team, including professionals with a history of working well 
together in laboratory setting at the Institute of Archaeology, at the Smithsonian Institution, 
and during excavations of mass burials at Hambiin Ovoo outside Ulaanbaatar was organized. 
Mummified Remains I 25 
This included T. Amgalantugs, 
B. Erdene, N. Bazarsad and B. 
Frohlich. Natsag Batbold, an 
archaeologist from the Institute of 
Archaeology was included as an 
expert in Mongolian archaeology 
with extended experience in 
surveying, exploring, navigating, 
and excavating in difficult and 
challenging environments. 
David Hunt, of the Smithsonian 
Institution joined us in Ulaanbaatar 
on our return from the Gobi and 
is presently collaborating with the 
rest of the group on a planned study of the human remains. Mr. G. Sukhbaatar was hired as 
our driver and provided excellent expertise in getting the team to and from the target area 
(Figure 9.2). A one-car solution was selected in order to keep the transportation logistics to 
a minimum. However, this solution also increased the potential danger of being stranded 
in a hazardous desert environment with no means of communication to the outside world. 
This problem was solved by working closely with units of the Mongolian Army’s border 
patrol which operated within a few kilometers of our chosen routes and working area. 
Indeed, a small border patrol camp named ‘Sulenkheer’ was located three to four kilometers 
northwest of the cave. This relationship proved to be of exceptional value and we enjoyed 
the presence of members of the Border Patrol as well as the magnificent hospitality offered 
by its members and their families. 
Preparation started well ahead of the scheduled departure time. Naran Bazarsad, 
her two students (Erdene and Tugsuu), and N. Batbold prepared all necessary permits, 
including permission from the 
Mongolian Military authorities 
to operate in areas close to 
the Chinese border. Bruno 
Frohlich brought necessary 
surveying equipment, light 
sources, camera equipment 
and other field equipment from 
the Smithsonian Institution. 
Supplies for caving, hiking 
and operating in rigorous 
conditions, and packing 
and shipping material were 
purchased from the ’Black 
Figure 9.5. Lateral section of cave. Market’ and other stores 
in Ulaanbaatar. Maps were 
Figure 9.4. Natsag Batbold entering the second 
tunnel. 
1 24 £)azarsad et al. 
obtained from the Mongolian Government 
and from private map stores in Ulaanbaatar 
and in the U.S.A. Camping and food 
supplies including emergency supplies for at 
least a three week period were also obtained 
to cover our planned one week stay in the 
Gobi Desert. Fuel (diesel) was purchased at 
stopping places between Ulaanbaatar and 
the southern Gobi Desert. 
The project was designed to last seven 
days, not including the two days of driving 
approximately 900 km. each way between 
Ulaanbaatar and the Mongolian-Chinese 
border. We departed from Ulaanbaatar 
on May 24 following well-paved roads 
toward Nalayh, about 25 kilometers east of 
Ulaanbaatar. From Nalayh we continued 
south on dirt roads and tracks, passing 
Choyr, and completed our first day of driving 
about 10 kilometers north of Saynshand, the 
capital of the Domo Gobi aimag. In plotting 
our route to the southern Gobi we followed 
relatively good dirt roads running parallel 
with the Peking-Ulaanbaatar railroad track, 
until we reached Saynshand when we 
followed a more western and southwestern route leading us toward Zuunbayan. From 
Zuunbayan we continued south and southwest toward Hovsgol sum and on advice from 
other travelers going north, 
continued in a southern 
direction toward Sulinheer. 
In Sulinheer, we visited the 
area’s principal Mongolian 
Army camp to obtain the 
final approval for traveling 
in the border area. At 
Sulinheer we learned 
of a newly developed 
track starting in a small 
settlement close to the 
Chinese border, that lay 
in an almost straight line 
northwest from the cave 
area (Figure 9.1). 
Figure 9.8. Horizontal view of cave. Hatched areas 
include major concentration of human remains. Cave 
entrance is a meter southeast of Group 1. 
Mummified Remains 
Figure 9.6. Cave viewed from western end. 
Figure 9.7. N. Batbold and 
T. Amgalantugs mapping cave. 
i 25 
Figure 9.9. Group 1 
human remains. Looting 
has resulted in some 
disarrangement of bodies 
and body parts. 
The Cave 
In the midmoming of May 26 we arrived about 1.3 kilometers southeast of the cave 
and after a short exploration of the surrounding area, we established camp on a flat plateau 
130 meters northeast of the cave (Figure 9.3). Our first priority was to establish the exact 
geographical location of the cave. Using our Ashtech-Magellan Locus GPS receivers, we 
obtained the following results: geodetic location is: 42° 33’ 33.75746’ north latitude, and 
108° 14’ 57.85615’ East longitude, and the ellipsoid elevation is 1,106.09 meters. This 
location corresponded with data obtained from less accurate hand-held GPS receivers 
which located the cave with a precision of between six and ten meters, significantly less 
accurate than the Locus system’s precision, which is better than 2-3 centimeters on all 
three axes (longitude, latitude, and elevation). 
The cave was entered on the first attempt by Natsag Batbold and Naran Bazarsad 
(Figure 9.4). The presence of human remains was verified and the cave’s general layout and 
entrance system were noted. The cave consists of a subterranean space accessed through 
a small circular opening and several tunnels that are separated by platforms (Figures 9.5, 
9.6). The cave and its entrance system of tunnels and platforms were surveyed and mapped 
by N. Batbold and T. Amgalantugs (Figure 9.7). In detail, the cave’s circular opening, 
approximately 0.9 x 0.6 meters leads to a system of two platforms that are connected by 
three tunnels. The first platform is located 2.4 meters below the entrance. From the first 
platform, a 4.2 meter long vertical tunnel connects the first and second platform. From 
Figure 9.10. Group 1 
human remains. 
i 16 azarsa 
Figure 9.11. Forty year- 
old woman with fractured 
neck. 
the second platform a 2.4 meter long tunnel with a slope of about 45° extends toward the 
entrance of the cave chamber (Figure 9.5). The cave is oriented in an approximately west 
to east direction and has a maximum length of 16.8 meters. The cave’s maximum width, 
of 5.9 meters, is at the eastern end. The width adjacent to the entrance is about 3 meters 
(Figure 9.8). The maximum height, found at the central and western end of the cave, is 
3.4 meters (Figure 9.5). 
In general, human remains were found in three areas or groups (Figure 9.8). Two 
of the groups included concentrated remains of complete bodies, most of them still in 
their original position and location (Figure 9.9). Most of the bodies were well preserved, 
with the majority of skeletal tissue present and 10% to 80% of the soft tissue still intact. 
The soft tissue’s excellent preservation appears to have been produced by a rapid process 
of natural mummification, leaving all body parts in their original position and location. 
However, it was evident that the remains had been disturbed by later visitors to the cave 
and in some cases, body parts had been removed and relocated within the cave. 
First we determined that the human remains should be removed and transported 
to the Institute of Archaeology in Ulaanbaatar. Having noted recent destruction of the 
cave’s contents and some forceful removal of human body parts, including several heads, 
we decided that the remains should be removed as soon as possible. Because of this, we 
Figure 9.12. Facial view of 
forty year-old woman seen 
in 9.11. 
Mummified Remains 127 
Figure 9.13. Sampling the 
material for radiocarbon 
dating. Left to right: N. 
Bazarsad, N. Batbold, B. 
Erdene, and B. Frohlich. 
were not required to focus on a detailed study of the remains since this could wait until 
we returned to Ulaanbaatar. Accordingly, we focused on the following objectives: (1) 
architectural and geological description of cave and cave access; (2) description of the 
human remains in their ‘in-situ’ positions; (3) collection of tissue samples for dating and 
other analytical purposes; (4) completion of test excavations; (5) preparation of remains 
for transportation to Ulaanbaatar; and (6) description of geological features surrounding 
the cave (Figure 9.13). 
Several groups of human bodies and body parts were identified (Figure 9.8). For 
some of the disarticulated remains their original positions could not be ascertained. In one 
of the major bundles (Group 1) we found seven articulated and partly articulated bodies 
stacked on top of each other (Figure 9.9). One body seemed to be in a sitting position but 
with the head and some of the extremities missing (Figure 9.9). This body could be the one 
previously reported by N. Ser-Odjav as a sitting woman embracing an infant. However, 
an infant was not found. The remaining six bodies had previously been stacked in a heap, 
suggesting a quick disposal of the remains without ritual (Figures 9.9 & 9.10). Ligaments 
on the individuals were all well preserved and in some cases muscle, skin, intestinal tissue, 
nails, and hair were present. However, of the seven bodies only three included heads (Table 
9.1). As careful search for the missing cranial/skull material did not yield any results, it 
is hypothesized that some of the remains, especially the heads, had been removed during 
previous visits to the cave over the last few decades. The seven bodies represented four 
males ranging from 12 years to 40+ years old, two adult females, and one child of unknown 
sex. 
Three articulated bodies (Group 3), all infants under one year of age, were found 
about five meters from the group of bodies described above. Their preservation was 
excellent, particularly the soft tissue in the thoracic and abdominal regions, the colons 
and some of the smaller intestines were all in very good condition. However, none of the 
bodies included a head. 
Various body parts and individual bones were found in several other places (Figure 
9.8). One child’s cranium was located in a small alcove about 1.7 meters above the cave’s 
floor. This anomaly may be a result of previous trespassing. Intriguingly, a single human 
1 25 £>azarsad et al. 
Table 9.1. List of articulated human bodies found in Hets Mountain Cave 
ID SEX AGE CAUSE OF DEATH CRANIUM 
l.A Female Adult Unknown No 
LB Male 16 yrs Unknown No 
l.C n/d 8 yrs Unknown Yes 
l.D Female 40 yrs Strangulation Yes 
l.E Male 40 yrs Strangulation Yes 
l.F Male 12 yrs Unknown No 
l.G Male Adult Unknown No 
3.A n/d 1.0 yr Unknown No 
3.B n/d 1.0 yr Strangulation No 
3.C n/d 0.5 yr Strangulation No 
innominate bone (hip bone) with a white surface color was also found. Such light coloration 
is an indication of exposure to direct sun light for a period of days or even weeks. As all of 
the material found within the cave is brownish, indicating preservation solely within the 
enclosed cave environment, the presence of this white-colored bone present an anomaly. 
We were able to determine the cause of death for all individuals with preserved 
cranial or cervical (head or neck) tissue. This is unusual as even in recovered bodies 
including mummified soft tissue it is initially impossible to establish causes of death. In 
general, we have been able to confirm that a majority of the bodies represented individuals 
who had been murdered by hanging, strangulation or other causes pertinent to the application 
of traumatic forces to the head and neck regions (Table 9.1). In two cases, a rope was still 
tightly wrapped around the cervical areas suggesting strangulation. In the case of a 40 year 
old female, severe trauma to the neck had dislocated some of the cervical vertebrae, and the 
mandible had been forced out of its articulation with the temporal bones. Deep indentation 
in the posterior neck tissue around the 4th cervical vertebrae suggests the use of a solid 
and strong bar made from wood or a metallic material. The woman’s upper body and the 
neck must have been in a fixed position while the head was forcefully pulled in a posterior 
direction, causing the observed trauma in the neck vertebrae and in the temporo-mandibular 
joints (Figure 9.11). Also, the high quality of preservation revealed a cut in her tongue’s 
anterior part caused by a forceful closure of the mouth and resulting in dismemberment of 
the distal tip of her tongue. The cut appears to follow the arching shape of the maxillary and 
mandibular dental arches (Figure 9.12). In two other individuals, rope or rope fragments 
associated with deep indentation in the neck skin tissue suggests forceful strangulation. 
Although it may be evident that most if not all of the individuals left in the cave had 
been killed by hanging, strangulation, or the application of traumatic forces to the neck 
areas, we cannot verify this for all of the individuals. This is because the missing cranial 
material was most likely removed recently. The present direct diagnoses are based on the 
observation of external surface lesions and do not include potential lesions in internal tissue. 
We hope to diagnose and observe internal lesions when diagnostic equipment such as x- 
ray and computed tomography (CT) can be applied. Also, advanced analytical research in 
a controlled laboratory environment should add a significant body of data supporting our 
reconstruction effort of this very sad event taken place about 600 years ago. 
f\/lumm|fred Remains 12? 
Figure 9.14. Buddhist 
lama explaining • 
paraphernalia thought 
to protect people from 
sickness. 
Return to Ulaanbaatar 
We succeeded in completing a majority of our tasks within a three day period 
(Figure 9.13), closed-up camp on May 29, and initiated our return to Ulaanbaatar. We made 
a courtesy visit to the Mongolian Army’s Border Patrol camp located a few kilometers 
northwest of the cave. An oral report was given to the Commander informing him about 
our activities including our decision to remove all the human remains and that such remains 
were being transported to Ulaanbaatar under the protection of the Mongolian Academy 
of Sciences. Furthermore we were pleased to leave some of our supplies with the Border 
Patrol including fruit juices, canned food, bread, crackers, jam and other food sources 
deemed unnecessary for our return travel to UB. 
We returned to Ulaanbaatar following a western route, crossing the 108° Eastern 
meridian about 50 kilometers north of the Chinese border into the Omno Gobi aimag and 
continued toward a small settlement named Nomgon. Nomgon includes a small house 
adjacent to a few older and decaying mud-brick ruins. A few kilometers before we reached 
Nomgon we ran into a small group of government officials from the Mongolian Ministry 
of Ecology. A lot of clandestine gold exploration was taking place in this area and we were 
told that gold diggers came in huge SUVs loaded with explosives and blew up hills and 
other promising gold-containing geological strata. The officials told us that there could be 
more than hundred such clandestine operations active at any time, and that most of them 
were successful. 
We continued toward Hanbogd, about 70 kilometers northwest of Nomgon, and 
passed through fascinating and beautiful desert landscape. For as far as the eye could 
see we observed smooth and rounded black basalt formations, testifying to thousands or 
possibly millions of years of wind and water erosion. From Hanbogd we continued north 
toward Manlay and after refueling our vehicle, we crossed the line between the Omno 
Gobi Aimag and the Dund Gobi Aimag, arriving early evening in the town of Mandalgovi. 
We succeeded in finding a small hotel, while N. Batbold and our driver G. Sukhbaatar 
stayed with the vehicle to ensure the safety of our mummies and equipment. Before we 
reached Mandalgovi we stopped at a small ger where the family provided us with a great 
meal in traditional Mongolian fashion. Additionally, a guest at dinner was a Buddhist lama 
who spread out all his paraphernalia with the intent of protecting everybody there from 
150 {^>azarsad et al. 
getting sick (Figure 9.14). On May 30 we started from Mandalgovi and followed the track 
toward Ulaanbaatar. About 70 kilometers south of the capital we encountered our first re¬ 
exposure to ‘modem civilization’: a small collection of gers which was likely identified as 
a Mongolian ‘truck stop’ offering food, soft drinks, refrigeration, and TVs. And although 
none of it worked because the generator was broken, we certainly knew we were getting 
closer to home. 
Early in the evening of May 30, we unloaded our vehicle, got our mummies safely 
stored at the Institute of Archaeology, and delivered everybody to their respective homes 
with their equipment. 
We had accomplished our goal in seven days, keeping our project within the original 
planned time frame. We logged 1,908 kilometers, of which 98% were driven on unpaved 
tracks or roads including about 20% on unmarked surfaces. We had succeeded in putting 
together a small but highly efficient team, found our cave, recorded its contents, and returned 
everything to our Institute in Ulaanbaatar. Our success is a reflection of fine team work, 
outstanding support from our institutes and departments, and an excellent collaboration 
between various Mongolian and American government agencies, including the Mongolian 
Academy of Sciences, the Mongolian Army, and the Smithsonian Institution. 
Planned Research 
We are now faced with the intricate task of planning, securing, and executing 
the ongoing research, and to achieve relevant and accurate reconstructions of the events 
leading to this horrendous incident. The forensic reconstruction of the cave contents will 
be arduous, hampered partially by the difficulties of studying the remains in situ and by 
alteration, destruction, and removal of the remains in recent decades. However, this forms 
an integral part of the scientific challenge. 
The analytical phase has been initiated and we have obtained our first radiometric 
dates derived from rope and skin tissue samples (Figure 9.13) with results between AD 1300 
to 1470 (2-sigma calibrated). This dating contextualize them into a period of volatile cultural 
change and crisis, allowing us to begin focusing our research on well-defined objectives, 
including the reconstruction of diet and an estimation of the nutritional status. There are 
several reasons for this approach. For example, the historical record suggest that Mongolian 
population groups suffered profound malnutrition during the Yuan Dynasty (AD 1279 to 
1368) most likely caused by increased demands on Mongolian resources. The Mongolian 
Yuan administration’s relocation in AD 1264 to present day Beijing and the subsequent 
switch toward a sedentary behavior resulted in an economic, cultural, and geographical 
disconnect with the nomadic base population. The nomadic base population plunged into a 
crisis for the duration of the Yuan dynasty, and most likely for a substantial number of years 
after the fall of the Yuan dynasty in AD 1368. Records indicate widespread, continuing and 
aggravating poverty and starvation among Mongolian soldiers and herdsmen. Indeed, the 
Yuan administration in Beijing was forced to export grain to starving Mongolian groups, 
enforce laws on group relocation, and legally limit the rapidly increasing child slave trade 
created by individual families’ desperate attempts to avoid starvation. 
Finally, we have decided to use this project as a further tool to promote our scientific 
Mummified Remains 1)1 
and educational collaboration between the Smithsonian Institution, the Mongolian Academy 
of Sciences, and various museums in Ulaanbaatar. We intend to use all available facilities 
within our own organizations to enhance our understanding of the data. Also, when 
necessary, we will collaborate with other experts on the interpretation of the information. 
Smithsonian Institution (National Museum of Natural History) has made funds available for 
shipping the remains to the Smithsonian for further analysis and at the same time ensured 
support for Mongolian scientists and students to be part of this experience. In addition 
to Mongolian and American anthropologists, the research team will include radiologists, 
pathologists, anatomists, and forensic scientists who we have collaborated with on many 
other projects. And most importantly, we want to include students, interns, volunteers 
and other researchers in our research and discussions, making this not only a truly multi¬ 
disciplinary research project but also a wonderful educational experience. 
Tugsu transporting a mummy, (photo: Frohlich) 
1 52 £>azarsad et al. 
Mongolian /\bstract 
Монголы и Говиос олдсон 14-р зууны уед холбогдох хуний 
занданшуулсан шарил 
(\) Доктор Базарсадын Наран, (2) Доктор Бруно Фролих, 
(1) Батболдын Нацаг, (2) Доктор Давид Хант 
(1) Монголын Шинжлэх Ухааны Академийн Археологийн Хурээлэн, 
Улаанбаатар 
(2) АНУ-н Смитсонийн Институт дэх Байгалийн Туухийн Ундэсний Музейн 
Антропологийн Тэнхим 
2004 оны хавар Монголын Шинжлэх Ухааны Академийн Археологийн 
Хурээлэн, Смитсонийн Институтын Антропологийн Тэнхмийн гишуудээс 
бурдсэн таван хуний баг Монголын Говийн Хятад Улетай хил залгаа ѳмнѳд 
хэсэгт орших газар доорх нэгэн агуйг очиж судалсан юм. 1974 онд энэ агуй нь анх 
Монгол Улсын Засгийн газарт буртгэгдеэн бѳгѳѳд хожим 1982 онд Монголын 
эрдэмтэд очиж судлаж байсан байна. ѳмнѳ нь тэмдэглэгдэж байснаас узэхэд 
уг агуйгаас дор хаяж 12 ширхэг занданшуулсан хуний шарил олдсон бѳгѳѳд 
зарим нь тоногдож байсан байна. 2004 оны эхээр Монголын Шинжлэх Ухааны 
Академиас урьд мэдээлэгдеэн олз ашиг хайгчдын тонож суйтгэсэн хэегийг 
судлах, мѳн улдеэн хэегийг хамгаалалтанд авах шийдвэр гаргасан байна. Бид 
нарыг 2004 оны 5 сард очиход агуйн улдеэн хэсэг нь ч гэсэн тоногдож суйтгэгдсэн 
байсан ба бид хамгаалах бас судлах зорилгоор улдеэн хэегийг Улаанбаатар хот 
РУУ нуулгэн шилжуулэхээр шийдвэрлэв. 
Улдэгдэл хэегийг хамгаалан Улаанбаатар руу зѳѳвѳрлѳхѳд бух зуйлийг 
аюулгуй байлгахад бидний энэ богино аялал тѳвлѳрч байсан юм. Агуйг судлан 
газрын зурагт буулган зарим нэг туршилтын малтлагыг хийсэн бѳгѳѳд хэдэн 
жилийн настайг тодорхойлох ууднээс шарилаас эд эсийн дээж шинжилгээнд 
авсан. Мѳн ойр орчмын газар нутгийн байдлыг тодорхойлон газрын зурагт 
тэмдэглэсэн. Ийнхуу агуйд ажиллах явцдаа шарилын улдэгдэл хэегийг хянамгай 
дѵреэлеэн бѳгѳѳд шарилыг хѳндѳж гэмтээхгуй нарийн аргаар фото зургийг 
авсан болно. 
Судалгааны ажлын хурээнд хийсэн ажиглалтуудаас доорх дугнэлтуудийг 
гаргаж болно: 1) Уг агуй нь Монгол Хятадын хилээс хойд зѵгт 5 км зайд, зуун 
уртрагийн 108-аас зуун тийш 25 км зайд оршиж байна. Мѳн энэ агуй нь газрын 
тувшнээс доош 13 метрийн зайд байрлах бѳгѳѳд тавцан болон хоолойн тогтцоос 
бурэлдеэн байна. Агуйн хамгийн урт хэсэг нь 16.8 метр,ѳргѳн нь 5.9 метр, ѳндѳр 
нь 3.4 метр туе туе хурнэ. Бидний энэ удаагийн судалгаанаас харахад хэдийгээр 
зарим нэг хуний гараар бѵтеэн байгууламжууд байж болох боловч энэ агуй 
нь байгалийн тогтоцоор ууссэн гэж бид узэж байна. 2) Агуйгаас олдсон нийт 
шарилын тоо 13-15 ширхэг. Эдгээрээс арван шарилынх нь хатуу ба зѳѳлѳн 
эдийнх нь зарим нь бутнээрээ хадгалагдан улдеэн байсан бѳгѳѳд байгалиас 
занданшуулагдеан байсан учраас ингэсэн байх магадлалтай. 3) Эдгээрийн зйвхйн. 
3 шарилаас нь гавлын яс олдсон байна. Гавлын яснууд алга болсон шалтгаан нь 
суулийн 30 жилийн турш ашиг хонжоо хайгчдын суйтгэсэн уйл ажиллагаанаас 
болсон гэж бид таамаглан дугнэлээ. 4) Нилээн хэдэн тооны ялган танихын 
і 55 Mummified Remains 
аргагуй болсон яснууд зарим нэг газар тархан байрласныг олсон бѳгѳѳд энэ нь 
мѳн л буруугаар ашиглах гэсэн суйтгэгчдээс болсон гэж узэв. 5) Бутнээрээ улдсэн 
шарилуудыг буртгэн узэхэд дѳрвѳн насанд хурсэн хун, хоёр ѳсвѳр насны хун, 
нэг хуухэд, гурван нярай хуухэд байсан байх магадлалтай байна. Насанд хурсэн 
хумуус болон ѳсвѳр насны хумуусийг ажиглахад дѳрвѳн эрэгтэй хоёр эмэгтэй 
байсан гэж ялгаж болохоор байв. 6) Ухлийн шалтгаан нь боомилж, дуужилж 
алсан эсвэл хузууний орчим хучтэй гэмтээснээс болсон байх магадлалтай байв. 
Гэмтсэн хэсгээс авсан зѳѳлѳн эдийн зураасыг харахад боомилох явцад олс 
дээс хэрэглэсэн байж болзошгуй. Хоолойны орчимд ороосон байдлаар эсвэл 
хоолойны ойролцоо байгаа байдлаар олснууд олдсон байна. 40 гаран насны 
эмэгтэйнх нь нурууны уе болон чамархайн уений дунд хэсэгт гэмтэл авсан тод 
ул мѳр харагдсан байв. Энэ нь бусдаасаа ѳѳр маягаар амиа алдсан болохыг 
харуулж байна. 7) Энэ нь цаг уеийн хувьд хэдий уед хамаарагдахыг одоогоор 
тогтоогоогуй. 
Нутгийнхны ам дамжсан ярианаас узэхэд 65-70 жилийн ѳмнѳ энэ хавьд 
хумуусийг хороосон явдал гарч байсан байна. Бидний судалгааны ажлын уед 
эдгээр шарилтай холбоотой ямар нэгэн соёл иргэншлийн чанартай ул мѳр 
баримт ажиглагдаагуй. Шарилаас авсан эдийн шинжилгээ болон олсны хэсэгт 
хийсэн шинжилгээний он цаг тодорхойлсон хариултыг аль болох хурдан гаргах 
болно. 8) Шарил одоогоор Улаанбаатарын Археологийн Хурээлэнд хадгалагдаж 
байгаа бѳгѳѳд цаашид Смитсонийн Институтын томографийн аппарат гэх 
мэт гэмтэл, хор нѳлѳѳ учруулахгуй арга техник хэрэгслийг ашиглан судалгаа 
шинжилгээний ажлыг ургэлжлуулэн хийхээр тѳлѳвлѳж байна. 
Бид ѳѳрсдийн зорьсон хэргээ долоо хоногийн дотор бутээсэн ба 1908 
километрийг техникийн яльгуй жижиг сааталтайгаар туулсан. Бид цѳѳхѳн хунээс 
бурдсэн боловч ѳндѳр бѵтээлтэй хамт олныг бурдуулэн агуйгаа олох, доторх 
зуйлсийг нь тэмдэглэн буртгэх, Улаанбаатар дахь Институт руугаа бух зуйлээ 
аван буцах зэргээр маш амжилттай ажилласан. Бидний амжилт нь хамт олны 
rap нийлсэн ажиллагаа, институт болон тэнхимээс узуулсэн тусламжууд болон 
Монголын Шинжлэх Ухааны Академи, Монголын Ардын Арми, Смитсонийн 
Институт гэх зэрэг Монгол Америкийн засгийн газрын байгууллагуудын хамтын 
ажиллагааны ур дунд бий болсон юм. 
1 5+ 
I о 
(Comparative /\na\tjs\s of /AJpine//\rctic plants 
in Movsgoi Province of North ern Mongolia 
Ts.Tsendeehuu 
Department of Botany, Faculty of Biology 
National University of Mongolia 
Introduction 
Historical aspects 
Even though the flora and vegetation in the Arctic zone and mainland Alpine belt 
were formed separately in the Tertiary period, flora in the Arctic and Alpine became mixed 
during the Quaternary, making it extremely difficult to distinguish between them (Fukarek 
1982). After the retreat of glaciation only a tundra type of flora and vegetation has existed 
in northernmost Mongolia and it has been undergoing change ever since. Nevertheless, 
some of the flora from the glacial period still exists today. Caragana jubata, Saussurea 
dorogostaiskii, Ptilogrostes mongolica, Abies sibirica, Allium altaicum are examples of 
such relics that remain in the Hovsgol region (Ulziihutag 1989). Allium altaicum also 
spread from the Hovsgol to the Gobi-Altai mountain regions (Hilbig 1995). 
It is possible that after glaciation there were few forests and little vegetation in 
the Hovsgol region. However, Hippophae, Artemisia, Ephedra, Sellagnella, Thalictrum, 
Betula, as well as various kinds of grasses and sedges probably dominanted in this area. 
Currently, Hippophae is not found in the Hovsgol region. But, through a phytogeographic 
study, it has been noticed that Hippophae rhamnides ssp.mongolica L. did once exist in 
the eastern and western parts of Lake Hovsgol. It is presumed that the earliest populations 
might have been relocated to the river banks of western and central Mongolia by the 
effects of the northern forests penetrating into the Hovsgol area (Ts. Tsendeekhuu 1996). 
Certainly there have been similar changes taking place until the present time in Hovsgol, 
Siberia, North Asia, and North America’s Pacific Ocean regions. Still, there were times 
when flora and vegetation from distantly located areas shared similar elements. 18,000 
years ago, none of Alaska, Siberia, Lake Baikal, and Lake Hovsgol’s forests were covered 
with ice; therefore, it is possible that flora and vegetation in these areas had similarities. 
Consequently, we believe that there is a possibility of comparing the history and current 
situation of the flora and vegetation in Hovsgol region’s tundra area to its surrounding 
region and the other corresponding Alpine and Arctic areas. 
1 55 
The Bering Land Bridge, which used to connect Asia and American lands and 
their biota, deserves special attention. During the last stage of the Ice Age the sea levels 
were lowered such that the bottoms of the Bering and Chukchi Seas emerged, eliminating 
the water passage between the two continents and connecting the continents of Asia and 
America. But by 14,000 years ago the land bridge began to be submerged, only to emerge 
again by 13,000 years ago, if not earlier, allowing Asians to migrate into America. The 
Bering land bridge was submerged for a second time 11,000 years ago and the Strait has 
kept this form until the present (Hulten 1974). During the Pleistocene period, the Bering 
area experienced a dry-cold climate and had a tundra type environment. For that reason, 
it is possible that the climate and environment in this area were very similar to the dry 
environments in the Asian uplands and Mongolia (Young 1994). 
Before the Quaternary period and during the Tertiary Eocene, or 36 million years 
ago, Artemisia and Tanacetum of the Asteraceae family appeared in tropical vegetation and 
extended into the Asian and American continents across the Bering land bridge. In particular, 
the Artemiceae genus developed in Asian deserts and on the American continent in the 
same period; therefore, the recent Mongolian subgenus Dracunculus is closely related to 
members of the genus found in the North American Pacific Ocean sector (Dariimaa 2003). 
This relation is counted as being very ancient. Nevertheless, by looking at the literature of 
historical geography and flora and of vegetation paleogeography, we see that it would be 
promising to make a comparative analysis of alpine/arctic tundra plant history and current 
aspects between the Hovsgol region and Alaska. 
Table 10.1. Vascular plants of Hovsgol province. 
Family Genus Species Author 
63 230 609 Grubov 1955 
67 259 746 Batraeva and others 1976 
68 262 750 Ivelskay and others 1979 
90 305 914 Gubanov 1996 
We now consider the flora and vegetation in the Hovsgol tundra region. There are 
many plants in Hovsgol province which originated from the North Boreal region. These 
plants penetrated and spread to the desert zone; furthermore, the plants and vegetation 
which existed prior to and after the Ice Age mixed together (J. Oyumaa 2001). According 
to the above researcher’s floral analysis, the flora and vegetation around the Hovsgol Lake 
area are most likely related to the flora in the Northern and Southern Siberia from looking 
at their historical background. The most abundant plants and vegetation are found in 
only the Hovsgol Lake area. Such plants include various species, Betula rotundifolia, B. 
humilis, Rhododendronparvifolium, Rhododendron adamsii, Ribes altissimum, Caragana 
jubata, and Salix. Vaccinium vitis-idaea, V uliginosum, Empetrum nigrum; and Dryas 
oxyodonta are also found in this area. They are all short and their heights are not more than 
i 56 sendeehuu 
10 centimeters. Lichen and moss are very significant in the Hovsgol area. Lichen doesn’t 
grow evenly throughout the whole area; instead, it is distributed unevenly through certain 
areas. Moreover, most of the lichen stands consists of such species as C/adonia alpestris, 
C.rangiferina, Stereocaulonpaschale, Cetraria cuculata, and others. Consequently, further 
research recording and determining the tundra flora and vegetation in the western part of 
the Hovsgol Lake should be continued. One of the reasons is that the Darkhat Valley and 
surrounding mountain and the border areas are so remote that researchers have not traveled 
there to explore or study them. 
From the Mongolian botanist’s point of view, Hovsgol and Hentii mountain flora 
could be divided into the following groups: 
1. Lichen stands (C/adonia, Cetaria, Alectoria, Stereocaulon) and moss stands 
on alpine tundra; 
2. Moss, scrub stands (Betula rotundifolia, B.humilis, Hylocomium splendes and 
another moss, Salix glauca) on mountain tundra; 
3. Moss, sedge-moss stands, scrub-moss stands (Betula humilis, Salix g/auca, 
Rhododendron parvifolium) on mountain tundra; 
4. Larix sibirica and Finns sibirica stands on mountain boreal conifers (Vegetation 
Map of Mongolia, 1996). 
It is necessary to consider reindeer, their pastures and food, and the lifestyle and 
culture of the Tsaatan (reindeer herders). Tundra areas have for millennia been important 
summer pasturage for reindeer, they also figure importantly in the lives of the nomadic 
northern reindeer herders (Young 1994; Sukhbaatar, and DePriest, this vol.). Hovsgol 
forest and alpine taiga marks the southern edge of the Dukha (Tsaatan) people and their 
domesticated reindeer breeding in Mongolia. Herders traditionally move and select natural 
pastures through the four seasons of the year. They cannot prepare forage for their reindeer, 
because the plants eaten by reindeer are mostly lichen — especially during the winter and 
early spring — and birch, willow, sedge, grass and other flowering herbs. 
While recording the classification of the lichen stand, 17 families, 30 genus, and 
88 species have been found in the Hovsgol forest and alpine tundra regions. 17 of the 88 
species were reported for the first time ever in Mongolian flora (Tsogt 1976). Moreover, 
13 flowering plant families, 24 genus, and 53 species have been found in the far western 
part of Lake Hovsgol. From the above species, 9 were reported in the Mongolian flora for 
the first time. Types of lichen found in the Darkhat Valley and its surrounding mountain 
area are: Pessania (1 species), Peltigera (6), Cladonia (14), Stereocaulen (1), Aspecilla (1), 
Sguamarina (2), Ochrolechia (2), Icmadophila (1), Cetraria (6), Alectoria(l), Corniculata 
(1), Thamnolia (1), Calopca (2), Fulgensia (1), and Rinodina (1). Cladonia, Cetraria, and 
Peltigera are dominant in this area. 
However, we do not agree that the above classification recording of the Hovsgol 
lichen is complete enough. Mongolian researcher Tsogt (1992) determined that the following 
lichen are the convenient food plants for the reindeer in their pastures in the whole area of 
Hovsgol province: Cladonia (4), Cladina (2), Stereocaulen (2), Cetraria (4), Dactillina (1), 
Alp ine/Arctic plants IV 
A/ectoria (2), Thamnolia (1), Peltigera (5) and Parmelia (2). According to his research, 
Hovsgol reindeer eat some of these most of the time and others rarely. 
In 2002-2004 Paula Depriest, a lichen specialist from the Smithsonian Institution 
in Washington D.C., selected samples for classification and research from a variety of 
reindeer summer and autumn pastures and explored the traditional knowledge of lichen 
(DePriest 2002, and this vol.; Fitzhugh 2004.) Consequently, the studies and results on the 
classification, ecological importance, and use of lichens of the American, Mongolian and 
Russian researchers should be combined and summarized. 
Justification of the Project 
HovsgoFs flora is very different from florae in other flora geographical areas in 
Mongolia. Its origin is similar to that of South Siberia (Lake Hovsgol Atlas, 1989, Jamsran 
and Oyuntsetseg 1995), and East Siberia (Batraeva and others 1976). On the other hand, 
even though Alaska’s flora belongs to the classification of the Atlantic and North American 
subregion, it is also similar to the Northeast Siberia and Arctic zones. From this it is 
reasonable to assume that throughout history, the flora of the Mongolian Hovsgol region 
has been connected to that of the Siberia and Arctic/Alaskan flora. However, there is no 
research or other materials that can yet prove this idea. 
Considering this, the Hovsgol Deer Stone Project has played an important role in 
verifying the comparison between the history of northern Mongolian’s Hovsgol region 
tundra environment, climate, botany, and zoology and that of Siberia, the North East Asia- 
Pacific area, the Bering Land Bridge, and Alaska in historical context. Further studies of 
botanic, paleoelogic, climatologic, and human-related questions should be undertaken by 
comparative analysis. 
Purpose and Objectives 
This study will provide preliminary facts and evidence comparing some of the 
genus and species of the Hovsgol tundra flora and their coefficient similarities to those 
in neighboring areas of geographically distant provinces. The specific aims of this study 
are: 
1. To calculate coefficient similarity of some of the families, genera, and species 
in the Hovsgol’s botanical and geographical region through comparison with 
Arctic and Alaskan florae. The climate of the uplands of northern Mongolia is 
comparable to that of modem northwestern Alaska. It can plausibly be equated, 
even if roughly, with the late Pleistocene climate of this area (Young 2003); 
2. To determine the number of genus and species of the Ericaceae family that are 
found only in the Hovsgol region by comparing them to neighboring area or 
distant provinces within Mongolia. Where Ericaceae dominate the undergrowth, 
the stands are often relatively open with smaller trees, reminiscent of black 
spruce stands on moist north-facing slopes in the Alaskan interior (Young 
2003); 
3. To report the food plants of the reindeer, including their genus and species. 
1 [~ sendeehuu 
Research area and methodology 
The research study took place at the Tsaatan Menge Bulag summer camp is located 
near the Jamso River, Evtiin River, and Hugiin River at the Soyo and Ulaan Uul in Hovsgol 
province (N51-11.451 ’ E98-54.972’, h=2200m). The flora key (Gubanov, Grubov, Hulten 
and Flora Central Siberia and Kazakstan, etc.) was used in the analysis. Also, the value 
Ss was calculated along with Sorenson’s coefficient of similarity (Martin Kent and Paddy 
Coker 1992). The value Ss is defined as Ss=2a/2a+b+c, where a is the number of species 
that occur in both flora, b is the number of species in the first flora, and c is the number of 
species in the second flora. 
Yreliminary [Results and {discussion 
Floral Analysis 
When comparing the main groups of the vascular plants, a big difference was noted 
in some cases. For example, great differences were found between the number of species in 
the Hovsgol and Alaska regions. However, the number of the Pteridalis and Gymnospermae 
are almost the same and as for Angiospermae, the number of Dicots families and genera 
are almost identical. The total number of the vascular plant families is practically the same 
in both Hovsgol and Alaska. Nevertheless, the total number of the genera and species of 
vascular plants is different in both areas (Table 10.2). 
At the flora family level, the coefficient of similarity is the same (Ss=0.43) in both 
Hovsgol (90) and Alaska (89). The following table shows the coefficient of similarity of 
the main family of the vascular plants in Hovsgol and Alaska by selecting the flora mainly 
from Mongolia. 
According to the results in Table 10.3, within Mongolian and Alaskan flora, the 
following families are most likely similar at the genus level of comparison: Juncaceae, 
Fabaceae, Primulaceae, and Betulacaceae. In addition, Chenopodiaceae, Asteraceae, 
Fabaceae and Al/iaceae, the other families are somewhat similar at the genus level. 
The families Juncaceae and Orchidaceae are very similar in both regions at the species 
level. 
Over all, the subsequent nine families are very similar in Hovsgol and Alaska: 
Fabaceae, Cyperaceae, Caryophylaceae, Primulaceae, Poaceae, Betulaceae and Ericaceae. 
Here we did not include the Alliaceae family because there was only one species. Generally, 
Table 10.2. Comparison of the main groups of vascular plants. 
Main group Hovsgol Alaska 
Familv Genus Species Familv Genus Species 
Pteridalis 12 15 28 14 21 65 
Gymnospermae 3 6 8 3 9 15 
Angiospermae Monocots 18 58 213 14 102 443 
Dicots 57 225 665 58 280 1036 
Total vascular plants 90 305 914 89 412 1559 
ДІрше/Arctic plants 1 ^9 
Table 10.3. Comparison of the main families of vascular plants in Hovsgol and Alaska. 
Dominant families in Mongolian flora 
Coefficient similarity (Ss) 
Genus Species 
Astraceae 0.18 0.08 
Eabaceae 0.37 0.10 
Poaceae 0.27 0.13 
Rosaceae 0.25 0.15 
Brassicaceae 0.22 0.12 
Cyperaceae 0.36 0.17 
Ranunculaceae 0.24 0.15 
Chenopodaceae 0.15 0.07 
Lamiaceae 0.00 0.00 
Caryophy/aceae 0.35 0.16 
Strophulariceae 0.21 0.27 
Po/ygonaceae 0.20 0.10 
Apiaceae 0.30 0.05 
Salic aceae 0.33 0.13 
Alliaceae 0.50 0.10 
Boragnaceae 0.21 0.06 
Gentainaceae 0.23 0.13 
Orchidaceae 0.50 0.21 
Juncaceae 0.40 0.24 
Primulaceae 0.13 0.22 
Saxifragaceae 0.00 0.16 
PI um baginaceae 0.00 0.00 
the families were not similar at the species level of comparison; however, they were very 
similar in the genus level. Also 90% of them were similar in their number of genera and 
species. The fact that the majority of the plant genera in the Hovsgol region are also found 
in Alaska demonstrates that there might be some historical connection between the Asian 
and North American flora and vegetation. In this research study, 41 dominant genera of 
the Alaskan tundra were selected for comparison from the flora of the Arctic and Alpine. 
By looking at Table 10.4, within Mongolian and Alaskan tundra vegetation seven of the 
genera (Equisetum, Dryopteris, Botrychum, Eriophorum, Caltha, Oxycoccus and Arctous) 
were very similar in Hovsgol and Alaska although they were not particularly similar at 
the species level. In general, 30 of the 41 genera were similar in both Hovsgol and Alaska 
comparisons. Specially, the following genera have the most similar properties overall: 
seven genera from the Pteridalis tribe, three genera from the Cyperaceae and two genera 
each from the Ranunculaceae, Juncaceae and Ericaceae. 
Comparison of the Ericaceae family 
The Ericaceae family and its genera and species in Mongolian flora are only found 
in the Hovsgol tundra area. Specifically, there are 6 genera and 13 species of Ericaceae in 
the Mongolian flora and 5 genera and 11 species in HovsgoTs tundra and taiga. However, 
140 sendeehuu 
• Table 10.4. Coefficient of similarity (Ss) of the dominant genera in the Hovsgol tundra. 
(Note: the most similar genera have high values). 
The most similar genus 
Coefficient similarity (Ss) 
Mongolia-Alaska Hovsgol-Alaska 
Lycopodium 0.4 0.28 
Equisetum 0.47 0.46 
Botrichium 0.36 0.25 
Selaginella 0 0 
Dryopteris 0.5 0.4 
Cystopteris 0.4 0.4 
Woodsia 0.26 0.31 
Pinus 0 0 
Picea 0 0 
Abies 0 0 
Larix 0 0 
Agrostis 0.32 0.35 
Bromis 0 0 
Calamogrostis 0.15 0.12 
Festuca 0.16 0.15 
Hierochloe 0.33 0.33 
Poa sp 0.16 0.19 
Carex 0.17 0.15 
Eriophorum 0.37 0.3 
Kobresia 0.33 0.46 
Juncus 0.24 0.12 
Lusula 0.33 0.33 
Cypripedum 0.33 0.33 
Populus 0 0 
Salix 0.15 0.15 
Betula 0.18 0.17 
Polugonum 0 0 
Caltha 0.36 0.36 
Thalictrum 0.25 0.31 
Saxifraga 0.28 0.23 
Dryas 0 0 
Potentilla 0.16 0.23 
Rubus 0.3 0.3 
Arctuos 0.4 0.5 
Oxycoccus 0.4 0 
Rhododendron 0.22 0.22 
Vaccinium 0.25 0.27 
Primula 0.1 0.13 
Gentiana 0.13 0.15 
Artermisia 0.45 0.13 
Hieracium 0 0 
m /ДІріпе///Дгсііс plants 
from this family the genus Oxycoccus and species Vaccinium uliginosum are not yet found 
in Hovsgol. Arctous (1), Chamaedapime (1), Ledum (2), Rhododendrum (5), and Vaccinium 
(2) are found in the Hovsgol tundra, and the genera of the Ericaceae family are similar in 
Hovsgol, Central Siberia, and Alaska. (See Table 10.5, 10.6, and 10.7.) 
In the Hovsgol and Hangai mountain tundra areas, between N48-18’ and 51-43’ 
and E99-02’ to 106-08’, 0.3-3% of the land flora and vegetation exist according to tribe 
Erica/es's pollen analysis (Gunin 1999). This geographical location includes Hovsgol and 
its surrounding geographical area. 
During the expedition in 2002 we recorded a new genus and species from the 
Ericaceae family for the Mongolian flora family collected around the Jamso River 
boundary, Phyllodoce cocrullea (L) Bab. There are 3 species of Phy/Iodoce in Alaska, 
found mostly in the Arctic tundra. These species, which are characteristic of tundra are 
also found in Hovsgol’s neighboring regions, Central Siberia, and western Baikal Lake. 
From Eric Hulten’s (1974) circumpolar area map, we think there is a possibility of 
finding the following genera from the Ericaceae family in the Hovsgol region: Oxycoccus 
microcarpus, O.palustris, Andromeda polifolia L, Arctostaphylos uva-ursi, A.rubra, and 
Table 10.5. Comparison of the genus Ericaceae in Hovsgol and Alaska by coefficient of 
similarity. 
Hovsgol Alaska 
Genera Species Genera Species 
5 11 14 37 
Both Sites 
Genus Species 
4 6 
Coefficient Similarity (Ss) 
0.24 0.17 
Names of the species in both areas: Ledum decumbens, L.caliculata, Vaccinium 
uliginosum, Rhododendron sp, Chameadephne sp, Vaccinium vidis-idaea 
Table 10.6: Comparison of the genus Ericaceae in Hovsgol and Central Siberia by coef¬ 
ficient of similarity. 
Hovsgol Central Siberia 
Genus Species Genus Species 
5 11 10 20 
Both Sites 
Genus Species 
4 8 
Coefficient Similarity (Ss) 
0.40 0.34 
Names of the species in both areas: Ledum decumbens, L. calulata, Vaccinium 
uliginosum, Rhododendron adamsii, Rh. aureum, Rh. parvifolium, Arctous alpine, 
Chameadephne calculata. 
142 f” sendeehuu 
Table 10.7: Comparison of the genus Ericaceae in Alaska and Central Siberia by 
coefficient of similarity 
Alaska Central Siberia 
Genus Species Genus Species 
14 37 8 14 
Both Sites 
Genus Species 
9 12 
Coefficient Similarity (Ss) 
0.41 0.26 
Names of the species in both areas: Ledum decumbens, L. palustre, Vaccinium 
uliginosum, Rhododendron parvifolium, Chameadephne ca/ycu/ata, Vaccinium vidis- 
idaea, Arctostaphylos uva-ursi, Oxycoccuspalustris, Ox. Microcarpus, Andromedia 
polifolia, Cassiope tetragona, Phyllodoce coerulea. 
Azalea procumbans. It is recommended that this be considered in future research. 
By comparing the coefficient similarities of some of the Hovsgol and Alaskan flora 
elements, we conclude that the genera and species of the families in Hovsgol, Central 
Siberia, and Alaska are similar and that they became part of the tundra flora after the 
period of glaciation, even though many changes occurred within this circumpolar flora 
after this time. 
A Preliminary Analysis of Reindeer Food Plants in the Hovsgol Tundra Region 
In the tundra region, 10%-50% of the food plants eaten by reindeer consist of lichen. 
Amounts of lichen eaten by reindeer per day is shown in the Table 10.8. 
Table 10.8. Average amount of lichen eaten by reindeer per day calculated by the 
Andreyev method (1956) 
Seasons Beginning and finishing date in Hovsgol tundra Lichen, kilogram/ha 
Summer June 25-August 20 0.5-1.2 
Autumn August 20-October 25 2.4-3.6 
Winter October 25-April 20 3.7-4.6 
Spring April 20-June 25 2.7-3.6 
Table 10.9. Plants grazed by Reindeer. 
Hovsgol Alpine Tundra Summer time Winter time 
Vascular plants 
Family 19 5 
Genera 36 5 
Species 56 8 
Lichen (dominated by 
Cladonia, Cetraria, and 
Pel tiger a) 
Genera 6 5 
Species 22 50 
Mushroom Genera 5 - 
/^Ipine/f\rct\c plants І4) 
We strongly recommend further research on the pasture capacity of reindeer 
rangeland and the year-round diet selection of the reindeer. We also recommend the 
continued study of the effects of reindeer grazing on lichen community populations 
(DePriest 2003). 
Table 10.10 Pasture Capacity of Reindeer Rangeland, ha/100 Reindeer. 
Season Winter Early spring Late spring Summer Early autumn Late autumn 
Tundra 10-20 10-20 30-50 18-40 20-40 14-20 
Forest 
tundra 
10-15 10-15 30-50 18-25 20-40 14-20 
Table 10.11. Productivity of tundra plants widely grazed by reindeer in summer pastures 
(Hovsgol, Tsaatan summer camp, Menge Bulag, 2001) by V.B. Andrew. 
100kg/ha Willows Birch Herb Sedge Grass Lichen Total Pasture type 
Birch-lichen- 
herb-moss 
- 11.0 9.0 - - 22.0 33.9 
Herb-sedge-stf//x 2.2 - 7.6 7.5 0.7 - 18.0 
Sedge-herb- 
heavily grazed - - 6.6 8.5 - - 15.1 
Sedge-grass-herb- 
salix 2.2 - 9.9 10 
- 22.1 
Birch-salix-lichen- 
herb 7.0 7.0 1.6 - - 16.5 25.2 
Lichen - - - - - 19.0 19.0 
144 T~ sendeehuu 
Table 10.12. Diet selection of the reindeer in their summer pasture (Menge Bulag, 
summer camp), July 2001 (Note: + is degree of pasture selection). 
Lichens and Mosses 
Cladonia ++++ 
Stereocaulon + 
Leafy moss 0 
Willows & Birch 
Salix ++++ 
Salix dwarf ++++ 
Be tula rotundifolia ++++ 
Caltha sp +++ 
Polygonum sp +++ 
Pedicularis sp +++ 
Polygonum viviparum ++ 
Flowering plants Gentiana grandiflora ++ 
From Compositae + 
Ranunculus sp + 
Potentilla sp 0 
From Apiaceae 0 
Trollius 0 
Myosetes 0 
Allium sphaenophragum 0 
Sedge and Grass 
Carex ++ 
Bromus/Festuca + 
Ad< nowledgments 
I would like to thank following project members who collaborated in the 
expedition: William Fitzhugh, Director of the Deer Stone Project; Steve Young, Director 
of the Center of Northern Studies; Paula DePriest and J. Oyunbileg, the lichen specialist. 
I would also like to than ARC/KFAS at the National University of Mongolia for support 
of our field research. 
Contact address: Ts.Tsendeehuu, National University of Mongolia, Department of Botany 
Faculty of Biology, P.O.Box 767, Ulaanbaatar, 210646, Mongolia; e-mail: tsendjiuu@ 
yahoo.com. 
уДІріпе//^retie plants 
Figure 10.1. Areas covered in the research study. Bordered areas in bold mark 
vegetation of alpine/tundra region. 
Figure 10.2. Area where the Jamso River originates and where Phyllodoce coerulla 
grows. 
sendeehuu 
Figure 10.3. Phyllodoce coerulla, the new 
species of Mongolian flora. 
Figure 10.5. Caragana jubata, relic vegetation from the period of glaciation, near the 
Evt Mountain pass, 2002. 
/\lpine//\rctic plants 147 
Figure 10.6 (left). Allium altaicum L, relic 
vegetation from the period of glaciation. 
Figure 10.7 (top). Ledum palustre, 
vegetation found in taiga while flowering. 
Figure 10.8. Rhodendron 
aureum, a rare plant in 
the taiga, near Uhert 
Mountain pass, 2001. 
Figure 10.9. Adonis 
mongolica, a rare plant 
species found in the 
forest taiga, near Toom 
Mountain pass, 2001. 
1+5 f~ sendeehuu 
Figure 10.10. Equisetum, a main diet plant 
eaten by reindeer, called by Tsaatan, jaad. 
Figure 10.11. Bayandalai’s wife Tsetsgee, with her son, 2002. 
/\lpine//\rctic plants 1 4^ 
Figure 10.12. Steven Young with Mongolian students at Tsaatan camp at Menge Bulag, 
2001. 
Figure 10.13. Summer tundra pasture at Menge Bulag, 2001. 
\ JO ~]~sendeehuu 
preferences 
Batraeva А. А, В. I. Ivelskaya, L. I. Malishev, and 
M. B. Frolova, 1976. Plant Cover: Contents 
of Flora, Volume 6: Natural conditions and 
resources of the Hovsgol basin. Moscow: Nedra, 
114-161 (in Russian). 
Dariimaa, Sh., 2003. AstraceaeDumont, Mongolia, 
Avtoreferat, DSc, St. Petersburg, 60 (in 
Russian). 
DePriest, Paula T., 2002. Reindeer, Reindeer 
Lichens, and Reindeer Herding: Systematics for 
Cultural Survival. In Field Report and Project 
Description, Arctic Studies Center, National 
Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian 
Institution, Washington DC. 
Fitzhugh, William W., 2004. Project goals and field 
work. In 2003 Hovsgol Deer Stone Project Field 
Report. Arctic Studies Center, National Museum 
of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, 
Washington DC, 6-7. 
Fukarek, Franz, 1982. Pflanzenwelt der Erde, Vol 
1. Moscow: Mir, 64-72 (in Russian). 
Gubanov, I. A., 1996. Conspect Flora of Outer 
Mongolia (Vascular Plants). Moscow: Valang, 
132 (in Russian). 
Grubov, В. I., 1982. Key to the vascular plants of 
Mongolia. Leningrad, 441 (in Russian). 
Gunin, P. D., et ah, 1999. Vegetation Dynamics 
of Mongolia. W. Kluwer Academy Publishers, 
181-182. 
Hilbig, W., 1995. The Vegetation of Mongolia. 
Academy Publishers, 253. 
Hulten, Eric, 1974. Flora of Alaska and Neighboring 
Territories: A manual of Vascular Plants. 
California: Stanford University Press, 1008. 
Ivelskaya, В, I, L. I. Malishev, and M. B. Phrolova, 
1979. Analysis of the flora of the Hovsgol basin. 
In Natural condition and resource of Hovsgol 
basin. Irkutsk-Ulaanbaatar, 67-60 (in Russian). 
Jamsran, Ts, and J. Oyuntsetseg, 1995. The study 
of flora and vegetation of Hovsgol and its basin. 
In Resources and natural conditions of Hovsgol. 
Ulaanbaatar, 50-66 (in Mongolian). 
Lim, Mousang, and N.Altansuk, trans., eds., 1996. 
Vegetation Map of Mongolia. NIAST, 19-20. 
Martin, Kent, and Paddy Coker, 1992. Vegetation 
description and analysis. Exeter: Shot Run 
Press, 91-92. 
n.a., 1989. Lake Hovsgol Atlas. Ulaanbaatar, 30-31 
(in Mongolian and Russian). 
n.a., 1979. Flora of Central Siberia, Volume 2. 
Siberian Branch of the Soviet Academy of 
Sciences, Novosibirsk (in Russian). 
Oyumaa, J., 2001. Wildjlowers of Northern 
Mongolia. Ulaanbaatar: Admon, 46. 
Pavlov, N. B., ed., 1964. Flora of Kazakstan. Alma- 
Ata: Kazakstan Academy of Science, 16-23 (in 
Russian). 
Tsendeehuu, Ts., 1995. The study of restoration of the 
historical range of Hippaphae rhamnoides L.ssp. 
mongolica Rousi. In Natural Conditions and 
Resources of the Hovsgol Basin. Ulaanbaatar: 
Mongolia, 67-72 (in Mongolian). 
Tsogt, U., 1976. Lichens of the soil in Hovsgol. In 
Structure and dynamics of the main ecosystems 
in the MPR, Vol 8. Leningrad, 17-34 (in 
Russian). 
_, 1991. Sustainable use of lichen pastures. 
Ulaanbaatar, 87 (in Mongolian). 
Ulziihutag N., 1989. Present state of flora in 
Mongolia. Ulaanbaatar, 189 (in Mongolian). 
Young, Steven B., 1994. To The Arctic: Introduction 
to the Northern World. New York: John Wiley 
and Sons, 183-206, 306-319. 
_, 2003. Notes on Environmental and Geobotanical 
Investigations in Northern Mongolia and their 
Relationship to Questions of the Late Pleistocene 
Mammoth Steppe. In The Hovsgol Deer Stone 
Project, 2001-2002 Field Report. Washington: 
Arctic Studies Center, 17-21. 
/\Іріпе/У\retie plants 1Я 
Mongolian /\bstract 
Хѳвсгѳл аймгийн тайгын бус дэх туйлын ургамлын зарим 
харьцуулсан судалгаа 
Ц.Цэндээхуу 
МУИС-ийн Биологийн тэнхэмийн Ургамал судлалын хэлтэс 
Улаанбаатар, Монгол 
Бид 2001-2002 онуудад 'Reindeer herders, global change, and the prehistory 
of Hubsugul Province, northern Mongolia' (W. Fitzhugh, S. Young) тѳслийн багт 
ажиллаж Мѳрѳн-Улаан уул-Соёо-Мэнгэ булаг-Цагаан уул-Мѳрѳн замаар 
экспедицийн хээрийн судалгаанд оролцсон, мѳн 2000 онд Хатгал суурингаас 
Хорьдил Сарьдагийн ѳндѳр уулын тундрт (protected area) ургамлын цуглуулга 
хийж тодорхойлох ажлыг мориор аялж гуйцэтгэсэн юм. Эдгээр судалгаанд 
ботаник, флорын судалгааг ихэнхдээ ой тундрын бусэд явуулсан. 
Смитсоны Хурээлэн, Ундэсний Байгалийн Туухийн Музей, Туйл 
Судлалын Тѳвѳѳс Монголд явуулж буй хамтарсан тѳсѳлд Умард Монголын 
Хѳвсгѳл мужийн байгаль орчин, соёл, археологи, уур амьсгал, ургамал судлалын 
ѳнгѳрсѳн туух ѳнѳѳгийн байдлыг умардын (circumpolar north) судлал, Арктикийн 
экосистемтэй холбож судлах асуудлыг дэвшуулсэн нь бидний анхаарлыг 
татсан. 
Монголын ургамал газар зуйн 16 тойргийн нэг нь болох Хѳвсгѳлийн уул 
тайгийн ургамлын аймаг, ургамалжилтийг (flora and vegetation) орос монголын 
судлаачид нилээд судалсан боловч Сибирь, Зуун хойд Ази, Номхон далайн умард 
хэсэгт туухэн талаас нь холбож харьцуулаагуй, барууны эрдэмтэдтэй хамтарсан 
ажил байхгуй байна. Ийм учраас Хѳвсгѳл орчмын ботаник, фитогеографын 
судалгаа ба туухын асуудлыг Умардын судлалтай холбож узэх санаа тѳрсѳн 
юм. 
Иймээс Хѳвсгѳлийн уул тайга тундрын ботаникийн судалгааг Сибирь ба 
Аляскийн Арктикийн флортой харьцуулж узсэн анхны оролдогыг энэ ѳгуулэлд 
тусгасан болно. Харьцуулсан анализын ур дунд Хѳвсгѳл ба Аляскийн гуурст 
ургамлын овгийн тоо бараг адил 90 ба 89, тѳсѳѳтэй коэффициент нь 0.42, эдгээрээс 
хос талт ургамлын тоо мѳн адил (57 ба 57) байна. Монголын флорт хамгийн олон 
зуйл агуулсан 23 том овгоос 26% нь Аляскийн флортой тѳстэй байна. 
Альп/Арктикийн тундрт тугээмэл тархдаг 22 овгийн 41 тѳрлѳѳс Хѳвсгѳл 
ба Аляскт 16 тѳрѳл нь тѳстэй (Ss - 0.3-0.5) эдгээрээс Eguisetum, Dryoptris, 
Botrychum, Eriophorium, Azctous, Caltha (Ss =0.5) хамгийн их тѳстэй, Монголын 
Егасасеае овог нь бараг бутнээрээ Хѳвсгѳлийн ургамал газар зуйн тойрогт 
тохиолдох бѳгѳѳд энэ овог нь Тѳв Сибирь ба Алясктай тѳсѳѳтэй байна. 
Экспедицын явцад туе овгоос Phylodoce coerulea зуйлийг Монголын флорт 
шинээр олж тэмдэглэсэн . Дээрх узуулэлт нь плейстоцены хожуу мѳетлѳгийн 
дараа Хѳвсгѳл, Сибирь, Аляскийн тэр уеийн ургамлууд адилхан хээр тундрын 
хэв шинжтэй байсныг харуулж байна. Харин голоцейны уед ихээхэн ялгаа гарсан 
нь тодорхой юм. 
152 
Modern Vegetatiion of the j“jovsgoi Region of 
M°ng°i|a: АГ ossible 1СеЧ t° the f?emise of the |ce 
Age M am moth ^teppe of the /\rct\c 
Steven B. Young 
Center for Northern Studies 
Sterling College, Vermont 
Introduction 
Beringia is the name given by paleoecologists to unglaciated Alaska, easternmost 
Siberia, and the emergent sea bed of the northern Bering Sea and Chukchi Sea during glacial 
ages. At the peak of the last glaciation, some 20,000 years ago, sea levels were lowered by 
as much as 125 meters, exposing a land connection between the continents that may have 
been as much as 1,300 kilometers wide at its narrowest. It is widely accepted that this land 
connection, which was closing for the last time some 12,000 to 10,000 years ago, was the 
route by which humans first entered the New World. The exact timing and location of the 
first human migrations to the Americas is still problematic, as is the identity of the people 
involved, and of their precursors on the Asian side. Whoever the first Americans were 
(even if they arrived by some route other than Beringia, as some workers have proposed) 
there were people in Beringia by the end of the Pleistocene at the latest, and there can be 
little doubt that they were important contributors to the early Holocene populations of the 
Americas. 
The biotic environment of late Pleistocene Beringia was apparently largely based 
on an array of vegetation formations which have no modern counterpart. The ancient 
ecosystems of the area are often collectively known as the ‘mammoth steppe.’ This term is 
indicative both of the belief that the ancient Beringian landscape was dominated by some 
form of a snortgrass prairie, and that at least one of the dominant large herbivores was the 
now extinct wooly mammoth. The mammoth steppe is, of course, interesting in its own 
right, but especially so because it must may have provided the basis for the livelihood of 
the hunter-gatherers who shortly thereafter spread southward through the Americas. 
There are many questions about the nature of the mammoth steppe, and about 
its demise and replacement by a modem, array of mainly tundra ecosystems in the late 
Pleistocene/early Holocene. Two of the most important of these can be articulated as 
follows: 
1. Was the mammoth steppe a highly productive environment, capable of 
supporting large populations of herbivores, or was it more like modem ‘polar 
desert’? 
2. What was the process of the breakdown of the mammoth steppe in the late 
Pleistocene? 
These questions have been subject to much investigation (e. g. Hopkins, et al. 
1982, West, 1996, Guthrie, 1990, Elias and Brigham-Grette, 2001.) While no definitive 
answers have emerged, the most plausible scenarios have resulted from a synthesis of 
paleontological data, especially pollen, insects, and large mammals, and by comparisons 
with modem ecosystems which are considered to be at least partially analogous to the 
ancient conditions. 
In recent years there has been increasing recognition that Beringia, rather than being 
a centrally located refugium in the late Pleistocene Arctic, was actually more the extreme 
end of an ecological region that extended across Eurasia from Beringia to Eastern Europe. 
This entire area supported only local glaciation, in contrast to North America, whose 
northern half was almost totally covered with ice. One outgrowth of this awareness has 
been the recognition that modem ‘analogues’ to the ancient mammoth steppe might best 
be sought in interior Asia, rather than necessarily within Beringia itself. However, a search 
for relict mammoth steppe or steppe analogues in Siberia, the apparently logical place for 
it to occur, appears to be fruitless, since most of the lowlands of Siberia lie within the zone 
of extensive larch forest. It seems to be counter-intuitive to suggest that a mammoth steppe 
analogue might occur to the south of the Siberian forest. But I suggest that the closest 
modem equivalent of mammoth steppe lies in central Asia, and that the cold steppes and 
uplands of northern Mongolia may hold several keys to an increased understanding of 
the Pleistocene environment of Beringia. In the remainder of this paper, I shall explore 
several lines of evidence in support of this suggestion. I hope to show that some of the 
major questions regarding Beringia might be at least partially answered by research in 
Mongolia. This should be regarded as being a preliminary report and a suggestion for an 
array of investigations that might throw considerable light on the environment of the late 
Pleistocene high latitude unglaciated regions. 
The Keg ion 
I shall be discussing primarily the Hovsgol region, which is the northernmost 
province of Mongolia. It lies at roughly 50 degrees North Latitude, immediately south of the 
border with Russia. This is a mountainous region, with peaks reaching over 3,000 meters. 
On the eastern side lies Lake Hovsgol, a large, deep, and ancient lake whose surface is at 
about 1,600 meters above sea level. Parallel to the Lake Hovsgol valley and lying to the 
west, the Darkhat Valley contains several smaller lakes but is currently mostly dry, with 
the valley floor at roughly 1,500 meters. The Darkhat Valley and the mountains to the west 
and south are the main locations of the observations discussed here. 
Climatic data has been gathered for several decades in the Hovsgol area. The most 
representative of the study area are Rinchinilhumbe, in the Darkhat Valley, Hatgal, on the 
south shore of Lake Hovsgol, and Muren, some 150 km to the south of Lake Hovsgol. The 
temperature regimes of the northern stations are comparable to those found in northwestern 
1 54 Young 
Alaska. Mean annual temperature is far below freezing, summers are short and cool, and 
winters intensely cold. Given the cold temperatures, it is not surprising that permafrost is 
widespread and generally continuous. However, frost soil features are relatively rare and 
subtle. The most conspicuous are open system pingos and related features, most of which 
are currently rapidly degrading. Although the temperature regime is comparable to that of 
some Arctic areas, the precipitation is radically different, not so much in overall amount, but 
in distribution throughout the year. Precipitation falls almost entirely during the summer. 
Annual snowfall is minimal; local drivers say that they can usually drive jeeps across the 
steppe throughout the winter. Grazing animals survive with only minimal supplemental 
feeding. Disastrous loss of stock, such as occurred in the winter of 2000-2001, is generally 
associated with unusually heavy snowfalls, which can bury foods sources too deeply for 
them to be utilized by steppe-adapted grazers such as horses and cattle. Summer rainfall can 
be heavy at times and usually causes high productivity of the steppe graminoids, assuring 
the availability of dried fodder in winter. 
The Hovsgol climatic stations are all located in valley floors (1,000-1,500 m.) 
There is no data available from the nearby mountainous areas, whose peaks reach above 
3,500 meters. Although there are areas that indicate former local glaciation (especially the 
mountains between the Darkhat and Hovsgol valleys,) most of the uplands are rolling, with 
fairly gentle slopes. They appear similar to the Tanana uplands of Central Alaska, and have 
obviously never supported extensive glaciers, at least in the later Pleistocene. 
The current climatic regime of the upland steppes of northern Mongolia can 
plausibly be equated with the climate of late Pleistocene Beringia, or, at least, its southern 
portions. On an annual basis, the ancient Beringian climate would have been colder than that 
of Beringian remnants such as the Yukon Kuskokwim Delta today. It also would have been 
much more continental. Short, comparatively warm summers would have been followed 
by long, frigid winters with generally light precipitation. The aridity of the winters would 
have been exacerbated by the freezing of the adjacent sea, which would have provided a 
moisture source during the summer months. 
The vegetation of the valley floor of the Darkhat Valley is mainly a shortgrass steppe 
composed of sedges (especially Kobresia species) grasses, and drought-tolerant forbs. 
River valleys and many north-facing slopes support stands of larch forest. The slopes of 
the surrounding mountains are generally forested, but with extensive areas of steppe on 
ridgetops and some valley floors. This mixed vegetation gives way to an alpine zone at 
about 2,200 to 2,400 meters elevation. The alpine zone is utilized as summer pasturage for 
reindeer, as well as horses, goats, and cattle. It is remarkably different in aspect from the 
nearby steppe. In many areas the soils appear to be saturated throughout the summer months, 
and much of the vegetation is similar to wet tundra in arctic regions. Better drained areas 
are dominated by extensive stands of dwarf birch (Betula narta/glandulosa). They appear 
similar to the extensive birch-dominated uplands of much of interior Alaska. Judging by 
the extensive snowbeds that remain through much of the summer, snowfall must be much 
higher in the alpine zone than on the nearby steppe. In addition, there is often extensive 
cloud cover during the summer, which obviously reduces evaporation and transpiration. 
Mod ern Vegetation i 55 
~[~he f*roductivitL) Paradox 
The question of the productivity of the mammoth steppe has been a source of 
controversy for several decades. Palynological data from Beringia can be interpreted as 
suggesting that the vegetation was sparse (e.g. Ritchie and Cwynar, 1982) and comparable 
to modern high Arctic situations. Mammalian paleontologists (e. g. Guthrie, 1982, 1990) 
claim that the evidence supports the presence of numerous large herbivores, such as bison, 
horses, and mammoth, in Beringia throughout the later Pleistocene. 
If the climate of the Hovsgol region of Mongolia is at all comparable to that of Ice 
Age Beringia, it is clear that the area was capable of supporting a complex, productive, 
steppe vegetation. Currently, the Darkhat Valley supports domestic herds of sheep, goats, 
camels, yaks, cattle, and horses. Knowledgeable people have suggested that the total number 
of large herbivores in the valley may be on the order of 100,000, in a land area of roughly 
10,000 square kilometers. While there is some supplemental feeding in the form of hay 
harvested during summer, most animals apparently derive most of their sustenance from 
grazing on the open steppe in both summer and winter. As I mentioned above, the weak 
point in the annual life cycle seems result from unusually heavy snowfall. 
Domestic animals currently in the Darkhat Valley are roughly comparable to the 
large herbivores of the Beringian mammoth steppe. Horses are common to both ecosystems, 
and yaks and cattle of the Darkhat would be equivalent to bison in Beringia. Wild sheep 
would not have been as prominent in the mammoth steppe as sheep and goats are in the 
Darkhat, and mammoths, of course, are long gone. Reindeer, mostly domesticated, but with 
a few small wild herds, occur only in the uplands during summer. In winter the domestic 
reindeer are brought down to lower levels, where they feed on lichens in the forest. 
We can expect that the biomass of wild herbivores that would occur in a ‘natural’ 
Darkhat Valley would be less than under the current animal husbandry regime. Even if 
the total biomass were reduced by an order of magnitude, the valley would provide a rich 
hunting ground for an advanced hunter-gatherer society. If the modem steppe of northern 
Mongolia is in any way comparable to the mammoth steppe, there is no question that the 
ancient environment of Beringia would be capable of supporting a significant population 
of humans who relied heavily on big game animals. 
1 be fYeringian (f>rcb 7one1 
Virtually every palynological study conducted in Beringia whose time frame extends 
back into the late glacial shows a radical change in the pollen rain some 13,000 to 14,000 
years ago. Previous to that time, the pollen rain is dominated by Gramineae (grasses) 
and Cyperaceae (sedges.) There is often a strong admixture of Artemisia (sagebrush and 
many related species) and willow pollen. Interestingly, a few groups not normally found in 
arctic tundra occur regularly, although in small quantities. The most important of these is 
Chenopodiaceae, the family that contains goosefoot, tumbleweed, and a number of other 
species often found in temperate, semi-arid, or saline conditions. In the late glacial, these 
Young 
pollen sources are overwhelmed by a dramatic rise in birch pollen. The ‘birch high’ usually 
lasts for several thousand years, whereupon, in Alaska, it is often modified by a major rise 
in spruce pollen, signifying the reforestation of the lowlands beginning 11,000 to 8,000 
years ago. 
The birch rise is usually interpreted as a response to the warming of the climate in 
late glacial times. According to this view, the cold, unproductive ‘high arctic’ vegetation 
of full-glacial Beringia was replaced by a Tow arctic’ tundra dominated by scrub birch 
as the climate warmed. In some areas, this was further modified, or became boreal forest, 
with the return of spruce. This view, of course, conforms with the Tow productivity’ side 
of the productivity paradox. 
We can hypothesize that the birch-dominated alpine zone in the mountains in 
northern Mongolia is a reasonable analogue to the vegetation of the birch zone of late glacial 
Beringia. Similarly, there is good reason to suggest that the cold steppe of areas such as 
the Darkhat Valley floor and slopes are analogous to the mammoth steppe. The problem, 
of course, is that the Mongolian steppe lies at a lower elevation, and thus, apparently, 
under a warmer climatic regime than does the alpine birch scrub. How can this be squared 
with the assumption that birch scrub replaced mammoth steppe in Beringia as the climate 
became warmer? 
This is not as difficult a problem to reconcile as it first appears. It is easy to make 
the assumption that a wanning climate would result in longer, warmers summers, and 
that this would favor scrub growth over ‘tundra.’ However, we need to keep in mind that 
a warming climate, if it occurs during a time of major inundation of adjacent land areas 
by the rising seas, is also bound to become a more maritime climate. This would result 
in less difference between winter and summer climates. Thus, an overall warming trend 
may actually be reflected in cooler summers. This is not only a matter of ambient air 
temperatures, but also would reflect changes in precipitation and cloud cover. Warmer, 
more humid winters would result in increased snowfall. Deep drifts could be expected to 
lie long into the summer, inhibiting plant growth, decreasing depth of the active layer, and 
providing a source of excess surface soil moisture. This situation would be exacerbated by 
increased cloud cover, which would lower soil temperature and alter melt regimes. 
According to this scenario, then, the birch rise may be due to an overall climatic 
amelioration which, nonetheless, results in the dissolution of a comparatively productive 
steppe into a colder (in the summer,) wetter ‘tundra’ environment. We can also note here 
that the transformation from steppe to birch scrub could be detrimental to many steppe 
animals, even if there were no net loss of productivity. Scrub birch is highly resinous 
and rich in compounds that reduce its attractiveness, and its nutritional value, to grazing 
herbivores. Furthermore, the increased snowfall might make such nutritious plants as 
remained unavailable during the winter months, which are obviously a critical time for 
grazing herbivores. 
The hypothesis outline here accords well with a solution to the problem of the 
extiipation or extinction of the late glacial large herbivore fauna of Beringia. The loss of 
large and important herbivores such as bison and horses could be plausibly attributed to 
M°dern Vegetation 1 ?7 
the loss to steppe habitat to birch scrub and to the rising seas. A number of less dominant 
steppe species, such as saiga antelope, also vacated the area in the late Pleistocene. Many of 
these species currently occur wild in Mongolia or, like Prezwalski’s horse, were eliminated 
in historical times. This suggestion, does not, of course, remove the possibility that hunting 
pressure from humans was partially implicated in the demise of the mammals, especially 
if their populations were already under pressure from habitat loss. 
The continued presence of reindeer in the Mongolian uplands also fits well with the 
above scenario. Caribou (which belong to the same species as reindeer) are the dominant 
herbivore in the birch scrub environment of interior Alaska. They have reached this status 
after having been a less important component of the large herbivore fauna of the later 
Pleistocene in Beringia. Reindeer in Mongolia appear to be confined to the birch scrub of 
the uplands, at least during the summer. 
for urtb er Research 
The general scenario I have outlined here is a plausible fit for the information that 
has been developed regarding the nature of the late glacial Beringian environment. To 
provide support for or alternatives to this hypothesis, several lines of research immediately 
suggest themselves. A short, and by no means exhaustive, list of these follows. In some 
cases, work of this sort may have been initiated by Mongolian and Russian scientists, but 
the literature has not been available to me. 
1. Compare the flora of the cold steppes and alpine regions of northern Mongolia 
with that of northern and western Alaska. 
2. Begin genetic studies on plants common to Beringia and Northern Mongolia 
to determine the closeness of relationship. 
3. Attempt to obtain and analyze pollen cores penetrating to late Pleistocene times 
in Mongolia. 
4. Review the late Pleistocene and early Holocene fossil record for large herbivores 
in Mongolia. 
5. Search for and analyze exposures of buried soils and peat for late Quaternary 
fossils of plant material and insect parts. 
1. Comparing Floras 
The taxonomic work on the alpine flora of Mongolia has mainly followed Russian 
methods and traditions. Considerable work needs to be done to begin to clarify the 
relationships between taxonomic groups that may have different names in the Mongolian 
literature, and which may have been defined by different species concepts. 
2. Genetic Studies 
Modern studies of plant DNA can often provide powerful data on the degree of 
relationship between populations within a single, widespread species. This can provide 
insight into the migration patterns of populations of plants during and since the glacial 
periods and on migration pathways and refugia. It would be valuable to initiate studies 
of this type on species which are clearly common to the two areas of concern, and 
which are important members of the present or past ecosystem of each area. Examples 
are: several Kobresia, Carex, and Eriophorum species, Betula (dwarf birch,) several 
Saxifraga species, and Rhododendron lapponicum/parvifolium. 
3. Pollen Studies 
The late Quaternary pollen record of Beringia, especially eastern Beringia (Alaska- 
Yukon) is fairly well known. Comparison of the pollen history of northern Mongolia to 
these studies would yield information on the degree of similarity of the ecosystems of 
the two areas over long periods of time. 
4. Mammalian Paleontological Records 
I have been unable to review such literature as may be available in Mongolian 
and Russian regarding the late Pleistocene fossil fauna of northern Mongolia. It would 
be desirable to search the literature, as well as to continue to search for new fossil 
locations. 
5. Buried Soils and Peat Deposits 
Because permafrost is extensive and is rapidly degrading in northern Mongolia, 
there should be many recent exposures of ancient soils. These should provide opportunities 
to identify and date fossil material such as buried wood, other plant megafossils, insect 
parts, and other material, such as rodent teeth. The same material might be found in 
archaeological sites, and would be particularly important if sites of Upper Paleolithic or 
Mesolithic age should be found. 
Research such as described above should, of course, be conducted in close 
consultation with similar continuing investigations in Alaska and eastern and Central Russia, 
as well as other parts of Mongolia and such relatively unknown regions such as Kazakhstan. 
Since much of Asia was relatively ice-free during the latest Pleistocene glaciations, the 
entire region has great potential for increasing our understanding of the late stages of the 
Pleistocene and the genesis of our modem, Holocene environment. 
preferences 
Elias, S. A., and J. Brigham Grette, 2001. Beringian 
Paleoenvironments: Festschrift in Honour of D. 
M. Hopkins. Quaternary Science Reviews 20. 
Guthrie, R. D., 1982. Mammals in the Mammoth 
Steppe as Paleoenvironmental Indicators. In 
Hopkins, et al., 1982. 
Guthrie, R. D., 1990. Frozen Fauna of the Mammoth 
Steppe: The Story of Blue Babe. University of 
Chicago Press, Chicago. 
Hopkins, D. M., J. V. Matthews, Jr., С. E. 
Schweger, and S. B. Young, 1982. Paleoecology 
of Beringia. New York: Academic Press. 
Ritchie, J. C., and L. C. Cwynar. The Late 
Quaternary Vegetation of the North Yukon. In 
Hopkins, et al., 1982. 
West, F. H., 1996. A merican Beginnings: The 
Preshitory and Paleoecology of Beringia. 
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 
Modern Vegetation 1 59 
Mongolian /\bstract 
Монголии Хѳвсгѳлийн бусийн ургамалжилтын ѳнѳѳгийн байдал: 
Арктикийн Мѳстлѳгийн суун тэжээлтний нутаглаж байсан газрын 
нууцыг тайлах боломжит тулхуур 
Стивин Б Яан 
Хойд Судлалын Тѳв 
Монголии хойд хэсгийн Хѳвсгѳлийн бусийн хуйтэн хэсэг нь цаг агаарын 
хувьд Беринг гэж нэрлэгддэг Берингийн Хоолойн Плейстоцений хожуу Уеийн 
зарим хэсэгтэй адил тѳстэй байдаг. Хѳвсгѳлийн бусэд судалгаа хийх нь Хойд 
Америкийн баруун тийш чиглэсэн хумуусийн анхны нуудэлтэй холбоотой 
Беринг орчмын байгаль экологийн талаарх асуултуудад хариулт авах чухал ач 
холбогдолтой юм. Хѳвсгѳлийн бусийн ѳндѳрлѳг хэсэг нь одоо устаж угуй болсон 
суун тэжээлтний нутагладаг байсан Берингийн газартай адил тѳстэй шинжийг 
агуулж болох бѳгѳѳд суун тэжээлтний нутаг нь их хэмжээгээр амьдарч байсан 
талын ѳвсѳн тэжээлтний талаар мэдэх боломжийг олгож болох юм. Далайн 
тувшнээс ѳндѳрлѳг хэсэгт орших альп тундрын бутлаг хус мод ѳргѳн хэмжээгээр 
тархсан нутаг нь суун тэжээлтний нутаг нь хэрхэн шим тэжээл муутай бутлаг 
газраар солигдсон талаар тайлбар ѳгѳх бас боломжтой юм. Плейстоцений 
тѳгсгѳл уед устаж угуй болсон Берингийн аварга биет суун тэжээлтний тѳрѳл 
зуйлийн тайлагдаагуй нууцыг тайлбарлах чухал хэрэглуур болох боломжтой. 
Steven Young in upland steppe on the west side of Lake Hovsgol. (photo: Fitzhugh) 
Yart 2 
Workshop 3 ummanes 
Museum studies workshop a the National Museum of Mongolian History, (photo: Hunt) 
Harriet F. Beaubien 
Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and Education 
Smithsonian Institution 
Introduction 
The Joint Mongolian-American Deer Stone Project organized the first in what is 
hoped to be a series of annual symposia. Held 2-4 June 2004 in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, there 
were approximately 50 attendees, primarily Mongolian professionals from various research 
institutes and museums in Ulaanbaatar. The Smithsonian Institution was represented by 
nine professionals, representing the National Museum of Natural History’s Anthropology, 
Botany and Exhibits Departments, the Office of Exhibits Central, and the Center for 
Materials Research and Education. 
Two days of professional papers were delivered by Smithsonian and Mongolian 
researchers carrying out various anthropological and botanical projects in Mongolia; these 
sessions were held in a large classroom at the National University. The third day (4 June 
2004) was a more practical workshop day, with two concurrent sessions. One workshop 
introduced participants to GIS archaeological survey techniques. The other workshop, 
held at the National Museum of Mongolian History, focused on collections management 
and museum conservation issues, including the process of making molds and casts of 
objects. 
Museum (Conservation and (Collections Managerr|ent 
A collection is a group of specimens or objects. It can represent the materials 
recovered from a specific expedition or can comprise an entire inventory held by an 
institution. At the heart of collections care is the recognition that the value of each individual 
item resides, first and foremost, in its material nature; it is a direct source of information 
about the cultural or natural heritage of which it is a part. Its value also includes the 
accompanying documentation and accumulated data records of our own creation, which 
places each item in a specific context and elucidate its aspects. 
From the time of collection and thereafter, we are in a position to beneficially or 
detrimentally affect the objects’ material nature by the environments to which we expose 
it and by our actions or inactions. These include storage and display environments, and 
activities associated with handling, conservation and analysis. In practice, the challenge is 
i 6*> 
to reveal and preserve the objects’ meaningful material aspects by the least compromising 
or invasive methods and the most protective environments as possible. 
Because the collecting process physically strips an item from its context, 
documentation at that point becomes the crucial tool for being able to reconstruct its 
original relationships to context. Aside from serving as the fundamental identification of 
individual objects, records of collecting, processing, and environmental conditions can add 
important indicators of potential alterations that, along with analytical records, enhance 
our understanding and thus the value of the objects themselves. 
Collections care practices encompass actions intended to protect the collections value, 
both the material objects and the records associated with them, from the time of collection 
in the field to processing, preservation, research and educational uses while curated in a 
museum. The papers in this section bring together the perspectives of conservation, exhibit 
preparation, research and collections management to describe collections care practices 
as they apply to a wide range of materials, including archaeological materials in a field 
setting, and human skeletal collections and botanical specimens in a museum setting. 
Bruno Frohlich with students learning GIS in Ulaanbataar square, (photo: Neighbors) 
Mongolian /\bstract 
Гуравдугаар хэсэг-Ажлын хэсгийн дугнэлт 
Хариет Ф Бѳйбейн 
Смитсонийн Материал Судлал ба Боловсролын Тѳв 
Смитсонийн Институт 
Монгол Америкийн хамтарсан “Бугаи чулуу хѳшѳѳ” тѳсѳл нь эрдэм 
шинжилгээний анхны хурлаа жил бур уламжлал болгох зорилготойгоор 
зохион байгуулсан юм. 2004 оны 6 сарын 2-оос 4 ний хооронд Монгол Улсын 
Улаанбаатар хотноо болж ѳнгѳрсѳн уг хуралд ихэвчлэн Монголын их дээд 
сургууль болон Улаанбаатарын музейн мэргэжлийн багш ажилтнуудаас 
бурдсэн 50 гаруй хумуус оролцсон. Смитсонийн Институтээс Байгалын Туухийн 
Ундэсний Музейн Антропологи, Ургамал судлал, узмэрийн танхим болон 
узмэрийн тѳвийн хэлтэс. Материал судлал болон Боловсролын Тѳвийг тѳлѳѳлѳн 
нийт 9 мэргэжилтнууд оролцсон билээ. 
Смитсонийн болон Монголын эрдэмтэн судлаачид хоёр ѳдрийн турш 
Монголд явагдсан хуралд археологи, антропологи болон ургамал судлалын 
ѳргѳн хурээнд бэлтгэсэн илтгэлуудээ тавьсан бѳгѳѳд уг уйл ажиллагаа Монгол 
Улсын Их Сургуулийн эрдмийн танхимд болж ѳнгѳрсѳн. Гурав дахь ѳдѳр нь буюу 
6 сарын 4-ний ѳдрийг нийлмэл хоёр хэсгээс бурдсэн дадлагын ажил хэлбэрээр 
зохион байгуулсан бѳгѳѳд эхний хэсэг нь GIS буюу Газарзуйн Мэдээллийн 
Системийн талаар хуралд оролцогчдод танилцуулсан бол дараагийн хэсэг нь 
Монголын Ундэсний Туухийн Музейд болж ѳнгѳрсѳн биетийн хэв цутгах уйл 
ажиллагаа болон музейн материал цуглуулах, хадгалах менежментийн асуудал 
дээр тулгуурлан явагдсан юм. 
Музейн хадгалалт болон цуглуулалгын менежмент 
Цуглуулга гэдэг бол ямар нэг биет зуйлийн бурдэл. Энэ нь тухайн 
хайгуул, малтлагын ажлаас олж авсан материалуудыг илэрхийлэхээс гадна аль 
нэг институтээс дэлгэн гаргасан бух л бутэн эд агуурсыг ч бас багтааж болно. 
Цуглуулгыг нудлэн хамгаалах амин чухал ухагдахуун нь цуглуулга бурийн 
унэ цэнийг олж мэдрэхэд оршино. Хамгийн гол нь цуглуулга гэдэг бол соёлын 
болон байгалын унэтэй ѳвийг багтааж энэ талаарх мэдээллийг шууд дамжуулж 
байдаг материаллаг шинж чанартай гэдгийг ойлгох хэрэгтэй. Цуглуулгыг унэ 
цэнэтэй болгох бас нэгэн хучин зуйл нь цуглуулга бур дээр бидний бичиж зуудэг 
цуглуулгатай холбоотой буртгэгдсэн баримт болон мэдээллийн агуулга, онцлох 
тайлбарууд нь юм. 
Цуглуулга хийж эхэлсэнээс эхлээд дараагийн уеудэд бид бухэн цуглуулгыг 
дэлгэн узуулэх орчныг бурдуулэх болон ѳѳрсдийн уйл хѳдлѳлѳѳр эд зуйлийн 
байгалиас заяасан материаллаг хэв шинжид ашигтайгаар эсвэл хохиролтойгоор 
нѳлѳѳлѳх алхамыг хийдэг. Эдгээрт хадгалах ба узмэрт дэлгэн тавих орчин нѳхцѳл 
болон хадгалах судалгаа хийхтэй холбоотой уйл ажиллагаанууд багтана. Эд 
зуйлсийн онцгой чухал материаллаг хэв шинжийг аль болох гэмтээж муутгахгуй 
аргаар аль болох хамгаалалт сайтай орчин нѳхцѳлд хадгалж узуулэх нь амьдрал 
дээр хамгийн бэрхшээлтэй асуудал байдаг билээ. 
Workshop 5 ummaries 
Цуглуулга хийх уйл ажиллагаа нь эд зуйлсийг орчин тойрон, бусад 
баримт сэлтээс нь биетээр салгаж авдаг учир анхны байдлаар нь орчинтой 
нь уялдуулж дахин сэргээх нь хамгийн шийдвэрлэх чухал асуудал байдаг. Эд 
зуйлсийг цуглуулан буртгэх, боловсруулах, орчин нѳхцлийг бурдуулэх Зэрэг нь 
уг биет зуйлийн ерѳйнхий суурь шинж тѳрхийг илэрхийлэх уурэг гуйцэтгэхээс 
гадна шинжилгээ судалгааны баримтын нэгэн адил нѳлѳѳлѳх чадвар бухий чухал 
хэрэгсэл болж тухайн эд зуйлийн талаарх бидний ойлголтыг ѳсгѳн нэмэгдуулж 
улмаар уг зуйлийн унэ цэнийг ѳндѳрт ѳргѳх боломжтой. 
Цуглуулгыг нудлэн хамгаалах гэдэг нь цуглуулгын унэ цэнийг хамгаалах 
зорилготой уйл уйлдэл бѳгѳѳд уунд цуглуулгыг газар дээрээс нь буртгэхээс 
эхлээд боловсруулах, музейд хадгалах, сургалт эрдэм шинжилгээний зорилгоор 
ашиглах гэх мэт бухий л материаллаг биет зуйлс болон туунтэй дагалдах 
буртгэлийн аль аль нь хамаарна. Энэ хэсэгт багтсан илтгэлууд нь хадгалах, узмэр 
бэлтгэх, судалгааны ажил хийх ба цуглуулах менежментийн хэтийн тѳлвийг 
хамтатган оруулсан бѳгѳѳд цуглуулгыг нудлэн хамгаалах аргуудаас хайгуулын 
ажлын уеэр археологийн материалыг хэрхэн хадгалах, музей дотор хуний араг 
яснуудыг болон ургамал зуйн тѳрѳл зуйлийн цуглуулгыг хэрхэн хадгалах зэрэг 
жишээнуудийг дурдсан болно. 
Natalie Firnhaber and Adiyabold Namkhai instructing workshop in museum object con¬ 
servation. (photo: Hunt) 
\66 
/\rchaeological Conservation: 
Collections Care from the C'eid to the M useum 
Harriet F. Beaubien 
Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and Education 
Smithsonian Institution 
Introduction 
What artifacts can tell us about past lifeways is derived from their intrinsic 
characteristics and from contextual relationships with other components of the archaeological 
record. Those artifacts that are exposed in the course of controlled excavation offer particular 
advantage, as the depositional contexts are known and the artifacts are as yet unaltered by 
a post-excavation history. Once they are removed, however, the contextual relationships 
are irrevocably disturbed and can only be accessed through indirect sources of information 
of our own making, notably written and graphic documentation of the excavation process. 
The material record, including collections of artifacts and samples, remains our only direct 
link to the past. 
The irreplaceable nature of this resource is recognized by the archaeological 
profession, as sections in professional codes of ethics on preservation and responsible 
curation suggest (Rotroff 2001). But it is the conservation profession that has most fully 
articulated what the preservation of the material record entails in practice (AIC 1994). By 
addressing the deleterious effects of burial at the time of excavation and by thoughtfully 
managing how materials are subsequently processed and stored in museum settings, 
conservators play a significant role in maintaining the collection’s value as an information 
resource about the past. 
Preservation (joals 
The preservation process starts with the recornition that each artifact possesses a 
life of ongoing change, from when it was first created to the present moment. The goals 
of preservation are to elucidate those aspects that are considered to carry the greatest 
information value, and to limit any further alterations that would interfere with or otherwise 
compromise the quality of information. 
The aspects of primary interest to archaeological researchers are the earliest 
alterations in the continuum, notably traces of the manipulation of raw materials in an 
artifact’s manufacture and evidence of use and re-use. Other alterations will have occurred 
1^7 
during this period of use as the materials “naturally age” in response to ever-present agents 
of change, including oxygen, humidity and temperature levels, and microorganisms. With 
its final discard or abandonment, the artifact experiences another more dramatic set of 
changes as it adjusts to a burial environment that possesses very different characteristics 
from the one in which it was initially created and used. For some materials, these changes 
result in disappearance from the archaeological record. For others, the changes may be 
more limited and the artifact eventually achieves a kind of equilibrium state. 
This equilibrium state is unbalanced at the moment of excavation, a relatively 
rapid re-entry into the ambient environment. The changes that are set into motion may be 
tolerable to the artifact, or they may destabilize the materials sufficiently to threaten the 
artifact’s continued survival. Some of these changes are immediately apparent, necessitating 
immediate action; others are more deceptive, taking years to manifest themselves, but no 
less destructive. Items that were always exposed (such as the deer stones), may not go 
through the extremes of re-entry experienced by buried items, but they will have undergone 
alterations from prolonged exposure to weather, pollutants and biological agents, as well 
as vandalism and looting. 
Significantly, excavation marks the beginning of the period in which we have the 
potential for some control over the process of change. How artifacts are excavated and 
handled, the treatment they receive during laboratory processing, and the conditions of 
storage and display, also produce alterations, some for the worse, but these too can be 
controlled with thoughtful effort (Cronyn 1990, Sease 1992, Pye 2001, NPS 2002). In 
this way, the conservation attention that artifacts receive, beginning at the time of their 
excavation, is critical in supporting their research value and their future as an information 
resource. 
/\rcbaeoiogical (Conservation Strategies 
In most moderate terrestrial burial contexts, sufficient moisture and oxygen percolate 
through the soil matrix to sustain bioactivity, accelerating the deterioration of organic 
constituents of the material record. Evidence of these materials is often indirect, such as 
matting imprints in soil, textile impressions on ceramics created before the material was 
fired, and corrosion “pseudomorphs” of cordage, formed where it had been in contact with 
a metal surface. Some environments may favor the preservation of organics, particularly 
woods with sufficient density or resinous qualities, but they will still have been undermined 
by certain kinds of biodeterioration. 
The materials that dominate the archaeological collections are typically inorganic, 
including a wide variety of metals, fired ceramics, stone, as well as primary structural 
components of shell, bone and ivory. During burial, these materials have been altered to 
varying degrees, both chemically by moisture, oxygen, and salt constituents of the burial 
matrix, and physically by overburden pressure and other weathering effects. 
Exposure during excavation may be sufficient to induce damages, particularly for 
sensitive materials or in harsh conditions, so an important conservation strategy at the 
outset is to moderate the sudden changes induced by entry into the ambient environment. 
I 68 £)eaubien 
Examples include providing shade or protection from rain, maintaining ample burial soil 
around objects or covering them to slow down evaporation of moisture. Once artifacts are 
exposed, the conservation strategies must always be adjusted to meet the needs of particular 
artifact materials and site or museum conditions. Some approaches that have been found 
to be particularly useful are summarized below. 
Figure 13.1. Blocklift 
sequence: 
(a) beads partially 
exposed on a pedestal of 
soil; (b) the beads and 
soil block covered in thin 
plastic wrap, secured with 
a strip of masking tape, 
and then with aluminum 
foil as a barrier; (c) 
the block jacketed with 
plaster; (d) the pedestal 
cut at the base and 
the block inverted for 
transport and laboratory 
excavation 
(Photo: E. Robertson, 
SCMRE). 
Addressing the Physical Effects of Burial 
Common physical effects of burial include fragmentation and displacement of 
artifact components. Often, pieces can be exposed, documented, gathered, bagged by 
material, and brought to the laboratory for further processing with minimal risk of losing 
important information. In some cases, however, original placement is much harder to 
reconstruct and fragile fragments are further damaged if they are collected individually. 
Blocklifting: A variety of blocklifting techniques have been developed to maintain 
original placement of components and keep them intact to the lab, where they can be treated 
in a systematic and less pressured manner. A common method is to minimally expose 
the components on a pedestal of matrix, with a protective margin left around the sides 
and below. This is then removed as a block, sometimes reinforced at the sides, such as 
with plaster-dipped cloth strips. If reinforcing support materials are potentially in contact 
with artifact surfaces, it is critical to cover them first with an inert, closely conforming 
barrier layer; this is a protective measure and facilitates later removal of the reinforcement 
materials. A necklace of terracotta beads was blocklifted to preserve their orientation using 
barrier layers of thin plastic wrap, aluminum foil and then a plaster jacket (Figure 13.1); 
they could then be excavated under more controlled conditions in the laboratory. Note that 
i 69 /\rcbaeological (Conservation 
Figure 13.2. A block-lifted deposit of 
fragile beads and bracelets, consolidated 
to strengthen them and preserve their 
positions (Photo: D. Strahan, SCMRE). 
Figure 13.3. Fragile animal bones being 
faced with tissue in preparation for lifting 
(Photo: E. Robertson, SCMRE). 
this technique risks damage to the strata immediately below, so it should be chosen as a 
strategy with this in mind. 
Surface consolidation: As the surrounding dirt is being cleared from a buried 
artifact, some artifact surfaces are found to be particularly fragile and therefore vulnerable 
to any handling that they will get during excavation and subsequent processing. These may 
benefit from consolidation, a process in which a strengthening material is administered 
in a liquid form so that it penetrates before drying (Figure 13.2). Because this procedure 
entails adding a modem material to an ancient one, conservators weigh the decision to 
consolidate carefully, giving serious consideration to the effect it may have on the artifact 
itself, and its potential interference with analysis and subsequent treatment. The selection 
of the consolidant is also critical; only those materials which have have been thoroughly 
tested and shown to possess excellent aging properties are considered, that is remaining 
stable and removable over time. For example, consolidation has been used to secure flaking 
170 £)eaubien 
Figure 13.4. 
Reassembled 
ceramic vessel 
with minor fills 
and customized 
storage mount 
(Photo: K. Martin, 
SCMRE). 
slip decoration on ceramic vessels, to improve the coherence of crumbling materials, and 
to strengthen fragile surfaces before impressions are taken. In general, this approach gives 
preservation priority to macro-characteristics such as form or component organization; 
disadvantages to consider in advance are possible inhibition or contamination of some 
technical analyses. 
Facing or backing: Along with consolidation, extra support can be carefully 
attached to front or back surfaces to reinforce fragile areas or to hold pieces in alignment. 
Closely conforming tissues held in place with adhesive solutions are often used. The same 
criteria apply for the choice of both tissue and adhesive as for consolidants: these must be 
appropriate to the task, stable, but also easily removable without causing damage to the 
original materials, and compatible with subsequent conservation materials and treatment 
steps. Such techniques were used to hold shattered animal bones together in order to lift 
them successfully (Figure 13.3). 
Reconstruction: Rejoining pieces often improves the physical stability of an object 
and reduces abrasive damage to edges and surfaces caused by loose storage of fragments. 
It also gives fuller information about the form of the object. Because losses are sometimes 
in awkward places, filling these to complete the form can be both stylistically informative 
and structurally helpful. As with any conservation material, adhesives and gap-filling 
materials are selected carefully on the basis of their known stability over time and their 
ability to be removed. Artifacts, such as ceramics from important contexts, are routinely 
171 
Figure 13.5. Small metal artifacts, bagged 
and stored in a container with desiccated 
silica gel (Photo: H. Beaubien, SCMRE). 
Figure 13.6. Monitoring the salt levels 
during desalination of ceramic sherds 
(Photo: J. Lauffenburger). 
reconstructed in field conservation laboratories, but because of time constraints on-site, 
gap-filling is generally undertaken only if stability demands it (Figure 13.4). 
Addressing the chemical effects of burial 
Chemical alteration from burial is well illustrated by metal artifacts, which develop 
corrosion products beyond what would ordinarily be formed in our ambient environment. 
While these may be disfiguring, some are quite stable. Others, however, are inherently 
destructive, and exposure to ambient environmental conditions activates them. Copper 
alloy objects, for example, may exhibit spots of pale green powder erupting from beneath a 
stable compact green corrosion crust, evidence of a threatening internal condition commonly 
called “bronze disease.” 
Chemical treatment: Metal objects can, with limited success, be treated chemically to 
clean and stabilize them, but it is important to recognize that chemical treatments introduce 
permanent alterations to the metallic chemical composition and may further weaken the 
structure of the object. This is particularly an issue with techniques such as electrolytic 
172 £)eaubien 
or electrochemical reduction, which assume a sound metallic core beneath a thin skin 
of corrosion. It is not unusual to find archaeological metals that have been completely 
converted to corrosion products, and as a result some of these chemical treatments could 
literally disintegrate the object. In general, less invasive methods of corrosion product 
removal are favored, such as mechanical methods, although they do not necessarily stabilize 
aggressive corrosion processes. 
Environmental stabilization: The most effective and least invasive treatment for 
stabilizing metals is the careful control of the environment in which they are stored (Figure 
1.3.5). Since oxygen and humidity together keep the corrosion process active, providing a 
sealed and dry micro-environment has proved to be the best protection for archaeological 
metals. A common approach is to clean metal objects with fine tools under the microscope, 
then coat them with a protective coating that can be removed if necessary, and store them 
in sealed bags. From that point on, they are often kept in tightly lidded storage containers, 
the internal humidity of which is controlled with desiccated silica gel. Periodically the 
silica gel needs to be removed and desiccated again. This regular maintenance of dry 
conditions is extremely important. If the container is not well-sealed or if the silica gel is 
not periodically changed the gel can absorb atmospheric moisture, creating humid storage 
conditions and inviting further corrosion activity. 
Addressing Salt Impregnation 
One of the most severe preservation issues for some archaeological materials 
stems from the salt content of the soil in which they were buried. The salts can occur 
as the result of geological soil formation as well as from long-term agricultural use of 
fertilizers to complement irrigation. Their water-solubility results in distribution throughout 
the soil by ground water capillary rise as well as percolation from the surface by rain. In 
the process, salts permeate the physical structure of porous materials buried in the soil, 
forming chemical species available for reaction (such as with metal artifacts). Their water 
solubility also describes a readiness to go into solution and then to crystallize with water 
evaporation, which happens upon emergence from a cool moist burial matrix into dry hot 
air. White powdery salts may crystallize on the surfaces of ceramic materials, for example, 
but this process may also take place on a microscopic scale as the salts react to diurnal 
humidity fluctuations and cycles of rainy and dry seasons over the course of the year. In 
the long term, the physical disruption caused by salts in porous materials can be severe, 
often causing surfaces to powder and delaminate. 
Desalination; The initial entry into ambient conditions during excavation can be 
buffered by providing shade or covering for particularly sensitive materials to slow the 
evaporation of moisture, but this is only a “holding pattern.” For the majority of porous 
materials, the most effective response on site is the expeditious removal of soluble salts 
through a desalination process (Figure 13.6). This process can require up to two weeks of 
daily changes of distilled (or at least low-salt) water baths, each monitored until the salts 
are purged or reduced to safe levels. It is important to recognize in advance that some 
materials may not be robust enough to tolerate this immersion process without the help 
/\rchaeologica! (Conservation 175 
of some preliminary consolidation. Other materials may be extremely water sensitive 
themselves, and these are best stabilized by storage in dry stable environments so that the 
salts are not activated. 
Preventing Further Damage 
As all collection materials leave the laboratory, their preservation will be further 
affected by how they are packaged, how they are handled during study, and the conditions 
in which they are stored. For many objects, storage in archivally stable sealed plastic bags 
within rigid containers provides sufficient physical protection as well as visibility for easy 
access during study. Others benefit from more customized housing, utilizing supports 
and cushioning to minimize movement, compensate for weakness and prevent undue 
handling (Figure 13.7). For objects transported to other locations, containers may need to 
be customized for the particular material, cushioning each object to withstand the stresses 
of transit handling. For those that are displayed, the exhibit conditions and mount materials 
to be used are specified so further damage is not inadvertently introduced. Most collection 
materials, however, will remain in storage, and it is the provision of stable, protective 
housing that has, in the long run, the most significant impact on preservation (Rose 
and Torres 1992). With carefully chosen materials and basic training, non-conservation 
personnel can carry out these activities, making it not only the most cost-efficient but 
also the most effective conservation strategy of any that can be carried out on-site or in a 
museum setting. 
documentation 
Field documentation is what allows each item in an archaeological collection to 
be specifically identified and its contextual meaning to be recreated, but other types of 
documentation also contribute significantly to its research value. These include all records 
of processing, conservation, and subsequent analysis. Conservation records, both graphic 
and written, supply critical observations about original state, document new aspects revealed 
Figure 13.7. Fragile 
skeletal remains stored for 
protection in customized 
housing (Photo: J. Boyer, 
SCMRE). 
174 
Figure 13.8. . 
Steatite seal with 
a silicone rubber 
mold; the seal s 
surfaces were 
first consolidated 
to protect them 
(Photo: M. Shah, 
SCMRE) 
during treatment, and describe treatment methods and materials that have been applied to 
original materials. It is especially important that all of this information be accessible for 
any artifact that may be the subject of subsequent scientific study. 
Another type of documentation with useful application in the field is to make 
good quality molds from original materials (Figure 13.8). These can be used to generate 
casts, which can be used for research or display, particularly when originals can not be 
transported for these purposes. Molds can also serve as a primary document of materials 
that had decayed but left impressions in a surrounding matrix. 
One compelling application for such documentation is provided by Mongolia’s deer 
stone monuments. These have experienced long exposure in the outdoor environment and, 
depending on the inherent qualities of the stone from which each is made, show various 
degrees of deterioration. Just as with moveable collections, provision of a protective 
environment for these would also be a significant strategy for enhancing their long-term 
survival, but may pose practical challenges. There may also be issues of practicality in 
undertaking more aggressive conservation treatments for particularly deteriorated stones. In 
cases like these, the documentary evidence takes on additional importance when there is no 
guarantee that such protection or stabilization can be achieved. As with portable artifacts, 
good quality molds taken from the stones could be cast for study or display, and even for 
in situ placement if a long-term preservation strategy called for removal of endangered 
monuments to a safer environment. 
If the moldmaking procedures, whether for deer stones or portable artifacts, do not 
take the condition of the original into careful consideration, and materials are not carefully 
selected, the process has the potential to introduce unfortunate alterations. An isolating layer 
or barrier material, always used to protect original surfaces from moldmaking materials, 
must be removable. If surfaces are fragile or actively deteriorating, the moldmaking process 
will cause irreparable physical damage unless specialized consolidants are first applied. 
175 
3ummarу 
From a museum standpoint, the value of original collections is derived from the 
extent, state of preservation, and accessibility of both original material and its documentary 
record, and the responsibility for these is in the hands of the collections management and 
conservation professions. Conservation measures in particular, address material preservation 
issues and, in the case of archaeological collection materials, can be undertaken at potentially 
their most vulnerable moment - excavation - or after many years in storage or on display. 
Actions intended to enhance preservation may, however, produce unnecessary or irreversible 
damage with the choice of inappropriate materials or methods. The implications of their use 
must therefore be carefully weighed; it is particularly a concern whenever new materials 
are introduced into archaeological items, especially those that are likely to be the subject 
of scientific study. Preservation strategies that emphasize protective storage and minimal 
intervention present the least risk and are considered to serve us and the archaeological 
materials the best in the long run. In conjunction with procedures that allow the collections 
to be easily located and studied with minimal handling, these approaches constitute the 
most cost-effective and significant preservation action of all. 
Contact address: Harriet F. Beaubien, Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and 
Education, Smithsonian Institution, Museum Support Center, 4210 Silver Hill Road, 
Suitland, MD 20746-2863 USA; e-mail: beaubienh@si.edu. 
Ke fere nee s 
American Institute for Conservation of Historic 
and Artistic Works, 1994. Code of Ethics and 
Guidelines for Practice. AIC: Washington, 
DC. 
Cronyn,J. M., 1990. The Elements of Archaeological 
Conservation. Routledge: London/New York. 
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 
Interior, Archeology and Ethnography 
Program, 2002. Managing Archeological 
Collections, [www.cr.nps.gov/aad/collections] 
Pye, Elizabeth, 2001. Caring for the Past: Issues in 
Conservation for Archaeology and Museums. 
London: James & James. 
Rose, Carolyn L., and Amparo R. de Torres, 
editors, 1992. Storage of Natural History 
Collections: Ideas and practical solutions. 
Pittsburgh: Society for the Preservation of 
Natural History Colletions. 
Rotroff, Susan, 2001. “Archaeologists on 
conservation: How codes of archaeological 
ethics and professional standards treat 
conservation,” in Journal of the American 
Institute for Conservation 40 (2): 137-146. 
Sease, Catherine, 1992. A Conservation Manual 
for the Field Archaeologist. 2nd edition. 
Archaeological Research Tools 4. Los Angeles: 
Institute of Archaeology, University of 
California. 
ЗеаиЬіеп 176 
[Vi0ng0i'an Translation 
Археологийн хадгалалт ба цуглуулгыг газар дээрээс нь 
музейд шилжуулэх хуртэл хамгаалах нь: 
Хариет Ф Бѳйбейн 
Смитсонийн Материал Судлал ба Боловсролын Тѳв 
Смитсонийн Институт 
Танилцуулга 
Туухэн баримт сэлт нь ѳѳрийн уг мѳн чанар болон ѳѳр бусад археологийн 
олдвортой хэрхэн уялдаж холбогдож байгаагаасаа хамааран болж ѳнгѳрсѳн 
цат хугацааны талаар бидэнд ѳгуулж байдаг билээ. Нарийн хянамгай уйлдлээр 
ухаж малтлагаа хийж гаргаж авсан олдворууд нь туухэн унэ цэнээ хадгалж, 
малтлага хийсний дараа ч гэсэн ѳѳрчлѳлт гараагуй байдаг гэх мэт тодорхой 
давуу талуудыг агуулж байдаг. Гэвч малтлага хийж олдворыг байрнаас нь 
хѳдѳлгѳсний дараа эх уусвэртэйгээ холбогдож байсан уялдаа нь нэгэнт угуй 
болж, малтлагын уйл ажиллагааг харуулсан бичгэн эсвэл графикан баримт гэх 
зэргийг нэмэлт болгон зууснээр мэдээллийн эх сурвалж нь баяждаг. Олдвороос 
дээж болгон авсан зуйлсийн цуглуулга зэргийг багтаасан материалын буртгэл 
нь бидэнд байгаа цорын ганц ѳнгѳрсѳн уетэй холбогдох шууд хэлхээ холбоо 
болж ѳгдѳг. 
Эдгээр нѳѳц баялагийн дахин орлуулахын аргагуй онцлог шинж 
чанарыг нь археологийн мэргэжил олж илруулэн ѳѳрсдийн мэргэжлийн ёс 
зуйн хэм хэмжуур болсон хадгалалт хамгаалалтын уургийг хариуцлагатайгаар 
хэрэгжуулэх хэрэгтэй болдог [Ротрофф 2001]. Гэвч энэ нь материалын буртгэл 
хадгалалт нь ямар шалгуурыг шаардаж байгаад голчлон тѳвлѳрсѳн хадгалалтын 
нарийн мэргэжлийн уйлдэл юм [АІС 1994]. Малтлага явагдах уед тохиолдох 
зарим нэг сѳрѳг ур дагаварыг тооцоолж узсэний дараа музейд узмэр болгон 
байрлуулахад материалуудыг зѳвѳѳр зохион байгуулснаараа музейн хадгалагч 
нар нь цуглуулгын ѳв баялгийн унэ цэнийг ѳнгѳрсѳн цаг уеийнх нь мэдээлэлтэй 
нь авч улдэхэд маш чухал уурэгтэй байдаг билээ. 
Хамгаалалтын зорилгууд 
Бух л олдворууд он цагийн турш элэгдэж ѳѳрчлѳгдѳж байдаг. Уунд хамгийн 
анх ууссэн цагаасаа эхлэн хэрэглэгдэж эхлэсэн уе мѳн ѳнѳѳдрийн цаг уед оршиж 
байх хуртэл бух л цаг хугацаа багтана. Эдгээр олон хучин зуйлуудийн чухам аль 
нь хамгийн чухал мэдээллийг багтаан уг зуйлийг хамгийн унэ цэнэтэй болгож 
байгааг тодорхойлох нь хадгалалт хийх эхний уе шат бѳгѳѳд энэ нь хадгалалтын 
хамгийн эн турууний хэсэг нь болдог. Зарим нэг эд зуйлсийн хувьд тэдгээрийн 
гадаад хэлбэр дуре нь илуу чухал байхад бусад нь бутэц элементийнхээ хувьд 
чухал байх нь олонтаа тохиолдцог. Олдворыг хамгаалах гол зорилго нь олдворын 
унэ цэнэтэй шинж чанарыг нь тодруулах, улмаар олдворын мѳн чанарт сѳргѳѳр 
нѳлѳѳлѳх ѳѳрчлѳлтийг аль болох хязгаарлан чанартай мэдээллээр хангахад 
оршиж байдаг. 
Археологийн судлаач шинжээчдийн хамгийн их сонирхолыг татаж байдаг 
Archaeological (AonserA/ation 1 77 
ундсэн шинж чанарууд нь олдворт хамгийн анх гардаг цар хурээний ѳѳрчлѳлтууд 
ялангуяа олдворыг ашиглах уед болон дахин ашиглах уеийн баримтны ул мѳрнѳѳс 
уудсэн ѳѳрчлѳлтууд юм. Хучилтѳрѳгч, чийгшилт, температурын тувшин, бичил 
биетууд гэх мэт байнга тохиолдож байдаг хучин зуйлуудийн нѳлѳѳгѳѳр материалууд 
нь байгалийн жамаар элэгдэл хорогдолд орох уед ѳѳр бусад ѳѳрчлѳлтууд бас 
гарч байдаг. Цаашлаад, олдворыг байсан газраас нь холдуулахад шинэ орчин 
нѳхцѳлд дасахын тулд ѳмнѳ байснаасаа ѳѳр шинж чанарыг агуулж уг олдворт 
мэдэгдэхуйц ѳѳрчлѳлтууд тохиолддог байна. Зарим нэг материалын хувьд 
эдгээр ѳѳрчлѳлтууд нь археологийн буртгэл биш болох хуртэл нѳлѳѳлдѳг байна. 
Бусдынх нь хувьд гарч буй ѳѳрчлѳлтууд нь арай хязгаарлагдмал байж яваандаа 
олдвор тогтвортой хэвийн тѳрх байдалтай болдог байна. 
Энэ тогтвортой байдал нь малталт хийж байх цат уед тѳдийлѳн тэнцвэртэй 
байж чаддагуй бѳгѳѳд харьцангуй богино хугацаанд дахин ѳѳр шинэ орчинд 
байрлуулвал олдворт дахиад л эрсдэл учрах боломжтой. Нуулгэн шилжуулэхэд 
уусэх ѳѳрчлѳлтуудийг олдвор тэсэж даван туулах чадвартай байж ч болно эсвэл 
энэ нь олдворын материалын тэнцвэрийг алдагдуулж ургэлжлуулэн оршин 
тогтнох чадварт нь аюул учруулах ч боломжтой. Эдгээр ѳѳрчлѳлтуудийн 
зарим нь тухайн уедээ шууд мэдэгдэж ил тѳдоор илэрдэг байхад, зарим нь 
далд чанартай байж удаан хугацааны дараа багагуй хор нѳлѳѳтэй байсан нь 
мэдэгддэг. Байсан газраа улдсэн олдворууд болон ѳѳр тийшээ шилжуулсэн эсвэл 
узуулэн буюу агуулахад хадгалагдсан олдворуудад ѳѳр тѳрлийн ѳѳрчлѳлтууд 
илэрдэг боловч аль аль нь шинэ орчиндоо дасан зохицох шаардлагатай болдог. 
Дандаа ил байдаг байсан олдворуудын (бутан чулуу гэх мэт) хувьд газар дор 
булаастай байсан олдвор шит эре тэс ѳѳрчлѳлтѳнд орохгуй боловч цат агаар, 
бохирдолт болон биологийн хучин зуйлууд, хуний буруутай уйл ажиллагаа гэх 
мэт урт хугацааны турш уйлчилдэг байсан нѳлѳѳнуудэд гарсан ѳѳрчлѳлтийг 
туулах болно. 
Хамгийн чухал нь, бид малталт хийх уеэс эхлэн ѳѳрчлѳлтийн явцыг 
хянан зохицуулах боломжтой байдаг. Олдворыг хэрхэн ухаж тартан янзалж, 
лабораторийн уйл явцад арчлан тордож, олдворыг ямар нѳхцѳлд хадгалж, 
узуулэнд тавих нь ямар нэг байдлаар олдворыг ѳѳрчлѳлтѳнд, зарим тохиолдолд 
сорог ѳѳрчлѳлтѳнд оруулдаг, гэвч эдгээр бух уйл ажиллагаа нь анхаарал 
болгоомжтой хандвал сайнаар шийдвэрлэж болох асуудлууд юм [Сгопуп 1990, 
Sease 1992, Руе 2001, NPS 2002]. Ингэснээр малталт хийхээс эхлэн олдворын 
хадгалалтанд анхааралтайгаар хандах нь тэдгээрийн эрдэм шинжилгээний 
бутээлийн унэ цэнэ болон ирээдуйд мэдээллийн эх сурвалж болоход нь чухал 
алхам болох юм. 
Археологи дахъ хадгалалтыи бодлого зохицуулалт 
Дэлхий дээрх ихэнх газрын хѳрсний найрлаганд, хангалттай хэмжээний 
чийг болон хучилтѳрѳгч хѳрсний нух сувээр нэвчиж материалын органик хэегийн 
ухжилтийг тургэсгэдэг, биологийн уйл ажиллагааг тэнцвэржуулэх уурэг гуйцэтгэж 
байдаг. Эдгээр материалуудын нотлох баримт нь ихэнхдээ далд хэлбэртэй байдаг. 
Жишээ нь: Херсон дээр будэг зурагдеан ул мор, вааран эдлэлийн гадаргуу дээр 
шаврыг шатаахаас ѳмнѳ гарсан ором, метал хэсэг хуреэн хэсэгт ул мор гэх мэт. 
Хангалттай нягтрал буюу сайн чанар бухий модон материалд хадгалагдсан гэх 
мэт зарим орчин нѳхцѳл нь органик биетийн хадгалалтанд сайнаар нѳлѳѳлж 
болох юм. Гэвч тэдгээр нь ямар нэг байдлаар элэгдэж хорогдож байдаг. 
175 £)eaubien 
Археологийн олдвор цуглуулганд дийлэнхдээ тааралддаг материал нь 
органик бус байдаг ба уунд тѳрѳл бурийн метал эдлэл, шавар вааран эдлэл, чулуу, 
яс, хуяг хясаа болон зааны ясаар хийсэн эдлэл гэх мэт багтана. Газарт булаастай 
байх явцдаа эдгээр материалууд нь химийн найрлагынхаа хувьд хѳрсѳн дэх 
чийг, хучилтѳрѳгч, давсны орцны нѳлѳѳ болон биеийн бутцийнхээ хувьд дээрээс 
хучтэй дарах даралт мѳн бусад цат агаарын нѳлѳѳний аль альнаас нь шалтгаалан 
ѳѳрчлѳлтѳнд орж байдаг. 
Малталтын уеэр материалыг ил гаргаснаар эмзэг материалтай харыдаж 
байгаа болон хунд нѳхцѳлд ажиллаж байгаа тохиолдолд гэмтэлд ѳртѳх магагдлалыг 
ихэсгэх тѳлѳвтэй байдаг. Ийм учраас материал ѳѳр орчинд шилжсэнээр гэнэтийн 
цочмог ѳѳрчлѳлтѳнд орохоос сэргийлэн хадгалалтын бодлогыг боловсруулах нь 
хамгийн чухал байдаг. Жишээ нь: борооноос хамгаалсан саравч босгох, чийгнийх 
нь ууршилтыг бууруулахын тулд олдворын эргэн тойронд хѳрс шороогоор хучих 
гэх мэт арга хэмжээнууд байж бол но. Олдвор байсан газраасаа хѳдѳлсѳн цагаас 
эхлэн тухайн олдворыг байрлуулах газар буюу музейн нѳхцѳл байдалд дасган 
тааруулсан хадгалалтын бодлого зохицуулалтыг заавал боловсруулах хэрэгтэй. 
Уунтэй холбоотой зарим нэг хэрэглууштэй аргуудаас доор тоймлон хургэж 
байна. 
Булшин (газарт булагдсан эд зуйлс) дахь биет нѳлѳѳнуудээс дурдах нь 
Булшин дахь биет нѳлѳѳллуудийн элбэг тохиолдох хувилбарууд нь 
олдворыг бурдуулж буй хэсгууд тарж бутрах болон хоорондоо холилдох гэх мэт 
юм. Ихэнхдээ жижиг хэсгуудйиг гаргаж аван, буртгэж цуглуулаад, эрэмбэлэн уут 
саванд хийж лабораторит шинжлэх зорилгоор авчрахдаа чухал мэдээллийг алдах 
эрсдэлийг хамгийн бага байхаар тооцоолж авчирч болдог. Гэвч зарим тохиолдолд 
эх олдворыг эвлуулэн нийлуулэхэд нэлээн бэрхшээлтэй байдаг бѳгѳѳд бутрамтгай 
жижиг хэсгуудийг туе тусад нь цуглуулсан уед эвдрэх гэмтэх явдал их гардаг. 
Баглаж ѳргѳх: Олдворын эх бурдэлуудийг байсан байдлаар нь 
лабораторид байрлуулж нарийн системчилсэн аргаар харьцахын тулд маш олон 
тѳрлийн бутнээр нь баглаж ѳргѳх арга техник бий болж хэрэгжеээр иреэн байна. 
Ѳргѳн хэрэглэгддэг аргуудын нэг нь олдворын хажуу талаар нь мѳн доогуур нь 
тойруулан эргэн тойрон хамгаалалт хийж суурьлуулсны ундеэн дээр аль болох 
бага багаар хѳндѳѳлѳн ил гаргах арга юм. Ийнхуу нэг цул бухэл хэсэг болон 
гаргаж авахын тулд заримдаа хажуу талаас нь даавууны ѳѳдсѳѳр ивээс болгон 
тулгуур хийж болдог. Хэрвээ ингэж тулгуур болж байгаа материал нь олдворын 
гадаргуутай наалдаж байвал жийргэвч болгон олон давхар хамгаалалт хийж ѳгѳх 
нь чухал байдаг. Энэ нь ивээс хийсэн материалыг суулд нь олдвороос салган авахад 
давхар хамгаалалттай байх зорилготой юм. Шурээр хэлхеэн хузууний зуултний 
олдворыг хамгаалалттайгаар авахын тулд баглаж ѳргѳх аргыг хэрэглэсэн 
бѳгѳѳд эхлээд нимгэн хуванцар уутаар дараа нь тугалган цаасаар ороогоод 
эцэст нь ивээс хийж буреэний дараа сая малталтыг найдвартай нѳхцѳлд явуулж 
лабораторид шилжуулж байсан билээ [Зураг 11.1]. Гэхдээ энэ арга нь дараах дэд 
хэсэгт дурдсанчлан уе давхаргад гэмтэл учруулах эредэлтэй байдаг учир энэ аргыг 
сонгохдоо тохиолдох эрсдэлийг тооцоолж узэхийг анхааруулж байна. 
Гадаргыг хатууруулах нь: Г азарт булаастай байсан олдвороос наалдсан 
шороог нь салгаж цэвэрлэж байх явцад зарим нэг олдворын гадаргуу нь их 
эмзэг байх тохиолдол гардаг. Иймд малталтын уеэр болон малталтын дараа 
/Archaeological (Conservation 1 79 
олдвортой харьцахтай маш болгоомжтой байх хэрэгтэй болдог. Ийм уед 
хатууруулах уйл явц буюу хатуу болгох чадвар бухий материалыг шингэн 
хэлбэрээр хатахаас нь ѳмнѳ олдворт шингээх аргыг хэрэглэх нь ашигтай байж 
болох талтай. Энэ уйл явцаар эртний материалаас бурдсэн эд зуйлсийг орчин 
уеийн материалтай нийлуулэх шаардлагатай болдог учир олдворт муугааар 
нѳлѳѳлѳх улмаар судалгаа шинжилгээнд болон дараа дараагийн арчилгаанд бас 
нѳлѳлѳх байдлыг нь харгалзан узээд энэ аргыг хэрэглэх нь ашигтай эсэх дээр 
ултай бодож шийдвэр гаргах ёстой. Бэхжуулэгчийг сонгох нь бас л ярвигтай 
асуудал бѳгѳѳд зѳвхѳн нарийн туршилтын явцад батлагдан шалгарсан, ѳѳрѳѳр 
хэлвэл хатуужиж чаддаг дараа нь хуулж болдог материалыг сонгох нь зуйтэй. 
Жишээлбэл: шавар вааран саван дээрх уелсэн гоёлын шигтгээг батжуулахын 
тулд хатууруулагч ашигласан бѳгѳѳд энэ нь уйрэмтгий материалыг бат бйх 
болгож, эмзэг хагарамтгай гадаргууг гэмтэхээс нь ѳмнѳбатжуулах зорилготой 
байсан [Зураг 11.2]. Ерѳнхийдѳѳ энэ арга нь эд зуйлсийн хэлбэр бутэц зэрэг гол 
шинж чанарыг хамгаалах нэн тэргууний зорилготой байдаг боловч энэ аргын 
талаар тооцож узууштэй сул тал нь техникийн судалгаа шинжилгээний уеэр 
учирч болох муудалт болон саатлууд юм. 
Хоёр талаас нь туших: Хатууруулахаас гадна нэмэлт болгож хагарч 
гэмтэж болзошгуй хэсгийн ард урд хоёр талаас нь тушиж эсвэл хэсгуудийг 
хамтад нь барьж хамгаалж болно. Нимгэн цаас буюу даавууг наалдамтгай 
бодис ашиглан тааруулах аргыг ѳргѳн хэрэглэдэг. Даавуу болон наалдамтгай 
бодисын аль алийг ашиглах энэ тѳрлийн зарчмыг хатууруулах зорилгоор бас 
хэрэглэж болно. Хамгийн гол нь эдгээр нь даалгавартаа тохирсон тогтвортой 
мѳн туунээс гадна суурь материалаа гэмтээхгуйгээр амарханаар хуулж авах 
боломжтой байх хэрэгтэй. Мѳн дараагийн алхамд хадгалалт болгон ашиглах гэж 
байгаа материал болон арчилгаанд харш нѳлѳѳ узуулэхгуй байх шаардлагатай. 
Иймэрхуу арга техникийг салангад байрлалтай амьтны яснуудыг хамтад нь 
гэмтээхгуйгээр ѳргѳх уед хэрэглэж байсан [Зураг 11.3]. 
Сэргээн засварлах: Хэсгуудйиг хооронд нь эвлуулэн нийлуулснээр эд 
зуйлийн тогтвортой байдлыг нэмэгдуулж, хэсэг бурийг сул хадгалсанаас уудэн 
гадаргууд болон булан тохойд нь уусэх гэмтлийг бууруулдаг. Туунээс гадна эд 
зуйлийн талаар бурэн гуйцэд мэдээлэл авах боломжтой болдог. Эд зуйлсээс 
энд тэнд зарим нэг хэсэг дутах нь ярвигтай болгодог учир хэлбэрийг бурэн 
бурэлдэхуунээр авч улдэх нь мэдээлэл ѳгѳх байдлаараа ч гэсэн бутцийн хувьд ч 
гэсэн илуу туе нэмэртэй байдаг. Наалт хийх ба зай нѳхѳх материалуудын аль алийг 
нь хадгалалт хийх явцад удаан тогтвортой байх чадвар болон хуулахад амархан 
байх чанарыг нь харгалзан узэж маш болгоомжтойгоор сонгох нь зуйтэй. Чухал 
агуулал бухий шавар эдлэл гэх мэт олдворууд нь хадгалалтын лабораторит байнга 
дахин сэргээгдэж байдаг. Гэвч цаг хугацааны хучин зУйлээс шалтгаалан зѳвхѳн 
унэхээр тогтвортой бат байлгах шаарлагатай тохиолдолд л зай завсарыг нѳхѳх 
ажиллагааг гуйцэтгэх нь зуйтэй [Зураг 11.4]. 
Булшин (газарт булагдеан эд зуйлс) дахь химийн нѳлѳѳнуудээс дурдах нь 
Булшны химийн ѳѳрчлѳлтѳнд метал олдворууд ѳртдѳг бѳгѳѳд анхны байсан 
орчин нь солигдоход шинж чанар нь хувирч иеэлдэх гэх мэтээр ѳѳрчлѳгддѳг. 
Заримд нь ѳѳрчлѳлт хортойгоор нѳлѳѳлж байхад заримд нь харьцангуйгаар 
£)eaubien 1 50 
бага нѳлѳѳлдѳг. Гэвч зарим нь угийн ѳртѳмтгий шинж чанартай байдаг бѳгѳѳд 
ѳѳйр орчин нѳхцѳлд ил гаргаж тавьсанаар энэ шинжийг ньѳдѳѳж идэвхжуулдэг. 
Жишээ нь зэсийн баяжмалаас бутсэн зуйлсийн гадаргуу нь исэлдэж ногоон 
ѳнгѳтэй болж будэг ногоон толботой харагдаж болно. Уунийг ихэвчлэн “хурлийн 
халдвар” гэж нэрлэж заншсан бѳгѳѳд биетийн дотоод байдалд бас аюул учруулах 
боломжтой. 
Химийн арчилгаа: Метал зуйлсийг зарим тохиолдолд химийн аргаар 
цэвэрлэж тогтворжуулж болдог бѳгѳѳд энэ химийн арчилгаа нь метал зуйлсийн 
бурэлдэхуунд байнгын ѳѳрчлѳлт оруулж цаашдаа биетийн бутцэд муугаар 
нѳлѳѳлж болзошгуй тул энэ талаар тооцож узэх нь хамгийн чухал байдаг. 
Электролик болон электро химийн гэх мэт арга техникээр металтай харьцах уед 
нимгэн бурхэвч нь урвалд орж исэлдэх боломжтой. Археологийн метал олдвор 
нь бухлээрээ урвалд орж зэвэрсэн байх нь элбэг тохиолддог учир зарим нэг 
химийн бодисоор арчлах явцад олдвор гэмтэж эвдрэх магадлал ѳндѳртэй байдаг. 
Ерѳнхийдѳѳ урвалд орж зэвэрсэн зуйлтэй харьцахдаа аль болох гэмтээхгуй аргыг 
хэрэглэх нь зуйтэй байдаг. Уунд зарим нэг механик аргууд орох бѳгѳѳд энэ нь 
урвалд хучтэй орсон явцыг тогтворжуулах чадвартай байх албагуй юм. 
Орчин нѳхцѳлийг нь тогтворжуулах: Металыг урвалд оруулахгуй байх 
хамгийн ур дунтэй бѳгѳѳд хамгийн хор хѳнѳѳл багатай арга нь хадгалах орчин 
нѳхцлийг нь анхааралдаа авч бурдуулэх явдал юм. Хучилтѳрѳгч ба чийг хоёрын 
нэгдэл нь урвалд орж зэврэх явцыг идэвхжуулдэг учир археологийн метал 
олдворыг хамгаалахдаа битуумжилсэн хуурай бичил орчинд байрлуулах нь 
хамгийн шалгарсан арга юм. Хамгийн ѳргѳн дэлгэрсэн арга нь метал биетийг 
зориулалтын багажаар бичил дуран авайны тусламжтайгаар цэвэрлээд дараа 
нь дээрээс нь тусгай хамгаалалтын бурхэвч турхээд (шаардлагатай тохиолдолд 
буцааж хуулж авч болохуйц) битуумжилсэн уут саванд хадгалах арга юм. 
Ингэсний дараа маш сайн таглагддаг саванд хадгалдаг бѳгѳѳд савны дотор талд 
хатаасан цахиур чулууны тосон бэлдмэл байрлуулснаар савны доторх чийгшилтыг 
тэнцвэржуулдэг [Зураг 11.5]. Энэ цахиурын хатаамлын тосон бэлдмэлийг уе уе 
шинэчлэн сольж байх шаардлагатай. Хуурай орчныг бурдуулэхийн тулд тогтмол 
арчилгаа хийх нь маш чухал асуудал юм. Хэрвээ савны битуумжлэл сайн биш, 
цахиурын тосон бэлдмэлийг байнга солихгуй бол агаарын чийгшилт шингээгдэж 
хадгалалтын орчин нь чийгтэй болж хувираад зэврэлт болон урвалд орох уйл 
явцыг уусгэнэ. 
Давснаас уудэх ур дагавар 
Зарим нэг археологийн олдворт тохиолдох, хадгалалттай холбоотой 
бэрхшээлтэй асуудлуудын нэг нь газарт булаастай байх уеэс хѳрсѳнд шингэсэн 
давснаас уудэлтэй асуудал юм. Энэ давстай хѳрс нь геологийн хѳрсжилтийг 
бурдуулж, удаан хугацаанд бий болсон хѳдѳѳ аж ахуйн бордооны хэрэглээнээс 
эхлэн ус шингээх чадвар гэх мэт шинж чанарыг бий болгодог. Усанд сайн уусах 
шинж чанар нь борооноос ууссэн гадаргууны усыг болон газарт шигэсэн усыг 
хѳрсѳнд жигд тараахад нэмэртэй байдаг. Энэ уед хѳрсѳнд булагдаастай байгаа 
сийрэг материалын бутцэнд давстай хѳрс нѳлѳѳлж, химийн урвал явагдах 
нѳхцлийг (метал олдворын зэврэлт гэх мэт) бурдуулдэг. Ус сайн шингээдэг 
чанарын ур нѳлѳѳгѳѳр хуйтэн чийгтэй хѳрсѳнд булаастай байсан эд зуйлс 
хуурай халуун агаарт ил гармагц усны ууршилт явагдан хатуу талст уусэх нѳхцѳл 
/\rcbaeological (Conservation 1 8 1 
бурддэг. Жишээ нь шавар материалын гадаргуу дээр давсны хатуужиж талст 
уусгэсэн нунтаг илрэх боломжтой. Уунээс гадна жилийн бороотой болон хуурай 
улирлын эргэлтийн нѳлѳѳгѳѳр давс ингэж талсжих бас боломжтой байдаг. Урт 
хугацаанд давс энэ байдлаар сийрэг материалд биет хохирол узуулэх аюултай 
бѳгѳѳд ихэнхдээ гадаргуу нь нунтаг бурхэвчтэй болж гэмтдэг. 
Давсыг шингээж уусгах уйл явц: Малталтын уеэр олдворыг ил гаргахад 
чийгийг ууршуулах аюулаас сэргийлэхийн тулд эхний ээлжинд суудрэвч хийж 
хамгаалах буюу эсвэл эмзэг мэдрэмтгий материалыг халхалж хамгаалж болдог. 
Гэвч энэ нь зѳвхѳн тур зуур тогтоох арга юм. Ихэнх сиймхий материалуудын хувьд 
хамгийн ур дунтэй арга нь хайгуулын газар дээр хэрэгжуулэх давсгуйжуулэх уйл 
явц буюу давсыг шингээж уусгах арга юм. Энэ уйл явцыг хэрэгжуулэхийн тулд 
ѳдѳрт дор хаяж хоёр удаа нэрсэн усаар (эсвэл давсны нягтжилт багатай усаар) 
угаах хэрэгтэй бѳгѳѳд давсны концентраци аюулгуйн тувшинд хурэх хуртэл 
угаах явцыг байнга хянан шалгаж байх хэрэгтэй [Зураг 11.6]. Зарим материал 
нь энэ дэвтээлтийн уйл явцыг тэсэж чадахгуй байх магадлалтай гэдгийг анхаарч 
узэх нь чухал бѳгѳѳд зарим нэг нэмэлт урьдчилан сэргийлэх арга хэмжээ авах 
шаардлагатай байж болох юм. Зарим материалууд усанд хургэж болохгуй эмзэг 
байдаг учир эдгээр материалуудыг давс идэвхжих боломжгуйгээр хуурай орчинд 
тогтвортой хадгалах нь хамгийн оновчтой арга байдаг. 
Гэмтлээс урьдчилан сэргийлэх нь 
Цуглуулгын бух материалуудыг лабораторид шинжилж дууссаны дараах 
хамгаалалт нь хэрхэн боож баглах, судалгааны ажлын уеэр яаж харьцах, ямар 
нѳхцѳлд хадгалахаас хамаардаг. Ихэнх биет зуйлсийг тогтвортой битуумжилсэн 
хуванцар уутанд хийж бѳх саванд хадгалах нь биет байдлаар нь сайн хамгаалахаас 
гадна судалгааны уед харж шинжлэхэд хялбар дѳхѳм болгож ѳгдѳг. Сайн 
нѳхцѳлтэй байранд байрлуулж, хѳдѳлгѳхгуй байх ивээс, тогтвортой байдалд 
туслах хэрэгслууд, харьцах уед учрах гэмтлээс урьдчилан сэргийлэх хамгаалалт 
ашиглах нь нэмэлт ач холбогдолтой. [Зураг 11.7]. Биет зуйлсийг ѳѳр байрлал 
уруу шилжуулэн тээвэрлэх шаардлагатай бол тээвэрлэлтийн явцад уусэх гэмтлээс 
хамгаалж савыг тусгай материалаар жийргэвч болгож тоноглосон байх хэрэгтэй 
ба эд зуйлсийг ивээс ашиглан байрлуулах хэрэгтэй. Узуулэнгийн зориулалтаар 
узмэрийн танхимд байрлуулах гэж байгаа болон хэрэглэх гэж буй материалуудыг 
тодорхой тэмдэглэх хэрэгтэй ба ингэснээр санамсаргуйгээр гэмтэл авах аюулаас 
зайлсхийх болно. Гэвч ихэнх тохиолдолд цуглуулгын материалууд агуулахад 
хадгалагддаг ба тогтвортой аюулгуй байранд хадгалсанаар урт хугацаанд 
хамгийн чухал хамгаалалтын нѳхцѳл болдог [Rose and Torres 1992]. Материалаа 
хянамгайгаар сонгож анхан шатны сургалтанд хамруулах юм бол хадгалалтаар 
мэргэжээгуй хун ч гэсэн эдгээр уйл ажиллагааг явуулах боломжтой бѳгѳѳд 
энэхуу уйл ажиллагааг мѳрдсѳнѳѳр зѳвхѳн зардал хэмнээд ч зогсохгуй музейд 
байрлуулахад болон газар дээр нь байлгахад тохирсон хамгийн ур дунтэй бодлого 
зохицуулалтын хэлбэр болох юм. 
Барітт хѳтлѳх: Хайгуулын газар дээр баримт хѳтлѳх гэдэг нь археологийн 
олдворын цуглуулганд багтсан эд зуйлс бурийг нарийвчлан тодорхойлж бутцийн 
агуулгыг зохиохыг хэлдэг бол бусад тѳрлийн баримт хѳтлѳлт нь судалгаа 
шинжилгээний ажлын унэ цэнийг нэмэгдуулэх мѳн нэг чухал алхам юм. Ууний 
дотор явцын дунд, хадгалалтын уед болон судалгааны ажлын уед хийсэн бух 
£)eaub іеп 1 52 
буртгэлууд багтана. График аргаар болон гар бичмэлээр хийсэн хадгалалтын 
буртгэл нь анх олдвор олдсон байдлын талаарх нарийвчилсан ажиглалтыг 
ѳгч, олдвортой харьцах уед илэрсэн шинэлэг шинж чанаруудыг харуулж, мѳн 
туунчлэн олдвортой анх ямар аргаар хэрхэн харыдаж, ямар материалуудыг 
ашигласан талаар дурслэн харуулдаг билээ. Олсон олдворын алийг нь ч эрдэм 
шинжилгээний ажилд хэрэглэх шаардлагатай болоход эдгээр мэдээллууд нь 
бэлэн байдаг учир баримт хѳтлѳх нь ялангуяа чухал зуйлийн нэг юм. 
Олдворын эх хувьтай адилхан биетийг чанарын ѳндѳр тувшинд хувилан 
бутээх нь бас нэг тѳрлийн баримт хѳтлѳлт болох бѳгѳѳд энэ нь маш ашиглалт 
сайтай юм. Энэ тѳрѳлд судалгааны ажлын зориулалтаар буюу узуулэнгийн 
зорилгоор хэв цутгах арга нь багтаж болно, ялангуяа эх олдвор нь дээрх 
зориулалтаар байрнаасаа хѳдѳлж тээвэрлэгдэх боломжгуй тохиолдолд энэ арга 
нь хамгийн хэрэглууштэй арга юм [Зураг 11.8]. Ингэж хувилсан баримтыг элэгдэж 
хуучирсан материалын ундсэн эх баримт болгон ашиглаж болох талтай. 
Баримт хѳтлѳх энэхуу аргыг амьдралд хэрэгжуулсэн нэг тохиолдол нь 
Монголын буган чулуун хѳшѳѳ юм. Эдгээр нь удаан хугацааны турш хээр гадаа 
оршиж байсаар ирсэн бѳгѳѳд тухайн хѳшѳѳг ямар чулуугаар (чанар сайтай 
эсвэл чанар муутай) босгосноос шалтгаалан элэгдэл хорогдлын тувшин нь 
ѳѳр ѳѳр байсан. Байрнаас нь хѳдѳлгѳж болдог олворуудын нэгэн адилаар уг 
хѳшѳѳнуудийг хамгаалалттай орчноор хангах нь тэдгээрийн урт хугацаанд оршин 
тогтнох нэг нѳхцѳл нь болж байсан боловч бодит амьдрал дээр хэрэгжуулэхэд 
бэрхшээл учирч болзошгуй. Зарим нэг элэгдэж хорогдож муудсан хѳшѳѳнд 
тухайлан зориулж хадгалалтын тал дээр илуу дорвитой алхам хийх шаардлагатай 
ч байж магадгуй. Иймэрхуу хамгаалалтыг хэрэгжуулэх баталгаа байхгуй энэ 
мэтчилэнгийн тохиолдолд баримтжуулах уйл ажиллагаа нь хамгаас чухал байдаг. 
Зѳѳж шилжуулж болдог олдвортой нэгэн адилааар чулуун хѳшѳѳнѳѳс авсан 
сайн чанарын хэв нь судалгаа шинжилгээнд болон узуулэнгийн зориулалтаар 
хэрэглэгдэж болно. Тэр ч байтугай урт хугацааны хамгаалалтын зорилгоор устаж 
угуй болох аюул тулгарсан хѳшѳѳг найдвартай газар уруу нуулгэн шилжуулсэн 
тохиолдолд энэ хэвийг хѳшѳѳ байрлаж байсан газар орлуулан хэрэглэж бас 
болно. 
Буган чулуу эсвэл зѳѳж болох олдворыг аль алинд нь хэв цутгах 
ажиллагааны уеэр олдворын анхны хувилбарт нь газраас хѳндийлѳн ил гаргах, 
зов материалуудыг сонгох гэх мэтээр анхаарал болгоомжтой хандахгуй бол сорог 
ѳѳрчлѳлт учруулах боломжтой. Эх хувилбарын гадаргууг хэв цутгах материалаас 
хамгаалахын тулд олон давхар тусгаарлагч материалыг дандаа хэрэглэх хэрэгтэй 
ба энэ нь дараа нь хуулж болдог байх ёстой. Хэрвээ гадаргуу нь эмзэг бутрамтгай 
буюу элэгдэж хуурч эхлэсэн тохиолдолд тусгай зориулалтын хамгааалалтыг 
урьдчилан хэрэглэхгуй л бол хэв цутгах явцад гадаргууд нѳхѳж болшгуй гарз 
хохирол учруулж гэмтээх аюултай. 
Дугнэлт 
Музейн зугээс авч узвэл олдвор цуглуулгын унэ цэнэ нь хэр хэмжээ, 
хамгаалалтын байдал, эх материалын болон баримт буртгэлийг ашиглах 
бололцоо зэргээс хамаарч тодорхойлогдож байдаг бѳгѳѳд эдгээрийг яаж 
хариуцах нь цуглуулгын зохион байгуулалт болон хадгалалтын мэргэжлийн 
ур чадварт тулгуурлаж байдаг. Ерѳнхий тохиолдолд сайн хадгалалт хийхийн 
/\rcbaeological (Conservation 
тулд материалыг зѳв хамгаал алтын талаар хѳндѳгддѳг. Археологийн олдворын 
материалын хувьд хамгийн эмзэг уе буюу малталтын явцаас эхлэн тууний 
дараа олон жилийн турш хадгалах эсвэл узуулэнд тавих хуртэл тооцож 
узэх шаардлагатай болдог. Зарим тохиолдолд хамгаалалт хийх зорилгоор 
явуулсан уйл ажиллагаа нь тохиромжгуй материал буюу арга зам сонгож 
хэрэглэснээс болоод шаардлагагуй буюу дараа нь нйхйж болшгуй гарз 
хохирол учруулж болно. Тийм учраас эдгээрийг хэрэглэхдээ болгоомжтой 
хандаж ямар нэг шинэ материалыг археологийн олдворт хэрэглэх гэж байгаа 
бол ялангуяа олдвор нь шинжлэх ухааны судлалд ашиглагдах бол урьдчилан 
нягтлах хэрэгтэй. Аюулгуй агуулахад хадгалах болон аль болох багаар 
харьцах дээр тулгуурласан хамгаалалтын бодлого нь хамгийн бага эрсдэлтэй 
бѳгѳѳд археологийн материалыг урт хугацаанд хамгийн сайн аргаар авч 
улдэх бодлогод хамаардаг. Цуглуулгыг амархан байрлуулж аль болох бага 
харьцаж судалгаанд хамруулах уйл явцтай хамтруулан хадгалвал энэ хэлбэр 
нь хамгийн зардал хэмнэсэн бѳгѳѳд хамгийн ач холбогдолтой хамгаалалтын 
уйл ажиллагаа болох юм. 
William Fitzhugh, А. О chi г, Paul Rhymer, Carolyn Thome, Ts. Ayush, and Paula De- 
Priest at the National Museum of Mongolian History in June, 2004, with the Ushkiin 
Uver deer stone cast made by Rhymer and Thome in 2003. (photo: Neighbors) 
i 54 
1 л 
[\4odel-f\4a^ing an^ (pasting 
Paul Rhymer, Exhibits Specialist 
Exhibits Department, National Museum of Natural History 
Smithsonian Institution 
Carolyn Thome, Model-maker 
Office of Exhibits Central 
Smithsonian Institution 
The main goal of the Model-Making and Casting workshop was to demonstrate 
and teach Mongolians the different processes and materials used to replicate the Ushkiin 
Uver deer stone which the Smithsonian cast with the National Museum of Mongolian 
History in 2002. It was hoped that in demonstrating these different techniques in a hands- 
on workshop, Mongolians would be able to apply these skills to reproduce artifacts for 
their museum display and research purposes. 
In preparation for the workshop, information packets with photographs of the deer 
stone’s molding and casting process were given to participants. Images and text explaining 
model-making processes for other types of projects were handed out as well. Molds and 
samples of casts were brought along in hopes that these examples would help explain the 
processes if the translated technical terms fell short. A picture is, after all, worth a thousand 
words. 
Once we arrived in Mongolia we searched for any local materials that could be 
purchased. Success was mixed. Since there are so many artists in Mongolia it was easy 
to find paints and clay, as well as auto-body putty for casting. Other materials such as 
plaster and fiberglass (which are good, reasonably priced, and simple to use for a very wide 
variety of projects) couldn’t be found, even after several days of searching. The words for 
these materials were not easily translated which most likely exacerbated the problem. It is 
probable that some of these materials can be found in Ulaanbaatar, but others would have 
to be imported along with necessary materials such as molding rubber. 
To start off the workshop we provided an explanation of the deer stone’s reproduction. 
The images of the process were helpful in explaining techniques used. Having available 
the mold and finished cast of the deer stone also helped reinforce and clarify our points. 
This informal seminar was often referred to during the workshop to answer questions 
participants had about different processes and how to approach other projects. 
After the descriptions of molding, casting, and the basics of model-making, some 
time was spent doing hands-on projects with the materials. All participants, from such 
diverse backgrounds as museum preparators, artists, and scholars, seemed eager to jump 
in and mixed resins and paint on molding rubbers with enthusiasm. Many tried their hand 
at casting rocks with body putty and plaster. Dry pigments bought at the local market were 
used to color them. Participants experimented with different molding rubbers like silicone, 
silicone putty, and latex. 
All in all, the workshop was a great success. Participants were enthusiastic, and 
many were eager to tell us how they would use what they learned in their work. Their 
major concern was access to materials, and how local materials or substitutes might differ 
from the ones used in the demonstrations. 
As a follow-up after the workshop, we did an informal session with the preparators 
and taxidermists at the Mongolian Natural History Museum. After a morning tour of the 
museum and their production area, the rest of the afternoon was spent in the field collecting 
small birds for a demonstration of bird taxidermy to be given the following day. The 
taxidermy process that is currently used in Mongolia is quite antiquated and access to 
materials and modern taxidermy products hampers progress in their technique. One day 
wasn’t adequate to significantly train their staff, but it afforded a unique opportunity for the 
introduction of our staff to theirs, which is sure to yield future benefits for both parties. 
Contact address: Paul Rhymer, Exhibits Specialist, Exhibitions Department, National 
Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution; e-mail: rhymerp@si.edu 
Contact address: Carolyn Thome, Model-maker, Office of Exhibits Central, 
Smithsonian Institution; e-mail: thomec@si.edu. 
Figure 14.1. Cast of the Ushkiin Uver 
deer stone in the Mongolian History 
Museum 
1 5 6 fvhymer et al. 
Figure 14.2. Shopping at 
UB market for model¬ 
making materials for the 
workshop. 
Figure 14.3. Workshop participants examining the deer stone mold at the National 
Museum of Mongolian History. 
f\4odel-f\/|a^in5 and (pasting 157 
Mong°i|an T~ransiation 
Загвар - Хэв уйлдэх ажлын хэсэг 
Паул Раймер, Музейн мэргэжилтэн 
Смитсонийн Институтын Байгалын Туухийн Ундэсний Музейн узмэрийн 
Тэнхим 
Karolin Том, Хэв уйлдэгч 
Смитсонийн Институтын узмэрийн Тѳв газар 
Загвар - Хэв уйлдэх ажлын хэсгийн гол зорилго нь 2002 онд Смитсонийн 
Институтээс Монголын Ундэсний Туухийн музейтэй хамтран хийсэн буган 
чулууны хэвийг уйлдэхэд ашигласан материал болон уйл явцыг Монголчуудад 
узуулэх мѳн зааж сургах байсан. Эдгээр ѳѳр ѳѳр арга техникийг бодит байдлаар 
нь харсанаар Монголчууд ѳѳрсдийн музейдээ узуулэнгийн зориулалтаар хэв 
загваруудыг уйлдэхэд ашиглах боломжтой болно гэж бид нар найдаж байсан 
юм. 
Ажлын хэсгийн уеэр буган чулууны хэв хийсэн уйл явцыг харуулсан 
мэдээлэл болон фото зураг бухий гарын авлагуудыг оролцогчдод тараан ѳгсѳн. 
Ѳѳр бусад тѳрлийн тѳсѳлд хэрэглэгдсэн хэв хийх аргыг тайлбарласан зураг 
болон материалуудыг мѳн тараан ѳгсѳн. Техникийн уг хэллэг орчуулгаас болон 
ойлгомжгуй байх тохиолдолд илуу ойлгомжтой байх болно гэж бодсоны ундсэн 
дээр хэв хийх загварын хэсгээс жишээ болгон бас авчирсан. Ер нь зураг мянга 
мянган угнээс илуу сайн тайлбар болно гэдэг зарчмыг баримталсан юм. 
Бид Монголд ирэнгуутээ монголд худалддаг зарим нэг материалуудыг 
худалдаж авахаар хайж эхлэсэн бѳгѳѳд зарим зуйлээ амжилттай бутээсэн 
боловч зарим нь тѳдийлѳн амжилттай байсангуй. Монголд нэлээн олон тооны 
уран бутээлчид байдаг учир будаг, шавар болон хэвний их биенд ашиглах 
шаваас зэргийг хялбархан олж авч чадлаа. Гэвч нэлээн хэдэн ѳдрийн турш 
хайсан боловч шохой, фибер шил гэх мэт бусад материалуудыг (сайн чанарын, 
боломжийн унэтэй, олон тѳрлийн уйл ажиллагаанд хэрэглэгдэхээр энгийн) олж 
чадсангуй. Эдгээр угсийг орчуулахад тийм ч хялбархан байгаагуй нь хундрэлтэй 
асуудал уусэх шалтгаан болж байсан байх. Эдгээр зарим нэг материалуудыг 
Улаанбаатараас олж авах боломжтой байсан боловч бусад нь резинэн хэв гэх 
мэт хэрэгцээтэй материалуудтай хамт гаднаас импортоор орж ирдэг байсан 
байх. 
Ажлын хэсгийг бид буган чулууны хэв цутгах уйл ажиллагааг 
тайлбарласнаар эхлэсэн ба энэ ажиллагаанд хэрэглэсэн арга техникийг зургаар 
узуулсэн нь их ойлгомжтой болгож байлаа. Хэв болон буган чулууны цутгамлыг 
харуулсан нь бидний заасан зуйлийг илуу тодорхой болгоход туе нэмэртэй 
байлаа. Энэ уеэр оролцогчдын уйл явцын талаар болон ѳѳр бусад асуусан 
асуултанд хариулж байсан. 
Хэв авах, цутгах мѳн загвар анхан шатны явцыг узуулений дараа ѳгѳгдеѳн 
материалаар загвар бутээхэд хэсэг цаг зарцуулав. Музейн ажилтан, уран бутээлч, 
эрдэмтэн судлаачид гэх мэт тѳрѳл бурийн мэргэжлийн хумуусээс бурдеэн 
оролцогчид маань хэвийн резинэн дээрх будгийг ашиглан хэв хийж узэхийг тэсэн 
і 88 р(Ь(.)тег etal 
ядан хулээсэн харагдаж байлаа. Ихэнх нь хэв болгох чулууг шаваас, шохойтой 
нь хамт гартаа барин хэв хийж узэхээр оролдож байлаа. Хуурай будагнуудыг 
хэвээ будаж ѳнгѳ оруулах зорилгоор Улаанбаатараас худалдаж авсан. Энд 
оролцогчид маань силикон, силикон шаваас, шохой гэх мэт ѳѳр ѳѳр тѳрлийн 
резинэн хэвнуудээр туршилт хийж узэцгээлээ. 
Ийнхуу туе уйл ажиллагаа маань маш амжилттай болж ѳнгѳрсѳн. 
Оролцогчид маань бугд маш идэвхтэй оролцож юу сурсанаа хэрхэн ѳѳрсдийнхѳѳ 
ажилд хэрэгжуулэхээ бидэнтэй хуваалцахаар мэрийж байлаа. Тэдний гол санааг 
нь зовоож байсан зуйл нь хэрэглэгдэх материалаа олох байсан бѳгѳѳд монголд 
худалдаалагддаг материал болон орлуулж хэрэглэх материалууд нь туе уйл 
ажиллагааны уеэр хэрэглэснээс ѳѳр байж болох талаар байлаа. 
Энэ ажлын хэегийн дараа бид Монголын ундэений Туухийн Музейн 
ажилтанууд болон чихмэл хийдэг хумуустэй албан ёсны бус энгийн уулзалт 
зохион байгуулсан. Музейг ѳглѳѳ узэж сонирхсоны дараа удээс хойш маргааш 
нь хэрэглэгдэх чихмэлийн узуулэнд ашиглах жижиг шувууг олж авав. Одоогийн 
байдлаар Монголд хэрэглэгдэж байгаа чихмэлийн уйл явц нь нэлээн хуучирсан 
арга бѳгѳѳд орчин уеийн чихмэл хийх бутээгдэхуун материал олж авах бэрхшээл 
нь тэдний чихмэл хийх арга техниктээ дэвшилт гаргах явдалд саад болж байсан 
байна. Ганцхан ѳдрийн дотор тэдгээр хумууейиг сургах нь хангалттай биш 
байсан боловч энэ нь тэдэнд бидний ѳѳрсдийн бутээлийг танилцуулах ховорхон 
аз завшаан байсан бѳгѳѳд улмаар энэ нь хоёр талын аль алинд нь ирээдуйн ашиг 
тусаа ѳгеѳн уйл байсан нь дамжиггуй. 
Figure 14.4. Paul Rhymer demonstrating molding and casting at the workshop, (photo: 
Fitzhugh) 
Model-Matins, and (pasting 
Workshop participants at the National Museum of Mongolian History, (photo: Hunt) 
15>o 
integrated f est Management in Museums 
Jeremy Jacobs 
Department of Vertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History 
Smithsonian Institution 
Deborah Bell 
Department of Botany, National Museum of Natural History 
Smithsonian Institution 
Agents of deterioration of museum collections include: direct physical forces, 
thieves and vandals, fire, water, contaminants, radiation, incorrect temperature, incorrect 
relative humidity, and pests. Pests will be the topic of this presentation, and more 
specifically, integrated pest management,’ referred to as IPM. Integrated pest management 
is a systematic approach to preventing and combating pest infestations, and is as integral 
to a museum as the budget, security, exhibition design, safety and health of the employees 
and the emergency preparedness plan. 
Museum pests are generally insects or rodents damaging to the collections, or birds 
which may foul the outdoor premises and can attract insect pests. An IPM plan should 
include methods to maintain a constant awareness to avoid, block, detect, identify and 
evaluate, respond, and recover (if an infestation occurs). 
Avoid - Reduce the risk of pests being attracted to the building. 
Block: 
Door seals at threshold 
Window screens 
Quarantine incoming specimens/Routine prophylactic treatment for some 
Proper storage of specimens 
Detect, Identify and Evaluate: 
Visual inspection 
Monitoring (sticky traps) 
Record keeping 
Knowledge of the insect (habits, lifecycle, etc.) 
if i 
Respond: (Balance available resources) 
Building alterations 
Environmental conditions 
Temperature 
Humidity 
Sanitation 
Monitoring and inspection 
Treatment 
Chemical 
Freezing 
Anoxic methods 
Recover: Clean up the infestation 
Clean the specimen 
Note specimen damage 
Repair specimen 
Monitoring and inspection 
Periodically inspect specimens and artifacts for pest damage. Insects or droppings 
are more easily visible on a light-colored surface. Lining dark-colored drawers with white 
paper can help in distinguishing evidence of pests. 
Insect traps are a key element in an integrated pest management plan. Sticky traps 
are used to capture wandering adults, to provide evidence of resident populations and 
fluctuations. Monitoring with traps can alert museum personnel to a potential problem 
which otherwise may go unchecked until significant damage to specimens is observed. 
Pheromone traps should only be used if the building is air-conditioned. If windows are 
open, pheromone traps could attract insects into the building. 
Treatment 
Treatment is the most difficult element to define. The unique characteristics of the 
artifact or biological specimen and the consequences of the treatment must be considered. 
A conservator should be consulted before treating objects or specimens. 
Chemical treatments can have long-term deleterious effects on the object, which 
may not be obvious at the time of treatment. For example, a colorless mercuric chloride 
(corrosive sublimate) solution, in water or alcohol, had been applied to many natural 
history specimens since the 18th century as a pesticide and fungicide. Active application 
has ended in most countries, however, specimens in collections retain mercuric chloride 
residue. This residue may sublimate at ambient temperature to produce elemental mercury 
vapor, and accumulate in closed storage cabinets, creating a potential health hazard and 
contaminating untreated specimens. Additionally, over time, the mercuric chloride may 
undergo a series of reactions that result in gray-black stains that can darken the specimen 
and/or completely obscure the data on specimen labels (Hawks and Bell 1999). 
1?2 Jacobs et al. 
Some chemicals have been used successfully when carefully applied to the floor 
along the perimeter of a room, to control crawling insects. 
Crvofumigation (freezing) can safely be used on dried plant specimens (herbarium 
specimens) as a method to kill all stages of common herbarium insect pests. T.J.K. Strang 
(1997) mentions that insects that tolerate freezing, control ice formation in their bodies by 
producing a special protein and introducing it into their body fluids. These insects can remain 
frozen for months and still recover on thawing. So, one would think that cryofumigation of 
specimens in Mongolia would be ineffective. However, Strang states that insects generally 
do not maintain these cold protective systems when their environment remains relatively 
warm, because there is a metabolic cost involved. He suggests as a rough guide to allow 
one month quarantine at room temperature to induce insects to flush protective substances 
from their bodies. His major guideline is that the temperature should drop as low as possible, 
as quickly as possible, for as long as possible. The amount of time to freeze is dependent 
upon the temperature. He suggests that a practical recommended treatment is -20 degrees C 
for one week (Strang 1997), or -30 degrees C for 4 days (Strang 1992.) Keep in mind that 
it could take 16 hours for the contents of a box to reach the desired temperature because 
of the insulating properties of the packing, so add an additional day to the freezing time 
(Shchepanek 1996). 
Anoxic treatments (oxygen deprivation, or controlled atmosphere treatments) to 
eradicate insect pests, is an alternative when either chemical treatments or temperature 
controlled treatments would be detrimental to the objects involved. Chemical treatments 
as stated above can cause color changes, protein changes or other alterations to the object. 
Some anthropological specimens can not withstand significant changes in temperature. 
When these treatments are unacceptable due to the nature of the object, anoxic treatments 
can be incorporated into the IPM plan. Anoxic treatments are quite effective over a large 
range of insect species. The theory is quite simple, if you remove breathable air (oxygen) 
from the pest it will die. By removing the oxygen from around the pest you form an 
atmosphere that is not compatible with life. Three gasses are employed in anoxic treatments, 
CO,, argon or nitrogen. Both argon and nitrogen are inert, unreactive gasses. By sealing 
an infested object in an air tight container (usually a bag made of either Teflon or Mylar) 
and replacing the “air” with one of the three gasses you can “suffocate” the pest involved. 
When done correctly this technique is very efficient and will have no harmful effects on 
your specimens. In a warm environment, about 30 degrees C, and atmosphere of 99.7% 
argon, the treatment will take 5 to 8 days, a little longer with the same conditions using 
nitrogen (about 7 to 10 days) and much longer, 15 days using CO,. CO, acts in a different 
way than the two inert gasses. You need only maintain a 60% CO, atmosphere in your 
enclosure but you must also keep the RH below 40%. With C02 the pest insects tend to 
open their spiracles in order to receive more oxygen, and die due to dehydration. CO, is 
preferred by some users in that it is easier to maintain a 60% atmosphere of CO, than it 
is to maintain a 99.7 % atmosphere with argon and nitrogen. It is also cheaper and easier 
to procure CO,. 
195 Pest Management 
One of the more versatile aspects of anoxic treatments is that with the proper 
equipment almost any size object or objects can be treated. The basic equipment needed 
is plastic sheeting of Mylar or Teflon (or any other non-permeable plastic), heat sealers, 
tubing, atmosphere concentration monitors, humidity monitors, and cylinders of gas. With 
the plastic sheeting (or plastic bags and a heat sealer) it is possible to create an enclosure of 
any size: treating a single book or as has been done in Europe, treating an entire building 
(a church in Germany). Once the object or objects have been enclosed in plastic the basic 
set up is the same for any sized object. Create a small hole at either end of the enclosure, 
introduce your gas from one side and let it run through the “bag” out the other side. As the 
gas leaves the bag it will pass through a monitor which will record the percentage of gas 
being expelled. In this way when the proper levels are reached both ends can be sealed 
and the bag (with it’s proper concentration of inert gas) can sit for the required amount of 
time. Many other innovations can be added to this system. If the gas is too “dry” then a 
humidifying device can be added. To decrease the amount of oxygen in the bag, oxygen 
scavengers can be used (Ageless by Mitsubishi is preferred). Many different adaptations 
to this procedure exist and are discussed in great detail in Selwitz and Maekawa. The costs 
involved with these techniques are dependant on the types of gas monitors and size of the 
objects being treated. In some instances, a setup for small objects can be very inexpensive 
when “home made”. A large reusable enclosure (about 3.5 cubic meters) with an automatic 
dispenser can be purchased for about $20,000 US. 
The disadvantages to anoxic treatments are few, but cost and time involved to set up 
can be great. Anoxic treatment, as well as temperature treatments, is purely prophylactic. 
Once the item is treated and removed from it’s enclosure it is just as vulnerable to infestation 
as it was before treatment. 
The Fate of the Collections is in Our Hands 
As curators of the collections, we are responsible for all aspects of proper care, to 
assure that the museum’s acquisitions will be available for posterity. We must maintain 
constant vigilance against pests, which can quickly destroy irreplaceable biological and 
historical artifacts. Developing and following an integrated pest management plan is integral 
to the survival of the specimens and objects under our care. 
Contact Address: Jeremy Jacobs, Department of Vertebrate Zoology, National Museum 
of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC; e-mail: jacobsj@si.edu. 
Contact Address: Deborah Bell, Department of Botany, National Museum of Natural 
History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC; e-mail: belld@si.edu. 
i 9Л Jacobs et al. 
preferences 
Hawks, C., and D. Bell, 1999. Removal of Stains 
Caused by Mercuric Chloride Treatments from 
Herbarium Sheet Labels. In: Preprints of the 
ICOM-CC 12th Triennial Meeting Lyon 29, Aug.- 
Sept. 1999. ICOM Committee for Conservation 
and James & James, London, 723-727 
Selwitz, C., and S. Maekawa, 1998. Inert Gases 
in the Control of Museum Insect Pests. The 
J. Paul Getty Trust, The Getty Conservation 
Institute, 107. 
Shchepanek, M. J., 1996. Observations of 
Temperature and Relative Humidity During the 
Cooling and Warming of Botanical Specimens 
for Insect Pest Control. Collections Forum 
12( 1): 1 -7. 
Mongolian ranslation 
Музей дэх хортон шавъжийг устгах нэгдсэн ажиллагаа 
Жереми Жакобе 
Смитсонийн Институтын Байгалын Туухийн ундэений Музейн 
Амьтан судлалын Тэнхим 
Дэбора Белл 
Смитсонийн Институтын Байгалын Туухийн Ундэений Музейн 
Ургамал судлалын Тэнхим 
Музейн узмэрт хохирол учруулж хортойгоор нѳлѳѳлдѳг хучин зуйл уудэд: 
биет гэмтэл учруулах, хулгай дээрэм хийх, тал усны аюул, бохирдолт, хорт утаа, 
ѳрѳѳний дулааныг хэт халаах эсвэл хэт хѳргѳх, чийгшилтийн тэнцвэр алдагдах 
болон хортон шавьж зэрэг багтдаг. Энэ дотроос хортон шавьжтай хэрхэн тэмцэж 
устгах талаар энэ илтгэлд онцгойлон тусгасан юм. Хортон шавьжийг зайлуулах 
нь шавьж уржиж улмаар музейн эд хѳрѳнгѳ, аюулгуй ажиллагаа, узмэрийн 
ѳнгѳ тѳрх, ажилтнуудын эруул мэнд аюулгуй орчинд нѳлѳѳлѳхѳѳс хамгаалж 
сэргийлэн тэмцэх системтэй арга хэмжээ юм. 
Музей дэх хортон шавьжид музейн узмэр цуглуулгийг гэмтээж хохирол 
учруулагч тѳрѳл бурийн шавьжнууд, мэрэгч амьтад болон музейн гадна талыг 
бохирдуулан шавьж уржих нѳхцлийг бурдуулэгч шувуу зэрэг амьтад багтана. 
Ийм музейн хортон шавьжтай тэмцэх уйл ажиллагааны хурээнд хохирол 
гарахаас зайлехийх, хаалт хийх, эрж хайх, илруулэн устгах, хариу уйлдэл хийх, 
сэргээн засварлах (хэрвээ ямар нэг хохирол учирвал) гэх мэт байнгын урьдчилан 
сэргийлэн хамгаалах ажиллагуунууд хийгдэх нь зуйтэй. 
Pest Management І95 
Sirois, J., and К. Helwig, 1996. Analysis of 
Darkened Areas on Mounting Papers used in 
Historical Herbarium Specimens. Analytical 
Research Laboratory Report No. 3599. Canadian 
Conservation Institute, Ottawa. 
Strang, T. J. K., 1992. A Review of Published 
Temperatures for the Control of Pest Insects in 
Museums. Collection Forum 8(2): 41-67. 
Strang, T. J. K., 1997. Controlling Insect 
Pests with Low Temperature. Canadian 
Conservation Institute Notes 3/3, Canadian 
Heritage Cat. No. NM95-57/3-3-1997E ISSN 
0714-6221, Ottawa. 
Зайлсхийх - Шавьж амыпад байшингийн дотор орох эрсдэлийг багасгах 
Ааалт хийх: 
Хаалгануудыг лав хаах 
Цонхонд торнууд байрлуулах 
Шинээр авчирсан дээжийг сайн шалгах 
(Заримыг нь тогтмол узэж шалгах) 
Дээж болгон авчирсан узуулэнг зѳв хадгалах 
Эрж хайн илруулэн устгах: 
Нудээр шалгах 
Илруулэх (наалддаг хавхаар) 
Буртгэл хѳтлѳх 
Шавьжны талаар сайн мэддэг байх (хаана амьдарч хийдэг 
зуйлууд, амьдрах хугацаа гэх мэт) 
Харпу уйлдэл хийх: (Нѳѳц бол ом ж о о тэнцвэртэйгээр ашиглах) 
Байшингийн ѳѳрчлѳлт 
Орчин нѳхцѳлууд 
Агаарын температур 
Чийгшилт 
Ариун цэвэр 
Хянаж шалган ариутгах 
Хамгаалан арчлах 
Химийн 
Хѳлдѳѳх 
Аноксик аргууд 
Сэргээн засварлах: 
Бохирдлыг цэвэрлэх 
Дээжийг цэвэрлэх 
Дээж бохирдсон эсвэл гэмтсэн байвал тэмдэглэх 
Дээжийг аль болох сэргээн засварлах 
Хянаж шалгах 
Хортон шавьж амьтнаас урьдчилан сэргийлж тогтмол хугацаанд узмэр 
дээжист шалгалт хийх нь зуйтэй. Гэгээтэй ѳнгѳтэй гадаргуу дээр улдээсэн 
шавьжны толбо мор нь энгийн нудээр харахад амархан байдаг учир бараан 
ѳнгийн шуугээг цагаан цаасаар бурэх нь шавьжний ул мѳрийг ялгаж танихад 
хялбар дѳхѳм болгодог. 
Хортон шавьжтай тэмцэх уйл ажиллагаанд хавхыг хэрэглэх нь хамгийн 
гол тулхуур элемент болдог. Наалддаг хавхыг тавьснаар музейд олноороо 
уурлэсэн амьтдын байршилыг илруулэх тааралдсан уед нь барьж авах давуу 
талтай. Хавхыг хэрэглэн музейг хортон шавьж амьтдаас сэргийлснээр музейн 
узмэрт ноцтой хохирол учруулж болзошгуй аюулыг музейн ажилтнуудад дохио 
болгон сэрэмжлуулэх боломжтой болдог. Феромин хавхыг зѳвхѳн музейн 
барилга дотор агааржуулагч ажилладаг тохиолдолд хэрэглэх нь зуйтэй байдаг. 
Хэрвээ цонхнууд онгорхой байвал энэ тѳрлийн хавхнуудаас болоод гаднаас 
шавьж болон амьтад цуглах хандлагатай байдаг. 
1 96 Jacobs et al. 
Хамгаалан арчлах 
Арчилгаа бол хамгийн тодорхойлоход хэцуу элемент юм. Олдвор эсвэл 
биологийн узмэрийн онцлог шинж чанар болон арчилгааны цаашдын ур 
дагаварыг нарийн тооцоолон авч узэх шаардлагатай болдог. Музейн хадгалагч 
нь эд зуйлсийг буюу узмэрийг арчлах уйл ажиллагаа эхлэхийн ѳмнѳ заавал 
урьдчилан лавлаж зѳвлѳлдсѳн байх ёстой. 
Химийн бодис хэрэглэн арчлах нь тухайн цаг уедээ нѳлѳѳлѳл нь 
мэдэгдэхгуй боловч урт хугацааны дараа илрэх сѳрѳг ур дагавартай байх 
магадлалтай. Жишээлбэл, 18-р зуунаас эхлэн маш олон тооны байгалын туухийн 
музейнууд ѳнгѳгуй мѳнгѳн усны хлорийн уусмалыг усанд буюу спиртэнд 
найруулан шавьж болон мѳѳгѳнцѳрѳѳс хамгаалахын тулд узмэрт хэрэглэдэг 
байсан байна. Гэвч, мѳнгѳн усны хлорын уусмалын толбо нь узмэрт толбо 
улдээдэг нь тогтоогдсон учир ихэнх оронд уунийг хэрэглэхийг зогсоосон 
байна. Эдгээр толбо нь орчныхоо температурт ууршин мѳнгѳн ус ялгаруулж, 
хадгалалтын битуу саванд хуримтлагдаж эруул мэндэд ноцтой хор учруулах 
боломжтой бѳгѳѳд бусад узмэруудийг мѳн хордуулах магадлалтай. Туунээс 
гадна, мѳнгѳн усны хлор нь узмэрийн ѳнгийг харлуулах хар саарал толбо улдээх 
мѳн узмэрийн зуулт бичиг дээрх тоо баримтыг тэр чигээр нь будгэруулэх гэх 
мэт сѳрѳг ур дагаварыг удаан хугацааны дараа уусгэх аюултай (Hawks, С. & 
Bell, D. 1999) 
Зарим нэг химийн бодисыг сайтар нягталсны ундсэн дээр шалны 
хѳвѳѳг дагуулан хэрэглэснээр хортон шавьжтай тэмцэх бодит ур дунд хурсэн 
тохиолдлууд бас байдаг. 
Краёфюмигайшн буюу хѳлдѳѳх нь ургамлын хатаамал узмэрийн ургамалд 
уурлэдэг шавьж амьтдыг бухий л шатанд нь устгахад хэрэглэх найдвартай арга 
юм. Т.Ж.К. Стран (1997) бичихдээ хѳлдѳѳхѳд тэсвэртэй шавьжнууд нь мѳсийг 
биедээ шингээж уургийг ялгаруулдаг бѳгѳѳд энэ нь биеийнх нь шингэн болж 
хувирдаг. Эдгээр хѳлдсѳн шавьжнууд нь хэдэн сарын турш хѳлдуу байдаг боловч 
хайлах уедээ буцаж амьдардаг талаар дурджээ. Тийм учраас Монголд энэхуу 
хйлдййх арга нь тийм ч ур дунтэй арга биш гэж хэлэх хун гарч ирж болох юм. 
Гэвч Стран цааш нь хэлэхдээ хэрвээ амьдрах орчин нь харьцангуйгаар дулаан 
байх юм бол эдгээр шавьжнууд нь ихэнхдээ бодисийн солилцооны системийн 
улмаас хуйтнээс ѳѳрийгѳѳ хамгаалж чаддаггуй. Шавьжны хуйтнээс ѳѳрийгѳѳ 
хамгаалах системийг байхгуй болгохын тулд нэг сарын турш тасалгааны 
температурт шавьжийг байлгах хэрэгтэй гэж зѳвлѳсѳн байна. Хамгийн гол нь 
аль болох хурдан хугацаанд температурыг аль болох хуйтэн болгож аль болох 
урт хугацаагаар байлгах хэрэгтэй гэж тэр узсэн байна. Хѳлдѳѳхѳд шаардлагатай 
хугацаа нь температурын хэмжээнээс шалтгаалдаг бѳгѳѳд-20 хэмийн хуйтэнд 
нэг долоо хоногийн турш байлгах (Strang 1997) эсвэл -30 хэмийн хуйтэнд 4 
хоногийн турш байлгах нь (Strang 1992) хамгийн ур дунтэй гэж тэр зѳвлѳсѳн 
байна. Хайрцаг дотор байгаа зуйлийг хѳлдѳѳхѳд, давхар жийргэвч гэх мэт зуйл 
ашиглан байрлуулдаг учир 16 цаг шаардлагатай байдгаас шалтгаалан дахиад 
нэг хоногийг нэмж тооцоолоход илуудэхгуй (Shchepanek 1996). 
Аноксик (хучилтѳрѳгчийн дутагдал буюу агаарыг ѳѳрчлѳх) арчилгаа 
нь химийн аргаар болон температурыг ѳѳрчлѳх аргаар хорхой шавьжийг 
устгах нь узмэрт сѳргѳѳр нѳлѳѳлж байгаа тохиолдолд хэрэглэж болох бас 
нэгэн арчилгааны хэлбэр юм. Дээр дурдсан химийн аргаар устгал хийх уед 
узмэрийн ѳнгѳ хувирах, уураганд ѳѳрчлѳлт орох гэх мэт хортой ур дагавар 
учирч болзошгуй байдаг. Мѳн зарим нэг антропологийн узмэруудийн орчны 
Рest Management i 97 
температур ѳѳрчилж болохгуй байх тохиолдол ч бас гардаг. Энэ мэтчилэнгээр 
тухайн узмэрийн онцлох шинж чанараас шалтгаалан дээрх хоёр аргааар устгал 
хийх боломжгуй тохиолдолд аноксик аргаар устгал хийх нь шалгарсан арга 
бѳгѳѳд аноксик устгалын арга нь нэлээн олон тѳрлийн хорхой шавьжийг устгах 
ур дунтэй арга юм. Ажиллах зарчим нь тун энгийн бѳгѳѳд, хэрвээ амьтны 
амьдрах орчны агаараас хучилтѳрѳгчийг сорон авбал амьтан амьдрах чадваргуй 
болдог онол дээр тулгуурласан юм. Аноксик устгалд СО,, аргон болон азот 
гэсэн гурван тѳрлийн хийг ашиглаж болох бѳгѳѳд аргон болон азотын аль аль 
нь идэвхгуй амьгуй тѳрлийн хийнууд юм. Устгал хийхийг хуссэн эд зуйлсийг 
агаарыг нь соруулсан битуу уутанд (ихэвчлэн Teflon буюу Mylar -аар хийгдсэн 
уут) хийгээд агаарын оронд дээр дурдсан гурван хийний аль нэгээр нь дуургэвэл 
хорхой шавьж болон бусад амьд биетууд амьдрах чадваргуй болно. Хэрвээ энэ 
аргыг зохих журмын дагуу зѳв хийж гуйцэтгэвэл узмэрт ямар ч гэмтэл хохирол 
учруулахгуйгээр устгал хийх сайн ур дунтэй арга юм. Ойролцоогоор 30 хэмийн 
дулаантай орчинд 99.7% ийн аргон хийгээр дуургэсэн орчинд устгал нь 5-8 ѳдѳр 
болох бѳгѳѳд азотын хийгээр дуургэвэл арай удаан буюу 7-10 ѳдѳр, харин СО, 
ийг хэрэглэвэл бур удаан буюу 15 ѳдѳр туе туе шаардлагатай болно. СО, нь 
нѳгѳѳ хоёр хийг бодвол арай ѳѳрѳѳр уйлчилдэг бѳгѳѳд агаарын зѳвхѳн 60% -ийг 
л СО, оор дуургэхэд хангалттай бѳгѳѳд RH тувшинг 40% -аас доош хадгалах 
шаардлагатай болдог. СО, ийг хэрэглэж байх уед хорхой шавьж буюу ямар 
нэг амьд биет хучилтѳрѳгчийн дутагдалд орж хучилтѳрѳгчийг авахаар мэрийх 
боловч шингэний дутагдалд орж амьдрах чадвараа алддаг байна. Агаарын 
99.7% -ийг аргон буюу азотын хийгээр дуургэх боломжгуй тохиолдолд агаарыг 
60% -ийн СО, оор дуургэж СО, хийг хэрэглэх нь хэрэглэгчдэд ашигтай байдаг. 
Туунчлэн СО, -ийг хэрэглэх нь арай хялбар бѳгѳѳд хямд унэ ѳртѳг зарцуулдаг 
байна. 
Аноксик устгалын аргыг хэрэглэхийн бас нэгэн уян хатан шинж чанар нь 
зориулалтын тѳхѳѳрѳмжийг ашиглан бараг л бух тѳрлийн том жижиг хэмжээтэй 
узмэр болон узмэрууд энэ аргаар хамрагдаж болох юм. Хамгийн эн туруунд 
шаардлагатай багаж тѳхѳѳрѳмжид Mylar буюу Teflon хуванцар уут (эсвэл ѳѳр 
ямар нэгэн нэвтэрдэггуй хуванцар уут), халуун агаар битуумжлэгч, дамжуулах 
хоолой, агаарын нягтрал хэмжигч, чийгшил хянагч, цилиндр савтай хий гэх мэт 
зуйлс багтана. Хуванцар уут сав болон халуун агаар битуумжлэх тѳхѳѳрѳмжний 
тусламжтайгаар ямар ч хэмжээний сав уусгэх боломжтой: Европт ганцхан 
номонд устгалжуулалт хийж байсан бол Германд бухэл бутэн сумийн байранд 
энэ аргаар устгал хийж байсан байна. Эд зуйлсийг битуумжилеэн хуванцар уут 
саванд байрлуулены дараа устгал хийх зарчим нь эд зуйлсийн хэмжээнээс ул 
хамааран адилхан байдаг. Битуумжилеэн савныхаа аль нэг узуурт нь жижигхэн 
нух гаргаад хийг нэг узуурээс нь эхлэн нѳгѳѳ узуур хуртэл оруулах хэрэгтэй. 
Хий уутыг дуургэх явцад агаарын нягтралыг хэмжигч нь хийний хэдэн хувь 
нь ялгарч байгааг тогтооно. Ингэж хяналт хийсний ур дунд зохих тувшний 
хий савны хоёр узуурт хурсний дараа савыг битуумжйлж тогтоосон хугацааны 
турш байлгах боломжтой. Энэ аргыг хэрэглэх уед ѳѳр бусад шинэ санаануудыг 
бас ашиглаж болно. Хэрвээ хий дэндуу хуурай байвал чийгшуулэгч багаж 
тѳхѳѳрѳмжийг нэмж суурьлуулж болно. Саван дахь хучилтѳрѳгчийн хэмжээг 
багасгахын тулд хучилтѳрѳгч илруулэгчийг (Мицубиши -ээс гаргасан Ageless 
илуу тохиромжтой) бас хэрэглэж болно. Гэх мэтчилэнгээр маш олон тѳрлийн 
хувилбарууд энэ аргаас урган гарсан бѳгѳд Selwitz болон Maekawa энэ талаар 
дэлгэрэнгуй тайлбарласан байгаа. Энэ аргыг хэрэглэх зардал ѳртѳг нь ямар 
1 у 8 Jacobs et al. 
тѳрлийн хий хянагч ашиглахаас мѳн устгалд хамрагдаж байгаа эд зуйлсийн 
том жижгээс шалтгаалан янз бур байдаг. Жишээ нь, жижиг оврын узмэрийг 
rap аргаар устгалд хамруулбал тун бага зардлаар хийж болно. Том оврын 
битуумжилсэн савыг (3.5 куб метр хэртэй) автомат машинтай нь хамт худалдан 
авбал $20000 ам.доллараар АНУ -аас худалдан авах боломжтой. 
Энэ аргыг хэрэглэхийн сул тал бараг байхгуй гэж хэлж болох боловч энэ 
аргыг хэрэглэхэд зарцуулагдах зардал ѳндѳр бѳгѳѳд цаг их шаарддаг. Аноксик 
устгал нь температурын ѳѳрчлѳлтѳѳр устгал хийх аргатай адилаар нэгэнт узмэр 
устгалд хамрагдаж дуусаад битуумжлэлээс гарсан бол ѳмнѳ байсантайгаа нэгэн 
адилаар шавьж уржих нѳхцѳлд хамгаалалтгуйгээр оршиж байдаг. 
Узмэр цуглуулгын ирээдуй бидний гарт байдаг 
Цуглуулгийг нудлэн хамгаалагчийн хувьд музейн баялаг ѳв нь бидний хойч 
ирээдуйд дамжин очихын тулд зохих журмын дагуу тэдгээрийг арчлах хамгаалах 
нь бидний эрхэм чухал уурэг юм. Музейн орлуулж боломгуй биологийн болон 
туухэн узмэруудийг, богино хугацааны дотор хѳнѳѳл учруулж болзошгуй 
хортон шавьж амьтдаас хамгаалахын тулд бид байнгын сонор сэрэмжтэй байх 
нь зуйтэй. Бидний нудлэн хамгаалдаг узмэр болон эд зуйлсийг бурэн бутнээр 
нь байлгахад хортон шавьжны устгалын ажлыг тѳлѳвлѳн мѳрдѳх нь чухал ач 
холбогдолтой. 
\99 
David Hunt demonstrating processing of human remains, (photo: Neighbors) 
200 
1 6 
f^eid and Laboratory (Lollections Management for 
/\rtifacts and Lluman Kemam5 
David R. Hunt 
Department of Anthropology 
National Museum of Natural History 
Smithsonian Institution 
The following pages will be a summarization and a re-emphasis of most of the salient 
points presented at the workshop during the symposium of June 2004, and Chapter 17 is 
the condensed outline handed out at the workshop. The information found in Chapter 17 
is predominantly derived and often paraphrased from Bass (1995:329-338, Appendix 2). 
Additional information was also derived from Ubelaker (1999) and incorporated into the 
handout. This specific presentation was intended to overview the excavation and removal 
of human remains in the field and review procedures for field tracking, containment and 
transport of the excavated materials to the laboratory. The presentation was also designed 
to overview laboratory procedures and provide suggestions for storage procedures. And 
although this particular presentation was focused on human remains, the storage and 
preservation procedures discussed are also applicable for use with archaeological materials 
that are planned for long-term curation. 
The field and laboratory procedures that were presented are what most Smithsonian 
archaeologists have practiced for the past several decades. The systematic format of these 
procedures has influenced the particular way our collections are cataloged and stored. They 
come from the field to the museum in a systematic method and organizational format. 
However, we also receive materials from fieldwork carried out by other institutions and 
universities. These, of course, are often excavated, organized, labeled and preserved in a 
different manner. It is imperative that the museum laboratory staff be able to adapt the other 
tracking and recording formats so as to retain the associative and research integrity of the 
objects. In conjunction with this though, the information must be processed so as to align 
with the Smithsonian registration format so that it can be integrated into the Smithsonian’s 
collections and records management procedures. This integration requires adaptation. 
Adaptation 
Adaptation is the key to any work in archaeology and anthropology. Adaptation is 
not only necessary to be able to generate the information from other institution’s work (as 
discussed above), but should be a mantra for fieldwork as a whole. Conditions beyond an 
expedition’s control will dictate how materials are excavated, recorded and tracked. Time 
201 
allowed for the fieldwork (dictated by permit or social/religious restrictions), experience 
of the field crew, environmental/weather factors (rainy conditions, extreme cold), access to 
equipment and packing materials (few storage boxes or paper or bags), and transportation 
restrictions (jeep, camel) all have an effect on the trajectory of the fieldwork and the 
expectations of the results from the work must be altered to fit these modifiers. 
Record Keeping 
If there is any paramount advice in field and laboratory work it is always keep 
records, including journals, photographs clear and redundant labeling. Do not rely on 
memory! And in addition, do not rely on only one (1) set of records. Inevitably a set of 
records or labels will be damaged or lost. Keep journals and record books in plastic bags 
and make double labels for bags, an exterior label on the bag, as well as an interior slip 
label. It is also common practice to number the bags and keep this inventory in a record 
book. This bag number inventory can be used as the exit inventory when leaving the site 
as well. A photographic record can be very helpful backup, especially given the ease with 
which photographic images can be made with digital cameras. 
Preservation of Objects and Provenience 
The key reason for recording and labeling and packing is preservation. It is 
necessary to accurately identify the provenience of the objects and specimens. Artifacts 
become essentially worthless as research materials for site reconstruction if the information 
about its origin is lost. It is the written and photographic records that preserve provenience. 
Copious records should be kept at all times, during the excavation is in progress as well 
as at the completion of the excavation and while processing and analyzing the artifacts in 
the laboratory. An accurate and understandable map presenting all the features, prominent 
artifacts and their orientation and association should be mapped for the site. 
Preservation of the objects is implemented at various stages in their excavation. 
The stability of the object must be assessed even before its removal from the matrix. Then 
the stability of the object has to be determined for field cleaning as well as its transport 
from the site to the laboratory or institution. As was presented above, much of this 
decision is based on many factors. For example, the time available to remove the objects 
may be contingent on weather conditions, time of day, whether or not the excavator can 
return to the site again. Preservation is particularly important in the case of fragile objects 
(particularly if they may fall apart if removed from the matrix, or damaged by long term 
exposure during the excavation). 
Transportation of materials from the field can be detrimental to the ultimate 
survivorship of the object. It is impossible to guarantee an object will not be damaged in 
transport, especially in remote areas where little packing or protective equipment may be 
available. But if the most rigorous efforts available are employed to protect the objects, 
their migration from the field to the laboratory may occur without a problem. 
Labeling of objects and bags is primary for keeping the provenience intact for 
objects in the field, during transport and in the laboratory. Once the label and/or association 
hunt 202 
is lost, the object is no longer truly usable for analysis. Labels can become damaged, so 
a label inside the bag, or inside the object will ensure preservation of vital infonnation. 
Photographing the object in situ before removal (with a label included in the photograph) 
is an additional mode for preservation of this information. 
An exit inventory of all bags should be done before materials are sent off site. A 
similar list should be made of the bags on the entry to the laboratory for tracking purposes. 
All field notes and other records that will be used for processing the objects in the laboratory 
should be copied to be a working copy for the laboratory. Do not use the original field notes 
as the working copy. This will surely lead to damage and possible loss of the records. 
Objects need to be identified by some easily and comprehensible labeling as 
tracking in the laboratory during cleaning and cataloging. The objects should be cataloged 
as soon as possible to reduce the possibility of mix-up. This cataloging includes: entry into 
a registration or ledger book, the making of a permanent catalog card, computer database 
entry and of course, a permanent label on the object. Do not rely on the computer database 
as the only source or record keeping. Databases are notorious for corruption and computers 
and software will always become outdated. Paper records (catalog cards and registration 
books and paper copies of the database) as well as print photographs (or negatives) are 
the most reliable. 
Storage and Collection Tracking 
In the storage of collections, there are two major points to be stressed - 1) protection 
for preservation, and 2) an accurate tracking of its location (i.e., where is the artifact 
stored). For protection and preservation, enclosed cabinets are the best protection for 
objects. Cabinets allow easy access and protective covering and buffering from the external 
environment. Containers (such as wood boxes) are certainly protective, but require much 
additional effort for access. Open shelving storage is less desirable, but if shelving is the 
only storage mode available, then the objects should be housed on the shelves in protective 
boxes, preferably made of non-reactive (chemically inert, buffered or acid-free) materials 
and with similar padding support for the object inside. It is desirable to have storage rooms 
that have some environmental controls to moderate humidity and temperature. 
Different objects require specific levels of humidity for best preservation. These 
need to be assessed by conservators for the most appropriate method of storage. What is 
the most basic however is controlling large fluctuations in both humidity and temperature 
to occur over a short period of time. There is also the problem of chemical interaction 
between object material types. Undesirable interactions such as such as corrosive between 
brass and leather should be considered before housing objects in close association with 
one another. 
Undeniably, collections require large amounts of storage space. And we all are well 
aware that space costs money, especially if it is to be environmentally controlled, secure, 
and good protective storage. Inventive ways to utilize the available resources that can be 
afforded is the adaptive key. Find the best possible storage location that can provide as 
good a climactically controlled surrounding building as possible to protect and allow for 
(^joliections Management 205 
long-term preservation of valuable collections. 
Properly tracking objects in storage requires diligent record-keeping done by 
competent staff that continuously review the storage areas and update changes. This is 
the only way to ensure an accurate inventory of the collections. Today, computerized 
databases are essential in object tracking and should be employed whenever possible. These 
databases allow for easy updating, but also provide the ability to do object searches by 
storage locations, object type or materials, by provenience or any other field grouping that 
is available in the database. However, do not design over-elaborate database formats. The 
more complicated a database, the greater the confusion of data fields and interrelationships 
of data occur, and the less “user friendly” the data becomes. Frustration is the ultimate 
outcome of this endeavor, not utility. 
Storage units and their locality label must be easy for everyone to recognize. There 
needs to be an organized sequence to the storage units and their location in the building 
so that it is logical to other staff people, not just the curatoral staff. Maps of the storage 
layout in the building are certainly helpful to orient people to the storage facility. Records 
keeping and care-taking of collections requires staff. Well-trained, conscientious and honest 
employees cost money. Adaptation and having the best people in key positions to keep this 
inventory and organization functioning is the key. 
Research and Exhibition vs.Conservation of Artifacts 
There is an inherent conflict between protecting and ensuring a conservationally 
stable collection versus having collections open and accessible for research and exhibition. 
This is, and will be an on-going dichotomy in museum collections management. To 
completely protect a collection it should be fully isolated from the effects of air, light, 
and handling. In contrast, research and analysis of collections certainly requires handling, 
exposure to light, environmental fluctuations and may even require destructive sampling. 
Display of objects may not have a handling element, but light exposure and mechanical 
stress of the display, no matter how slight, causes degradation in the integrity of the object 
over time. It requires hard decisions by the curatorial staff, conservators, and administrative 
staff of the museum to determine the point at which research access or exhibition use should 
give way to considerations of conservation. 
A pitfall in many institutions is the tracking and storage for borrows, loans and 
exhibitions. Often when the research/museum staff borrows objects, tracking is not done. 
Thus, the location of where the object is in the museum/institution is only based on 
someone’s memory, and we do not rely on memory. Location codes should be identified 
for offices, laboratories and for exhibit cases when an object goes on exhibit. A form or 
label should be placed in the permanent storage location, not only to identify where that 
object has gone, but also to identify the location to be left open for the eventual return of 
that object to permanent storage at a later date. 
Contact Address: David R. Hunt, Ph.D., Division of Physical Anthropology, 
Department of Anthropology Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC; e-mail: huntd@ 
si.edu 
preferences 
Bass, W. M., 1995. Human Osteology: A Laboratory Ubelaker, D. H., 1999. Human Skeletal Remains: 
and Field Manual, 4th e<±, Columbia, Missouri: Excavation, Analysis, Interpretation, 3rd ed., 
Archaeological Society Special Publication #2. Washington, Taraxacum. 
Mongolian /\bstract 
Хуний шарилыг хайгуулын ажлын уед болон лабораторит 
цуглуулах менежментийн уйл ажиллагаа 
Доктор Давид Р. Хант (Шинжлэх ухааны доктор) 
Смитсонийн Институтын Антропологийн тэнхмийн 
Физикал Антропологийн Салбар 
2003 оны 6 сард болсон хурлын уеэр тавигдсан илтгэлуудийн хамгийн амин 
чухал асуудлуудыг энэ илтгэлд хураангуйлан нэгтгэсэн бѳгѳѳд ажлын хэсгийн уеэр 
тараан ѳгсѳн материалууд болон гарын авлагуудыг ард нь хавсаргасан болно. 
Эдгээр тарааж ѳгсѳн гарын авлагуудын ихэнх нь Бассын (1995:329-338, Хавсралт 
2) бутээлуудээс хураангуйлагдан бурдсэн юм. Зарим нэг нь Убелакерийн (1999) 
бутээлээс нэмэлт болон энэ гарын авлагуудад багтсан байгаа. Энд илтгэл нь эртний 
хуний шарилыг хэрхэн малтлага хийж гаргах, энэ явцын талаар тэмдэглэглэл 
хѳтлѳн, малтлагын уед гаргаж авсан материал уудыг лаборатор уруу зѳѳж аваачих 
бух л уе шатыг тайлбарлан таниулах зорилготой байсан билээ. Туунээс гадна энэ 
илтгэл нь лабораторийн уйл явцын талаар ерѳнхий ойлголт ѳгч хадгалалт хэрхэн 
явагдах тухай зарим нэг зѳвлѳгѳѳ ѳгѳх давхар зорилготой байлаа. Хэдийгээр энэ 
илтгэл нь эртний хуний шарил дээр тулгуурласан байсан боловч, энд дурдагдаж 
байгаа хадгалалт нѳѳцлѳлтийн уйл явц нь удаан хугацаагаар хадгалах шаардлага 
бухий бусад археологийн олдворууд дээр бас хэрэглэгдэж болох юм. 
Уг илтгэлд дурдагдаж буй хайгуулын болон лабораторийн уйл явц нь 
Смитсонийн археологичдын ѳнгѳрсѳн хэдэн арван жилийн турш хэрэглэсээр 
ирсэн арга барил юм. Эдгээр уйл явцын системчилсэн арга хэлбэр нь бидний 
олдвор цуглуулгуудыг хадгалах каталогжуулахад маш туе нэмэртэй байсаар 
ирсэн бѳгѳѳд эдгээр олдворуудыг нь хайгуулын талбараас музей хуртэл тодорхой 
эрэмбэ дараатай зохион байгуулалттайгаар зѳѳвѳрлѳж авчирдаг. Гэхдээ зарим 
тохиолдолд бид бусад институт болон их сургуулиудын авчирсан хайгуулын 
материалуудыг бас хулээн авдаг. Мэдээж эдгээр нь малтлагын дараа ѳѳр ѳѳр 
аргаар эрэмбэлэгдэж, хаяг тайлбар наачттай болж, хадгалагдеан байдаг. Ийм 
учраас музейн болон лабораторийн мэргэжилтнууд болон ажилтнууд нь ѳѳр 
205 (Collections Management 
аргаар буртгэгдсэн материалуудыг зѳвѳѳр ялган судалгааны ажилд хэрэглэгдэх 
зохих журмын дагуу хулээн авч шилжуулэх нь хамгийн чухал байдаг. Уунээс 
гадна эдгээр гаднаас ирсэн олдвор дахь мэдээллууд нь Смитсонийн буртгэл хийх 
систем болон уйл явцтай нэгэн ижил хэлбэрээр буртгэгдсэн байх ёстой. Иймд энэ 
уйл явц нь тохируулан тааруулах уйл явц юм. 
Тохируулан тааруулалт 
Тааруулалт гэдэг бол археологи болон антропологийн аливаа ажилд 
хамгийн чухал ойлголт юм. Зѳвхѳн дээр дурдсан ѳѳр байгууллагын бутээл дэх 
мэдээллийг ѳѳрийнхдѳѳ тааруулан авахад энэ ойлголт нь чухлаас гадна хайгуул 
судалгааны ажилд тэр чигээрээ энэ ойлголт нь уялдаж байх ёстой юм. Хайгуулын 
ажлын зохион байгуулалт, хяналтаас гадуурх нѳхцѳл байдлууд нь олдворт 
хэрхэн малтлага хийх, буртгэл хѳтлѳх зэрэгт нѳлѳѳлдѳг. Хайгуулын ажлын уеэр 
тогтоосон цаг хугацаа (зарим нэг нийгмийн болон шашны шалтгаанаар то по о ж 
ѳгсѳн зѳвшѳѳрлийн хугацаа), ажиллаж байгаа хамт олны дадлага туршлага, 
цаг агаарын болон орчны байдал (бороо орох, хэт хуйтэн байх), багаж тоног 
тѳхѳѳрѳмжийг авч явах бололцоо (хадгалдаг сав буюу уут, цаас цѳѳн тоогоор 
байх), зѳѳвѳрлѳлт тээвэрлэлтийн асуудал (жийп, тэмээн хѳсѳг) гэх мэт бухий 
л хучин зуйлууд нь хайгуулын ажилд болон ажлын явцаас шаардагдах ур дунд 
нѳлѳѳлж тодорхой хэмжээгээр ууссэн нѳхцѳл байдалд тохируулж тааруулах 
хэрэгтэй болдог. 
Буртгэл хѳтлѳлт 
Хайгуулын ажил болон лабораторийн ажлын уеэр датах хамгийн эн 
тэргууний зѳвлѳмж нь байнга буртгэл хѳтлѳх явдал юм. Уунд тэмдэглэл, фото 
зураг, тайлбар зуулт зэргийг тодорхой, дэлгэрэнгуйгээр хѳтлѳх багтана. Хэзээ ч 
ѳѳрийнхѳѳ ой тогтоолт санамжинд найдаж болохгуй! Дээрээс нь нэмж хэлэхэд, 
ганцхан хувь хѳтлѳсѳн тэмдэглэлд бас найдаж болохгуй. Хѳтлѳсѳн буртгэл 
болон тэмдэглэл санамсаргуйгээр арилах буюу алга болох тохиолдол гарч 
болно. Тэмдэглэл болон буртгэл хѳтлѳсѳн дэвтрээ хуванцар уут саванд хийгээд, 
тайлбар хаягийг уутныхаа гадна болон дотор талд нь давхар тавих хэрэгтэй. Мѳн 
туунчлэн уутнуудаа дугаарлаад, дугааруудыг нь тэмдэглэлийн дэвтэрт тэмдэглэн 
хадгалах нь ихэнх тохиолдолд ач холбогдолтой ѳргѳн хэрэглэгддэг арга юм. 
Ингэж уутнуудаа дугаарласнаар хайгуул шинжилгээний ажлаа дууссаны дараа 
дугааруудаа хаалтын тэмдэглэгээ маягаар бас ашиглаж болно. Фото зурган 
тэмдэглэл нь дараа эргуулэн ашиглахад туе дѳхѳм арга бѳгѳѳд, ялангуяа суулийн 
уед дижитал аппарат ашиглан зураг авах боломжтой болсон учир хэрэглэхэд 
улам амар болсон билээ. 
Олдворын хамгаалалт 
Олдворыг буртгэл хийн, тайлбар тавьж тусгай савнуудад хийхийн гол 
шалтгаан нь хамгаалахад оршино. Эд зуйлс болон олдворын уусэл гарлыг унэн 
зѳвѳѳр ялгаж таних нь зайлшгуй хийх алхмуудын нэг юм. Хэрвээ олдворын гарал 
ууслийн талаарх мэдээлэл хаягдаж гээгдвэл уг олдворыг эрдэм шинжилгээний 
бутээлд ашиглах унэ цэнэ нь алга болно гэсэн уг. Иймд буртгэлийн илуу хувиуд 
нь малтлага хийх явцад, малтлага хийж дууссаны дараа, мѳн лабораторит уг 
олдворыг судлан шинжилж байх бухий л хугацааны турш хамгаалагдаж тэмдэглэл 
хѳтлѳж байх ёстой. Хайгуул шинжилгээний ажлын бух уйл явц, гол гол олдворууд, 
тэдгээрийн байрлал болон бусад холбоотой зуйлуудйиг ойлгомжтойгоор 
харуулсан тодорхой схем зургийг уйлдэх хэрэгтэй. 
Эд зуйлсийн хамгаалалтын горим нь малталтын янз бурийн уе шатуудад 
мѳрдѳгдѳх ёстой байдаг. Олдворыг бат бѳх тогтвортой байлгах нь байгаа газраас 
нь ухаж гаргахаас ѳмнѳ ч гэсэн маш чухал асуудал болж байдаг. Улмаар малтлагын 
газар дээр ажиллахад, газраас лаборатори буюу институт уруу зѳѳвѳрлѳхѳд 
уг олдворын тогтвортой байдлыг тодорхойлж байх хэрэгтэй. ѳмнѳ дурдаж 
байсанчлан ихэнх тохиолдолд олон зуйлээс хамаарч энэ бух шийдвэруудийг гаргах 
болдог. Жишээ нь, цаг агаарын бай дал, тухайн ѳдрийн цаг, малтагч машин буцаж 
газар уруу эргэж ирэх боломжтой эсэх гэх мэт олон зуйлуудээс олдворыг газраас 
ухаж гаргахад цаг хугацаа нь хамаарч болно. Ялангуяа амархан хагарч гэмтдэг 
биетийн (газраас хѳндийруулж ухаж гаргахад уйрч бутардаг эсвэл малталт хийж 
байгаа урт хугацааны турш гэмтэл авах боломжтой олдворууд) хувьд хамгаалалт 
нь амин чухал асуудал болж байдаг. 
Материалуудыг газар дээрээс нь зѳѳх тээвэрлэлтийн асуудал нь олдворын 
бурэн бутэн байдалд эрсдэлтэй байж болох талтай. Тээвэрлэлтийн уед эд зуйлсийг 
опт гэмтэхгуй гэсэн баталгаа гаргах ямар ч боломжгуй байдаг, ялангуяа олдворыг 
тээвэрлэх уед хамгаалах баглаа боодол буюу бусад хамгаалалтын хэрэгслууд 
хязгаарлагдмал байсан тохиолдолд бурч баталгаа гаргахад хэцуу юм. Гэхдээ, 
хэрэв хамгийн болгоомжтой аргуудыг хэрэглэн эд зуйлсийг хамгаалвал, олдворыг 
газар дээрээс нь лаборатори хуртэл гэмтээлгуйгээр тээвэрлэх боломж бас бий. 
Олдворыг тухайн оршиж байсан газар дээр нь тээвэрлэх явцад мѳн 
лабораторит ирсэн хойно нь гарал ууслийх нь хувьд гэмтэлгуйгээр байлгахын 
тулд эд зуйлсийн болон хадгалж буй уут саван дээр хаяг тайлбар зуух нь хамгийн 
гол алхам юм. Олдворын хаяг тайлбар буюу дагалдах зуйлс нь гээгдэж урэгдвэл 
уг олдвор нь судалгааны ажилд хэрэглэгдэх унэ цэнээ алдана гэсэн уг. Тайлбар 
хаяг нь гэмтэж болзошгуй учир гаднах уут саван дотор болон олдворын дотор 
тавьсан тайлбар хаяг нь мэдээллийг хамгаалан батжуулах болно. Олдворыг 
байрнаас нь хѳдѳлгѳхийн ѳмнѳ тайлбар хавсаргасан фото зураг нь мэдээллийг 
хамгаалах нэмэлт арга хэрэгсэл юм. 
Бух уут савны суулчийн буртгэлийг эд материалыг газар дээрээс нь шилжуулэн 
тээвэрлэхийн ѳмнѳ зашпигуй хийх ёстой алхам юм. Дараа нь давхар шалгахын 
тулд лаборатори уруу шилжуулэх уут савны буртгэлтэй ижил тѳстэй буртгэлийг 
хийх нь зуйтэй. Хайгуулын ажлын уер хийгдсэн, лабораторит шинжлэх эд 
зуйлсийн талаарх бух тѳрлийн тэмдэглэл болон буртгэлуудйиг дахин нэг хувь 
уйлдээд лабораторийн ажилд зориулан хадгалах хэрэгтэй. Хайгуулын талбар 
дээр хийсэн тэмдэглэлийн эх хувийг лабораторийн ажлийн уеэр хэрэглэх хэрэггуй. 
Учир нь тэмдэглэл гэмтэж буртгэл алга болох магадлалтай. 
Олдворыг лабораторит янзалж цэвэрлэх болон катологжуулах явцыг 
буртгэн шалгахад олдворын хаяг тайлбар нь ойлгож танихад амархан байх 
шаардлагатай. Олдворыг хооронд нь холилдуулахгуйн тулд аль болох хурдан 
хугацаанд катологжуулах хэрэгтэй. Катологжуулах уйл явцад дараах зуйлууд 
багтана. Уунд: буртгэлийн дэвтэрт оруулах, байнгын каталогны карт бэлтгэх, 
компютер дээр буртгэлд оруулах, мѳн мэдээж эд зуйлс дээр байнгын хаяг 
тайлбарыг зуух. Компютерийн буртгэлийг цорын ганц буртгэлдээ тооцож найдаж 
хэзээ ч болохгуй. Компютерт хадгалсан буртгэл нь гэмтэл авч устгагдах аюултай 
ба компютер болон программ хангамж нь байнга хуучирч байдаг. Харин цаасан 
(^.oilections Management 207 
дээрх буртгэл (катологны карт, буртгэлийн дэвтэр, болон буртгэлийн цаасан 
дээрх хуулбарууд) болон хэвлэсэн фото зурагнууд (эсвэл фото хальс) нь хамгийн 
найдвартай юм. 
Хадгалалт ба Цуглуулга хѳтлѳх 
Цуглуулгыг хадгалах явцад хоёр гол зуйлийг анхаарах нь зуйтэй-1) 
хамгаалалтын аюулгуй байдал болон 2) байрлалыг зохих журмын дагуу тогтоох 
(ѳѳрѳѳр хэлвэл, олдвор хаана хадгалагдаж байгааг). Олдворыг хамгийн зѳвѳѳр 
хадгалж хамгаалахад битуумжилсэн шуугээ нь хамгийн найдвартай хамгаалах 
хэрэгсэл юм. Олдворыг гадаад орчны нѳлѳѳнѳѳс тусгаарлан, хамгаалж улмаар 
хялбархан авч хэрэглэж байхад шуугээнууд нь хамгийн тохиромжтой байдаг. 
Модон хайрцаг гэх мэт сав нь хамгаалалтын хэрэгсэл болж чадах боловч эд 
зуйлсийг авах хийхэд илуу их уйлдэл шаарддаг. Онгорхой шуугээ буюу тавиур 
дээр олдворыг хадгалах нь тийм ч зохимжтой арга биш, гэхдээ хэрэв энэ нь 
цорын ганц боломжит арга бол эд зуйлсийг найдвартай хамгаалахаар хайрцганд 
байрлуулах нь зуйтэй. Боломжтой бол хамгаалалттай материалаар (хучил гэх 
мэт химийн бодис нэвтэрдэггуй) хийгдсэн хайрцаганд эд зуйлсийг байрлуулан 
хайрцагны дотор талыг ч мѳн адил материалаар бурэх нь зуйтэй. Хадгалах 
агуулахын ѳрѳѳг орчныг нь тохируулж болдог буюу температур чийгшилт 
зэргийг хянаж тохируулж болдог байхаар сонгож авбал илуу нийцтэй. 
Эд зуйлсийг зохих журмын дагуу хадгалахын тулд ѳѳр ѳѳр чийгшилтийн 
тувшинд хадгалах хэрэгтэй болдог. Иймд хадгалалт хариуцаж буй хун нь 
хамгийн тохиромжтой аргыг сонгох хэрэгтэй болдог. Гэвч хамгийн ундсэн 
асуудал нь богино хугацаанд чийгшилт болон дулааны хэлбэлзлийн аль алийг 
нь зохицуулахад оршдог. Туунчлэн эд зуйлсийн материалууд хоорондоо химийн 
урвалд орж бэрхшээлтэй асуудлыг уусгэдэг. Зарим нэг метал болон ширэн 
материалын хооронд урвалд орох гэх мэтийн хэцуу асуудлууд уусэж болох 
учир эд зуйлсийг бие биетэй нь ойролцоо зайнд байрлуулахын ѳмнѳ энэ талаар 
нягтлан шалгах нь зуйтэй. 
Цуглуулгыг хадгалахад маш их том хэмжээний зай шаардагддаг нь 
няцаашгуй унэн бодит зуйл билээ. Том зайтай байр нь илуу их унэтэй байдаг 
гэдгийг бид бугдээрээ мэднэ. Ялангуяа энэ нь заавал орчин нѳхцлийг нь хянаж 
тохируулах, аюулгуй хамгаалалттай байх шаардлагатай бол бур ч их зардал 
гардаг. Ѳмнѳѳ байгаа нѳѳц боломжоо ашиглан мѳн боломжит аргуудыг 
хайж хослуулан хэрэглэх нь бидэнд байгаа гол тулхуур юм. Хамгийн сайн 
хамгаалалттай орчин нѳхцлийг нь хянаж тохируулж болохуйц газрыг хайж 
олон хамгийн унэ цэнэтэй цуглуулгыг удаан хугацааны турш хамгаалахаар 
хадгалах нь зуйтэй. 
Эд зуйлсийг хадгалж байх явцад журмын дагуу хянаж шалгах явц нь 
ажилтнаас мэргэжлийн хувьд чадварлагаар эд зуйлсийг хичээнгуйлэн буртгэж, 
хадгалж буй агуулахыг байнга эргэж тойрч, зарим нэг ѳѳрчлйлтуудийг дор дор 
нь хийж шинэчлэж байхыг шаарддаг. Цуглуулгыг зов хэлбэрээр хадгалах цорын 
ганц баталгаатай арга зам нь энэ юм. Ѳнѳѳдрийн байдлаар компютерээр буртгэл 
хѳтлѳх нь эд зуйлсийг хянаж шалгахад нэн шаардлагатай арга хэлбэр болсон 
бѳгѳѳд аль болох боломжтой цагтаа уунйиг хэрэгжуулэх шаардлагатай болоод 
байна. Энэ буртгэлийн хэлбэр нь мэдээллийг шинэчлэхэд хялбар байдгаас гадна 
эд зуйлсийг хайж олоход нэг бол хадгалсан байрлалаар нь, эд зуйлийн тѳрлѳѳр 
нь эсвэл материалаар нь, гарал ууслээр нь эсвэл байрлаж байсан газарт буртгэсэн 
Munt 205 
ангиллаар нь гэх мэтчилэн боломжит бух л хэлбэрээр хайлт хийх нѳхцлийг 
бурдуулдэг. Гэхдээ буртгэлийн хэлбэрийг зохиохдоо дэндуу олон хучин зуйлийг 
хамруулахаас зайлсхийх нь зуйтэй. Буртгэл хэдийчинээ олон зуйл хамруулсан 
байна тѳдий чинээ баримтны талаарх мэдээнууд ѳѳр хоорондоо давхцаж будилах 
магадлал ѳндѳртэй. Мѳн мэдээ баримтууд маань ашиглахад хундрэлтэй ярвигтай 
болно гэсэн уг. Ингэж учрыг нь олох гэж мэрийх нь ашиг туе авчрахын оронд 
харин ч хундрэл бэрхшээл учруулдаг. 
Хадгалалтын хаяг болон байрлал заасан тайлбар зуулт нь хэн ч ажиглахаар 
энгийн хялбар байх хэрэгтэй. Хадгалагдаж буй эд зуйлсийг байрлуулахдаа ѳрѳѳн 
дотор тодорхой эрэмбэ дараатай байрлуулах нь зуйтэй. Ингэснээр зѳвхѳн тухайн 
хэегийг хариуцеан ажилтанд ч биш бусад ажилтануудад ч гэсэн эд зуйлсийг олоход 
амархан байх болно. Агуулахын дотоод бутцийн будуувч зураг нь хадгалагдаж 
буй зуйлсийг байрлуулахад хумууст туе болох нь дамжиггуй. Цуглуулгыг сайн 
нудлэн хамгаалж буртгэл хѳтлѳх явц нь ажилтнаас ур чадвар шаардсан ажил 
байдаг. Дадлага туршлагатай, чадварлаг, найдвартай, Унэнч шударга ажилтанууд 
маш их унэ цэнэтэй хучин зуйл юм. Хамгийн их ур чадвар шаардсан ажлын 
байран дээр хамгийн шилдэг тэргуунйи ажилтанаа ажиллуулах нь сайн зохион 
байгуулалттайгаар ажиллахын тулхуур юм. 
Судалгааны ажил болон узуулэнд хэрэглэх, олдворыг хадгалах 
Цуглуулгыг хадгалалтынх нь хувьд хамгаалан бататгаж тогтвортой 
байлгах болон судалгааны ажилд зориулан нээлттэй байлгах хоёрын хооронд 
байнгын салшгуй зѳрчилдѳѳн уусч байдаг. Энэ нь музейн цуглуулгыг зохион 
байгуулахад тулгарч байгаа ирээдуйд ч тулгарах хоёрдмол шинжтэй асуудал юм. 
Цуглуулгыг бурэн бутнээр гуйцэд хамгаалахын тулд агаар гэрэл гэх мэт гадаад 
орчны нѳлѳѳнѳѳс бурэн тусгаарлах хэрэгтэй болдог. Эерэгээр нь цуглуулгыг 
судалгаа шинжилгээний ажилд хэрэглэхийн тулд гаргаж авч узэх, гэрэл тусгах, 
орчны ѳѳрчлѳлтѳнд оруулах, тэр ч байтугай хэеэгчлэн тасдаж аван судлах 
зайлшгуй шаардлагатай болдог. Эд зулсийг узуулэнд дэлгэн тавих уеэр байнга 
гаргаж хэрэглээд байхгуй ч гэсэн, хичнээн бага ч гэсэн ямар нэг байдлаар гэрэл 
тусч, гадны нѳлѳѳгѳѳр узуулэн урт хугацааны туршид элэгдэл хорогдолд орж 
муудах боломжтой. Музейн хадгалалт хариуцеан мэргэжилтнууд, удирдах албан 
тушаалтнуудын хувьд, цуглуулгыг ямар арга замаар судалгаанд буюу узуулэнд 
ашиглах нь хадгалалтанд сайнаар нѳлѳѳлѳх тал дээр шийдвэр гаргах нь хамгийн 
хэцуу байдаг. Ихэнх байгууллагын хувьд тулгарч байдаг эредэлтэй алхам нь эд 
зуйлсийг зээлдуулэх, зээлдэх, узуулэнд тавихад мѳрдѳх ёстой тэмдэглэл хѳтлѳлт 
болон хадгалалт юм. Ихэнх тохиолдолд хэн нэг музейн ажилтан буюу судлаачид эд 
зуйлсийг тур хугадаагаар зээлдэн авахад тэмдэглэл хѳтлѳж буртгэдэггуй. Ийнхуу 
тухайн эд зуйлсийг; музей буюу институтид байрлаж байгаа газар нь зѳвхѳн хэн 
нэг хуний ой тогтоомжинд хадгалагдеанаар тодорхойлогддог. Гэвч бид ой 
тогтоомжинд найдах ёсгуй. Эд зуйлс узуулэнгийн зориулалтаар ашиглагдах 
тохиолдолд байрлалын код нь оффис, лаборатори болон узуулэнгийн хэсэгт 
тэмдэглэгдэх ёстой. Хаяг буюу тайлбар зуулт нь эд зуйлсийн байнгын 
хадгалагддаг газарт нь улдэх ёстой. Ингэснээр тухайн эд зуйлс хаана байрлаж 
байгааг мэдээд ч зогсохгуй дараа буцааж байрлуулахад байнга байрладаг газар 
нь хоосон байж байрлуулахад бэлэн байх ёстой. 
20? (Collections Management 
William Fitzhugh opening the 2004 U.S.-Mongolian Deer Stone conference at Mongo¬ 
lian National University lecture hall, (photo:Marsh) 
210 
’7 
Excavation and ~]~reatment о f Skeletal К emains1 
David R. Hunt 
Department of Anthropology 
Natinal Museum of Natural History 
Smithsonian Institution 
fGeld {Excavation 
Exposing and Recording the Remains 
When removing soil from around a skeleton, use sweeping motions with the trowel. 
As soil removal progresses, use a brush to remove the loose soil to see the progress of 
exposing the bone. Pick away soil from around the bones with bamboo picks or other 
nonmetal type instruments so as not to damage the bone. 
Leave all the bones in place until the entire skeleton or skeletons are exposed for 
complete recording of location and position of every associated bone. 
Keep as complete records as possible. Do not rely on memory. It is best to 
photographically record the excavation in progress. 
It is necessary to photograph the skeleton in place at the end of the excavation, 
before removal of the bones. 
When photographing the in-progress and completed excavation, place markers in 
the photograph. Information should include: site name and number, feature identification 
number, pointer for North, metric scale, and date of photograph. 
Gather the specific data concerning the skeleton, position and associated materials 
by not only photographs but also written records. Develop and use standardized recording 
forms to systematically record pertinent information. 
Removal of the Remains 
Once all records have been made, the bones can be removed. Do not pry the bones 
21 1 
1. Derived and paraphrased from Bass (1995:329-338, Appendix 2) with additions 
out of the ground, or try to remove the bone from the soil if it is not fully uncovered. This 
leads to breakage and more need for reconstruction in the laboratory. 
Try to remove most all the soil from the cranium at the site before the soil dries 
inside. The soil can split the cranium by expansion / contraction when it dries, or can 
fracture the bone if the hard soil rolls around inside the cranium. 
It is best to let the bones air dry before placing them in containers to reduce the 
possibility of mold and fungal growth. It is best not to have the bone or other objects dry in 
direct sunlight. This will lead to cracking and fracture to the outer surface or to the artifact. 
Try to keep them shaded in excavation and in drying. 
Bagging the Remains 
Place the bones in labeled bags or containers. Labels should include inventory of 
bones, site number and name, feature number and level number, date excavated, excavator 
and any other specific information related to this excavation. 
When removing the hands and feet from the burial, keep the association of these 
bones by bagging each hand and foot separately. This helps to identify the correct side 
for the elements in the laboratory (especially phalanges). If some elements are found still 
in articulation, it facilitates laboratory identification by bagging the elements together to 
keep their association. 
Retrieve all bones and fragments possible as they may be crucial for reconstruction 
in the lab lab, or for identification purposes. 
Use several containers or bags, do not over-pack the containers. Over-packing 
leads to damage of the materials. 
Pack the larger, or heavier bones on the bottom of containers to reduce damage 
by crushing. 
Mark the bags or containers with pencil or waterproof ink. Lost information on the 
bags makes the excavated materials in the bag worthless for later analysis in the lab. 
When packaging for transport, make sure the elements and artifacts will not rub 
together and damage one another. Individually wrap materials if possible, or try to reduce 
the amount of shaking the artifacts will sustain in transport. 
A list must be made of all bags removed from the site to the laboratory. This 
tracking is important to reduce the possibility of lost excavated materials and for hopefully 
identifying mixed bags in the event that this might occur. 
212 Hunt 
Preserving Field Records 
Keep all records organized in a file system by site, grid, feature and level. These 
include the paper files, copies of photographs, negatives (all labeled with pertinent 
identifying data in permanent ink) and copies of permits and permissions. 
Laboratory Lractice 
All incoming bags and containers from the site should be inventoried to confirm 
that the bags tracked by the site list coincide with the incoming bags. 
Cleaning 
When removing bones or artifacts from their bags or containers, always keep the 
labels in association with the bones, or make more labels to identify the materials so as 
not to loose their identification. Do not rely on memory. 
It is best to keep materials in trays or boxes, to support and protect the objects, assist 
in transporting the objects from one part of the lab to another, and to keep their association 
if there are several objects that belong together. 
Handle the bones and / or object carefully, supporting them with your hands and 
holding them at the areas of greatest mass, or keeping them in a container or tray for 
support. 
Bones need to be cleaned before analysis or storage. Methods for cleaning depend 
on the condition of the object. Usually a soft brush and softer (non-metalic) type picks 
made of wood or bamboo are best to use to remove soils or other adhering materials. 
If the object or bone is in good stable condition (not brittle, flaking or granular), 
washing with water can be done to clean off the soil. Have a conservator help with assessing 
the stability of the bone before soaking or washing. 
Always wash on a screen, or in a tray or container so as not to loose small bones 
(such as earbones, teeth, finger or toe phalanges or fragments). 
Labeling and Cataloging 
Once the bone or object is dry and properly cleaned, label every bone clearly 
with some sort of discrete number to be able to accurately track and identify the bone or 
object. This can be the site, feature and burial number or museum catalog number or other 
assigned tracking number. This becomes especially important if the elements become 
disassociated. 
Skeletal К emains 215 
Labeling of the bone should be done with permanent, waterproof ink. It is most 
permanent applied directly to the bone. Some institutions require a base of PVA or other 
coating before the label is applied, but there is the possibility of this pealing off. 
A catalog ledger book must be made to organize catalog numbers for the objects. 
Each catalog number must have recorded with it all provenience information for the object 
and an object description. Catalog cards should be made for reference. 
A computerized database of the cataloging should be made to help in tracking and 
searches. This computerized database will also be used for inventory and storage location 
recording purposes. 
Reconstruction for analysis 
In re-assembly of fragmentary bones, use adhesives that are as stable as possible, 
so that they will last a long time. Adhesives that are transparent are best since they will 
not obscure the area around the repaired join. Use adhesives that can be reversed with 
solvents, such as those that are acetone based. 
When repairing bone, try not to fill in cracks or holes. These may be important for 
analysis or identification of pathology, culture modification or perimortem injury. 
Do not cover bone with shellac or paint. This obscures the morphology of the bone 
or surface of the object. Expansion and contraction of the covering layer and the object or 
bone will be different and will cause damage and cracking of its surface. 
Storage 
All materials should be stored in appropriately protective boxes or containers that 
are large enough so that there is enough room around the object to be able to get one’s 
hands well around it for support when removing it from the container. 
These boxes should be able to support the weight of the object, and have adequate 
space or rigidity to buffer the object from blows to the sides. Support and padding in 
the box will aid in this protection. The box or container should act as a buffer from the 
external environment. However, the container should not be-impermeable, for moisture 
and condensation may build up in it if there is severe temperature of humidity changes. A 
sealed container should be used only in cases where a damp environment in the container 
is needed for the preservation of the object. 
A cranium should be stored in a separate box or separated from the other bones 
by a wall in the box to protect the fragile facial bones and teeth from damage from other 
bones shifting and hitting the cranium. The mandible can be stored with the cranium if 
the container has adequate space, but the mandible should be wrapped in tissue to avoid 
damage to the cranium. 
Hunt 21 + 
It is best to have the postcrania laid out in a single layer. This is generally not 
possible due to space restrictions. Layering of bones should have the larger, heavier bones 
on bottom and the lighter, more fragile bones on top, protected in separate bags. 
Containers and bags used to hold the bone elements must be labeled with at least 
the museum catalog number for identification and tracking. It would be additionally helpful 
to include the site name, site number, feature number, and burial number. 
The exterior of the storage boxes should have all the label information with 
additional brief description of the contents for ease in identification in storage. 
Storage Modes 
Storage modes are dependent on the type of objects, space requirements, storage 
configuration, and of course funds and access to equipment. 
Enclosed and locking cabinets are the best form of protection and security for 
storage. These are the most expensive and require large storage areas. 
Open shelving necessitates that objects should be in containers to cover and protect 
the objects. 
Objects should be left open on shelving only in cases where restricted access is 
enforced. 
When stacking storage containers, heavier boxes should be on the bottom, to 
eliminate collapse of the box. 
Stacking of containers should be avoided if at all possible. If necessary however, 
boxes must be very strong-sided, well-formed and resistant to humidity or water damages, 
especially those on the bottom. The bottom box should not be sitting on the ground or 
floor, but on a frame to allow for air circulation under the box bottom and to protect from 
flooding and pests. The heaviest boxes should be on the bottom, the lighter boxes on the 
top. Do not exceed 4 or 5 boxes high, as this becomes a safety hazard and also makes 
getting to the lower boxes a struggle. 
Storage Location Inventory 
Divide the storage area into quadrants or some sort of location organization. 
Discrete locations need to be identified to be able to make an inventory of the materials 
placed in a particular area. This will greatly aid in finding stored materials later. Label the 
cabinets or shelves numerically and number the shelves in the cabinets or shelves from 
the top down. 
Each cataloged object must have a storage location, including: a quadrant identifier, 
Skeletal j^emains 215 
cabinet number, shelf number, and box number. This information is best applied in a 
computerized database, either as part of the catalog and inventory database or linked by 
the catalog number. 
Suggested Fields for Computerized Database: 
• yr. * ■ . 
Catalog Number 
Accession Number 
Accession Date 
Site Location 
Country 
Province or State 
County or geographical grid 
City or Locality 
Site Name 
GPS Coordinates 
Site Number 
Feature Number 
Level Number 
Burial Number 
Excavation Date 
Excavator 
Object Description 
Storage Location 
(For natural history or zoo-archeology specimens) 
Genus 
Order 
Species 
Subspecies 
preferences 
Bass, W. M., 1995: Human Osteology’: A Laboratoty 
and Field Manual, 4th ed. Columbia, 
Missouri: Archaeological Society Special 
Publication #2. 
Ubelaker, D. H., 1999. Human Skeletal Remains. 
Excavation, Analysis, Interpretation, 3rd ed. 
Washington: Taraxacum. 
Mongolian /\bstract 
Ill а рил д малталт хийх ба шарилтай харьцах нь1 
Доктор Давид Р. Хант (Шинжлэх ухааны доктор) 
Смитсонийн Институтын Антропологийн тэрхмнйн 
Физикал Антропологийн Салбар *’■ 
Хайгуулын талбар ёээр малталт хийх 
Шарилыг ил гаргах ба буртгэх ажиллагаа 
Арат ясны эргэн тойрноос газрын хѳрсийг цэвэрлэхдээ жижиг хурз 
буюу нийвийгээр тойрог хѳдѳлгѳѳнийг хий. Ясыг ил гаргах явцыг сайн харж 
мэдрэхийн тулд гадна наалдсан шороог сойз ашиглан цэвэрлэ. Ясанд гэмтэл 
учруулахгуйн тулд эргэн тойронд нь наалдсан шороог хулсан буюу ѳѳр ямар 
нэг тѳмѳр биш материалаар цэвэрлэ. 
Араг ясны бух яснуудыг гуйцэд малтаж дуустал бух ясыг хамгийн суулд 
нь бурэн буртгэл хѳтлйхийн тулд холбоотой ястай нь хамт байр байранд нь 
улдээ. 
Аль болох бурэн гуйцэд буртгэл хѳтлѳ. Ой санамжиндаа найдаж 
болохгуй. 
Малталт хийж байх уеийн фото зургийг авч буртгэл хйтлйх нь хамгийн 
шилдэг арга мѳн. 
Малталт хийж дууссаны дараа яснуудыг газраас хѳндийруулэхийн ѳмнѳ 
араг ясны зургийг авах шаардлагатай. 
Малталтын явцын дундах болон дараах зургийг авч дууссаны дараа зураг 
дээр хаяг тавь. Доорх мэдээллууд багтсан байх шаардлагатай: газрын нэр болон 
дугаар, онцлох шинж дугаар, хойд зугийг заасан тал, метрийн хэмжээс, зураг 
авсан он cap ѳдѳр. 
Араг ястай холбоотой тодорхой мэдээ баримтууд, тууний байрлал болон 
бусад материалуудыг зѳвхѳн фото зургийг ундэслэж биш бас нэмээд цаасан 
дээр тэмдэглэл хетлѳж цуглуул. Системчилсэн буртгэл хѳтлѳж мэдээллийг эмх 
замбараатай байлгахын тулд стандарт хѳтлѳлтийн хэлбэр зохиож туунйигээ 
хэрэглэ. 
Шарилыг газраас холдуулан авах 
Бух буртгэлийг хѳтлѳж дууссаны дараа ясыг газраас холдуулан авч 
болно. Хэрвээ араг яс нь газраас бутнээрээ ил гараагуй бол яснуудыг газраас 
хѳшѳх буюу шорооноос хучээр салгах гэж оролдсоны хэрэггуй. Энэ нь ясыг 
эвдлэх гэмтээж болзошгуй бѳгѳѳд лабораторит янзлахад илуу их хуч хѳдѳлмѳр 
Басс (1995)-ийн бутээлээс нэмэлт болгон авав 
^)Ve\&ta\ Remains 217 
шаардагдах болно. 
Шороог гавлын ясны дотор талд хатахаас ѳмнѳ газар дээр нь ясыг 
шорооноос цэвэрлэж салгахыг хичээх хэрэгтэй. Шороо хэрэв гавлын ясны дотор 
талд хатвал агшилт буюу тэлэлтийн нѳлѳѳгѳѳр арат яс цуурах аюултай эсвэл 
хатуу хоре шороо гавлын ясан дотор ѳнхѳрвѳл ясыг цуулж хагалах болно. 
Ясанд хѳгц, мѳѳгѳнцѳр уусэх боломжийг нь бууруулахын тулд тэдгээрийг 
саванд байрлуулахын ѳмнѳ агаарт хатаах нь хамгийн зѳв арга юм. Мѳн яс болон 
бусад эд зуйлсийг нарны гэрэл шууд тусахаар газар байрлуулахгуй байх нь 
шилдэг арга юм. Нарны туяа нь олдворт болон гадаргууд нь цууралт хагаралт 
уусгэх шалтгаан болж ѳгдѳг. Малталтын уеэр болон хатаах уедээ олдворуудыг 
суудэрт байлгахыг мэрийх хэрэгтэй. 
Шарилыг савлах хураах 
Яснуудыг хаяг тайлбартай уут буюу саванд байрлуул. Хаяг тайлбарт 
ясны буртгэл, олдсон газрын дугаар болон нэр, шинж тэмдгийн дугаар болон 
тувшний дугаар, малталт хийсэн он cap ѳдѳр, малтагч хэрэгсэл болон малталттай 
холбоотой бусад нарийн мэдээллууд тусгасан байх ёстой. 
Шарилаас хѳл гарны ясыг салгаж байх явцад яс буртэй холбоотой 
хэегуудээр нь гар хйл туе бурийг туе тусад нь уут саванд хий. Энэ нь лабораторит 
эд зуйл бурийг зѳв хэсэгтэй нь ялгаж танихад туе дѳхѳмтэй болно. Хэрвээ ямар 
нэг хэсэг нь олдвороос илрэх юм бол ѳѳр хооронд нь холбогдуулж уутлаж 
савласнаар лабораторит танихад амар хялбар байх болно. 
Бух яснууд болон туунйи хэегуудийг аль болох хуучин хэвэнд нь байлга. 
Зарим нэг хэегууд нь лабораторит дахин засаж янзлах буюу ялгаж танихад хэцуу 
байж болзошгуй. 
Хэд хэдэн сав болон уутыг ашигла, саванд дэндуу ихээр нь буу байрлуул. 
Хэмжээ хэтруулж байрлуулсанаар материалд гэмтэл учруулж болзошгуй. 
Хугарч гэмтэх, бяцрахаас зайлехийж том хэмжээтэй, хунд жинтэй 
яснуудыг савны ёроолд нь байрлуул. 
Уут савны гаднах хаяг тайлбарыг харандаа буюу ус нэвтэрдэггуй узгээр 
тэмдэглэ. Уут саван дээрх арилж будгэрч алга болсон мэдээлэл нь малтаж 
ав материалыг хожим лабораторит шинжлэхэд унэ цэнэгуй зуйл болгон 
хувиргадаг. 
Тээвэрлэхээр ачилт хийж байх явцад элемент болон олдворууд нь ѳѳр 
хоорондоо харшилдаж бие бие гэмтээхгуй байх тал дээр анхаар. Боломжтой 
бол материал туе бурийг туе тусад нь ороож зѳѳллѳх хэрэгтэй эсвэл тээвэрлэх 
явцад олдворыг нааш цаашаа шидэгдэхгуй тогтвортой байлгахыг хичээ. 
Хайгуулын талбар дээрээс лаборатори уруу шилжиж байгаа бух уут савны 
жагсаалт хийгдеэн байх ёстой. Ингэж хянаснаар малтаж авсан материалуудыг 
урэгдэж гээгдэх аюулыг багасгах чухал ач холбогдолтой ба хэрвээ ямар нэг 
Munt 215 
байдлаар хоорондоо холигдож солигдвол ялгаж танихад дѳхѳмтэй байх 
болно. 
Хайгуулын талбарт хйтлйсйп тэмдэглэлийг хамгаалах 
Бух тэмдэглэл буртгэлээ эмх замбараатай хѳтлѳх хэрэгтэй, уунд дараах 
зуйлуудээр ангилах хэрэгтэй: газраар нь, хэсгээр нь, онцлох шинжээр нь, 
тувшингээр нь зэрэг багтана. Эдгээр буртгэлд цаасан дээр хѳтѳлсѳн баримт, 
фото зургийн хуулбар болон хальс (бугд арилдаггуй балаар онцлон ялгах тоо 
баримтыг агуулан хаяглагдсан), зѳвшѳѳрлийн бичгийн хуулбар гэх мэт зуйлсууд 
орно. 
Лабораторит хийх ажлууд 
Хайгуулын талбараас лабораторит ирсэн бух уут савнуудыг буртгэж 
аваад дагалдаж ирсэн жагсаалттай нь ирсэн бух уут савыг тулган узэж тааруулах 
хэрэгтэй. 
Цэвэрлэх 
Яс болон олдворуудыг уут савнаас нь салгах явцдаа ястай дагалдаж 
ирсэн хаяг тайлбарыг байнга хамт байлгаж байх хэрэгтэй эсвэл материал дээр 
ялгагдах онцлогийг нь алдагдуулахгуйн тулд нэмэлт тайлбар зуулт хийж ѳгѳх 
хэрэгтэй. Ой санамжиндаа найдаж болохгуй. 
Эд зуйлсийг хамгаалах, лабораторийн нэг хэсгээс нѳгѳѳ уруу нуулгэн 
шилжуулэхэд хялбар байлгах, хэрвээ хэд хэдэн эд зуйлс. хамтдаа байгаа 
тохиолдолд хамтруулах гэсэн зорилгоор материалуудыг тавиур буюу хайрцаганд 
байрлуулах нь хамгийн оновчтой арга юм. 
Яс буюу эд зуйлстэй болгоомжтой харьцахын тулд гараараа тулах, 
хамгийн их жин ихтэй хэсгээс нь барих, эсвэл тэдгээрийг сав буюу тавиур дээр 
тавих хэрэгтэй. 
Яснуудыг шинжлэх буюу хадгалахын ѳмнѳ заавал цэвэрлэсэн байх 
шаардлагатай. Эд зуйлийн онцлогоос шалтгаалан янз бурийн цэвэрлэгээний 
хэлбэрийг аш игл а да г, Гадна талд наалдсан шороо буюу бусад зуйлсээс 
цэвэрлэхийн тулд ихэвчлэн зѳѳлѳн сойз болон тѳмрѳѳр биш ѳѳр мод буюу 
хулсаар хийсэн багажийг ашиглах нь хамгийн сайн арга юм. 
Хэрвээ эд зуйлс болон яс нь тогтвортой тѳлѳв байдалтай (хэврэг биш, 
цууралтгуй, уйрмэг биш) бол шорооноос цэвэрлэхийн тулд усаар угааж болно. 
Угаах буюу дэвтээхээс ѳмнѳ хадгалалт хариуцсан хунээр ясны тогтвортой 
байдлыг тодорхойлуулахаар туслуул. 
Угаахдаа жижиг яснуудыг (чихний яс, шуд, хурууны уе болон хэсгууд) 
урсгаж алдахгуйн тулд заавал шуурэн саванд буюуу тавиур эсвэл саванд угаах 
хэрэгтэй. 
Хаяг тайлбар зуух ба катологжуулах 
Яс болон эд зуйлсийг зохих журмын дагуу цэвэрлэж хатаасны дараа, 
яс туе бурийг хоорондоо давхцахгуй дугаараар ялгаж дугаарлаад яс болон эд 
Skeletal Remains 2 i J 
зуйлсийг ялгаж хянахад бэлэн байлгах ёстой. Эдгээр дугаарууд нь олдсон газар, 
онцлох шинж тэмдэг, булш, музейн каталог, болон бусад мѳрдѳх ёстой дугаар 
зэргийг илэрхийлсэн дугаар байж болно. Хэрвээ элемент эмх замбараагуй болох 
тохиолдолд ийнхуу дугаарлах нь маш чухал байх болно. 
Ясыг хаяглахдаа арилдаггуй, усны хамгаалалттай бэх узгийг хэрэглэх 
шаардлагатай. Ясан дээр шууд хаяг тавих нь хамгийн улдэцтэй байх болно. 
Зарим институтууд хаяг тавихийн ѳмнѳ ясан дээр РѴА гэх мэт суурь наалт 
хийхийг шаарддаг гэхдээ энэ нь хууларч унах сул талтай. 
Эд зуйл бурт каталогны дугаар олгож замбараатай болгох ууднээс 
каталогны дэвтэр хѳтлѳх хэрэгтэй. Катологны дугаар болгон тухайн эд зуйлийн 
талаарх дэлгэрэнгуй мэдээлэл ба эд зуйлийн дурслэлийг агуулан буртгэгдсэн 
байх шаардлагатай. Катологны картыг лавлагаанд зориулж хийх хэрэгтэй. 
Катологийг компютерт оруулан буртгэл хѳтлѳх хэрэгтэй ба энэ нь 
хяналт хийхэд мѳн хайлт хийхэд туе дѳхѳмтэй байдаг. Энэ компютерт оруулсан 
мэдээллууд нь материалын буртгэл болон хадгалж байгаа байрлалыг буртгэх 
зорилгоор ашиглагдаж болно. 
Шинжилгээ хийх зорилгоор сэргээн засварлах 
Олон бутархай хэсгээс бурдеэн ясыг буцааж эвлуулэх явцад аль болох 
удаан хугацааны турш тогтвортой байлгахын тулд цавуулаг наалдамтгай 
зуйлсийг хэрэглэ. Нэвт гэрэлтдэг наалдамтгай зуйлийг хэрэглэх нь хамгийн 
шилдэг арга учир нь засагдаж байгаа уенуудийн эргэн тойрныг будэг балархай 
болгохгуй. Мѳн ацетоноос бутеэн уусдаг наалдамтгай зуйлийг хэрэглэх нь 
зуйтэй. 
Ясыг засварлах явцад цуурсан хэсэг болон нухийг нѳхѳх дуургэх гэж 
оролдсоны хэрэггуй. Эдгээр нь судалгаа шинжилгээний ажлын уеэр хуний 
хѳгжил, туунйи ѳѳрчлѳлт, гэмтэл авсан шалтгаан зэргийг танихад чухал байж 
болох талтай. 
Ясыг будгаар бурэх буюу гадуур нь бурж болохгуй. Энэ нь ясны хэлбэр 
бутцийг балартуулж эд зуйлийн гадаргууг гэмтээх аюултай. Эд зуйл болон 
ясны гадуур бурхэж байгаа уеийн суналт болон агшилт нь янз бур байдаг учир 
гадаргууг нь гэмтээх цуулах нѳхцѳл болж болзошгуй. 
Хадгалалт 
Бух материалууд хамгаалалттай хайрцаг буюу саванд зохих журмын дагуу 
хадгалагдеан байх ёстой. Эд зуйлсийг савнаас нь гаргах тохиолдолд хуний гар 
чѳлѳѳтэй багтаж ѳргѳж авч болохуйцаар хайрцаг буюу савны хэмжээ хангалттай 
том хэмжээтэй байх шаарлагатай. 
Эдгээр хайрцаг сав нь эд зуйлсийн жинг найдвартай даах чадвартай 
байх хэрэгтэй ба эд зуйлсийг талууд уруугаа гулгахад бат бѳх байлгаж 
хамгаалахын тулд таарсан зайтай байх шаардлагатай. Хайрцаг дотор дэмжлэг 
болгож доторлох нь хамгаалах хэрэгсэл болно. Хайрцаг буюу сав нь гаднах 
} 1 u nt 220 
орчны нѳлѳѳнѳѳс хамгаалах давхар уурэгтэй байх ёстой. Гэвч сав нь агаар 
буюу ус ул нэвтруулдэг битуу байх шаардлагагууй учир нь ямар нэг байдлаар 
дулааыы болон чийгшилтэнд гэнэт ѳѳрчлѳлт гарвал чийг болон агшилт уусэх 
магадлалтай. Битуумжилсэн савыг эд зуйлсийг хадгалахад чийглэг орчин 
шаардлагатай тохиолдолд л зѳвхѳн хэрэглэх нь зѳв. 
Гавлын ясны эмзэг нуурний хэсгийн яс болон шудийг бусад ястай 
хавиралдуулан гэмтээж цохилдуулахгуйн тулд тусд нь хайрцагт хадгалах буюу 
бусад яснаас ханаар тусгаарлан хадгалах хэрэгтэй. Хэрвээ хайрцагт хангалттай 
зай байвал эрууг гавлын ястай хамт байрлуулж болох ба гавлын ясыг гэмтээхгуйн 
тулд ороож хамгаалсан байх шаардлагатай. 
Гавлын ясыг нэг дангаар нь байрлуулах нь хамгийн зѳв арга гэхдээ энэ 
нь зайны боломж хязгаартай байдгаас шалтгаалан хэрэгжуулэх боломжгуй 
байдаг. Яснуудыг уелуулэн байрлуулахдаа хамгийн том хэмжээтэй хунд жинтэй 
ясыг хамгийн доор нь байрлуулж, арай хѳнгѳн, хэврэгийг нь дээр нь тусдаа 
хамгаалалттай уутанд хийж байрлуулах нь зѳв. 
Ясны хэсгийг агуулсан уут савнууд дээр дор хаяж музейн катологны 
дугаарыг хаяглаж зуух хэрэгтэй ба энэ нь ялгах таних мѳн хянахад хэрэглэгддэг. 
Олдсон газрын нэр дугаар, онцлох шинж тэмдгийн дугаар, булшны дугаар 
зэргийг хаяглахдаа нэмж тэмдэглэх нь илуу нэмэр тустай. 
Хадгалж буй савны гаднах хаяг дээр бух тайлбарыг оруулахаас гадна 
нэмээд хадгалсан зуйлийг ялгахын тулд дотрох агуулгыг нь товч тайлбарлан 
бичих хэрэгтэй. 
Хадгалах арга 
Эд зуйлсийн тѳрѳл, шаардагдаж буй зай хэмжээ, хадгалалтын харьцаа, 
бас мэдээжээр тоног тѳхѳѳрѳмжийн ашиглалт болон олдоцоос шалтгаалан 
хадгал алтын арга хэлбэр нь янз бур байна. 
Битуу цоожтой шуугээнууд нь хадгал алтын хамгийн найдвартай аюулгуй 
хэлбэр юм. Энэ нь хамгийн унэтэй бѳгѳѳд хамгийн их зай шаардагддаг хэлбэр 
юм. 
Онгорхой тавиурууд дээр хадгалах уед эд зуйлсийг хамгаалахын тулд 
бугдийг нь хайрцагт савласан байх шаардлагатай байдаг. Зѳвхѳн зѳвшѳѳрѳлтэй 
хумуус л агуулах руу нэвтэрдэг тохиолдолд эд зуйлсийг онгорхойгоор тавиур 
дээр байрлуулж болно. Хайрцаг савыг тавиур дээр байрлуулах уед дээр дээрээс 
нь унагаж эвдлэхгуйн тулд хунд хайрцгийг хамгийн доор нь байрлуулах 
хэрэгтэй. 
Хэрвээ боломжтой бол хайрцагнуудыг аль болох дээр дээрээс нь 
давхарлахгуй байх нь зѳв. Хэрвээ зайлшгѳй шаардлагатай бол хайрцагнуудын 
ирмэг нь бат бйх байх ёстой ба ялангуяа доод хэсгээрээ сайн тулдаг мѳн чийг 
болон усны нэвтрэлтийг даадаг байх ёстой. Хамгийн доод талын хайрцаг шууд 
Skeletal К emains 22 і 
газарт наалдсан байдалтай байрлаж болохгуй. Харин хайрцагны доод хэсгийг 
хурээлсэн биет дээр хайрцаг байрлаж агаар чѳлѳѳтэй солилцож мѳн ус алдах 
болон хорхой шавьж гэх мэт аюулаас хамгаалагдсан байх ёстой. Хамгийн 
хунд жинтэй хайрцаг хамгийн дор нь байрлаж хѳнгѳн хайрцаг дээр нь байрлах 
ёстой. 4 буюу 5 хайрцагнаас олныг дээр дээрээс нь давхарлах хэрэггуй, энэ нь 
аюулгуйн хувьд эрсдэлтэй байхаас гадна хамгийн доод байгаа хайрцагт ногдох 
ачааллыг ихэсгэдэг. 
Хадгалалтын байршилтыг тэмдэглэж хѳтлѳх 
Агуулахыг дѳрвѳлжин хэсгуудэд хуваах буюу байршил тодорхойлох ямар нэг 
арга хэлбэрийг ашигла. Материалын буртгэлийг тодорхой хэсэгт байрлуулсаныг 
ялгаж тэмдэглэл хѳтлѳхѳд дѳхѳм болгох ууднээс байршилтууд нь ѳѳр хоорондоо 
ялгагдах ёстой. Ингэснээр хадгалсан материалаа хожим эргуулэн хайхад 
тусламж болно. Шуугээ буюу тавиуруудыг тоон системээр дугаарлах хэрэгтэй 
бѳгѳѳд шуугээ буюу тавиуруудыг дээрээс нь доош нь дугаарла. 
Катологжуулагдсан эд зуйлс болгонд хадгалалтын байршилт оногдож 
байх ёстой. Уунд: дѳрвѳлжин хэсгийн дугаар, шуугээний дугаар, тавиурны 
дугаар, хайрцагны дугаар. Эдгээр мэдээллууд нь компютер дээр буртгэл 
хѳтлѳхѳд туйлын тохиромжтой бѳгѳѳд нэг бол каталог ба буртгэлийн нэг хэсэг 
маягаар эсвэл катологны дугаар хэлбэрээр орсон байдаг. 
Компютер дээр буртгэл хѳтлѳхѳд зѳвлѳмж 
Каталогиний дугаар 
Буртгэлийн дугаар 
Буртгэлийн он, cap, ѳдѳр 
Олдсон газрын байрлал: 
Уле 
Муж буюу аймаг 
Сум 
Хот 
Газрын нэр 
Газарзуйн Байршилтын Системийн координатууд 
Газрын дугаар 
Шинж тэмдгийн дугаар 
Тувшний дугаар 
Булшны дугаар 
Малталт хийсэн он cap ѳдѳр 
Малталт хийсэн тѳхѳѳрѳмж 
Олдворын тодорхойлолт 
Хадгалалтын байршилт 
(Байгалын туух болон археологи, амьтаны судлалын олдворуудын хувьд) 
Тѳрѳл 
Ѳвѳг 
Зуйл 
Уулдэр 
222 
(illustr.: Andrea Neighbors) 
Fitzhugh, Odbaatar, students, and Tsaatan at Menge Bulag in June 2004 (photo: DePriest). 
11Л 
1 5 
/\rcbaeological f^eports from the 2004 
Deer^t one f*reject 
Jamsranjav Bayarsaikhan and Ts. Odbaatar 
National Museum of Mongolian History 
William W. Fitzhugh 
Arctic Studies Center, Department of Anthropology 
National Museum of Natural History 
Smithsonian Institution 
introduction 
The joint project between the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural 
History and the National Museum of Mongolian History has been engaged in research 
on the archaeology, anthropology, and environment of the Hovsgol/Darkhat areas in 
Mongolia’s Hovsgol province. In the two years of field research reported here, project 
participants gained knowledge of the research area and determined the need for further 
research on this region’s archaeology, geology and botany (Fitzhugh 2002). For this 
reason, our organizations agreed to undertake additional archaeological and ethnographical 
projects in accordance with the laws protecting Mongolian cultural heritage (Protection 
Law 11.3, 11.4, and 12.1) and its regulations on historical and cultural monument resarch 
and excavation. This progress report is presented in the following sections: 
Introduction 
Soyo Tolgoi Neolithic site 
Looted mound at Chodoriin Daraa 
Looted mound near Namnan Togos Mountain 
Excavation of a deer stone at Tsatstain Hoshuu 
Research at Menge Bulag in Ulaan Taiga 
Finds from the Tsagaan Nuur Aum Area 
Research at Ulaan Tolgoi deer stone site west of Erkhel Lake 
Purpose of the Research 
The Deer Stone Project field program consisted of three different groups 
(archaeology, botany, and geography) that had separate goals and responsibilities. The 
primary purpose of the archaeological group was to identify cultural materials dating from 
the Neolithic, Bronze, and Iron Ages in this area. An additional purpose was to study the 
22^ 
traditional cultures and artistic and intellectual heritage of the peoples of the region which 
would allow comparative analysis with those in other areas of Mongolia. 
The archaeological records found in the northern Mongolian taiga zone may be 
somehow related to those found outside Mongolia in northeast Asia and Bering Strait 
(Schuster 1951), the Arctic and north Pacific zones, and to the ancient cultures of southwest 
Asia, including the Scythian culture of Central Asia (see Fitzhugh, this volume). Our purpose 
was to study the possibility that these cultures originating in the Altai-Sayan Mountains 
may have influenced the cultures of the North Pacific. We focused on the importance of 
Mongolian monuments, particularly deer stones, in relation to early animal style art. We 
are generally seeking answers to the questions of the origin and development of the cultures 
in the areas next to steppe and taiga zones. We are also interested in learning more about 
their uniqueness and the processes by which they domesticated and herded reindeer. 
During our 2003 field research, we closely studied the remains found at the Soyo 
Tolgoi site discovered in 2002 and dated to the Stone Age. It is important also to study 
the history and development of reindeer herding. However, we did not collect a sufficient 
amount of data and samples and therefore needed to continue our excavations on this 
topic. We also excavated around Tsatstain Hoshuu in Renchinlhumbe sum, where we 
found deer stones. Tsatstain Hoshuu is a big rocky mountain located 30km North of Soyo 
Tolgoi. Our other primary target area was the Ulaan Tolgoi deer stone site in the Erkhel 
Lake area where our project has worked since 2002. 
Methods and Logistics 
We used methods common to archaeological field research and excavation. In order 
to identify and record spots where khirigsuur and monuments were located, we used modem 
technology, such as GPS mapping. In order to determine the exact dates of activities at the 
site we submitted biological samples to laboratories for radiocarbon analysis. 
Mongolian team members included: J. Bayarsaikhan, (archaeologist) National Museum 
of Mongolian History; Ts. Odbaataar, (archaeologist) National Museum of Mongolian 
History; Oi. Sukhbaatar, (geographer) Head of the Reindeer Foundation; O. Sanjmyatav, 
(archaeologist) Secretary of Center for Chinggis Khaan Studies; Amgalantugs, 
(archaeologist) Mongolian Academy of Science, Department of Archaeology; Bazargur, 
(archeologist) Mongolian Academy of Science, Department of Archaeology. Mongolian 
assistants included: L. Manlaibaatar, sophomore student at Mongolian National University, 
Department of Archaeology; Oyunbileg, student at the Mongolian National University, 
Department of Botany; Undarmaa, student at the Mongolian National University, 
Department of Botany; Adyabold Namkai, translator and project expediter; the following 
drivers: Nyambayar, Zagdaa, Narangerel, and Khadbaatar; and Amaraa, cook. 
116 LiaLjarsailchan et. al 
American participants included: William W. Fitzhugh, (archaeologist), Director, Arctic 
Studies Center, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution (project 
leader); Bruno Frohlich (physical anthropologist) Smithsonian Institution, National 
Museum of Natural History; Andrea Neighbors, (student) Washington College, 
Chestertown Maryland. 
Our field route followed the itinerary: Soyo Tolgoi, Ulaan Uul sum (county); Tsatstain 
Hoshuu, Ryenchinlhumbe sum; Menge Bulag, Tsagaan Nuur sum; Khogorgo River, 
Tsagaannuur sum; Erkhel Lake, Alag Erdene sum. 
Field Reports of Deer Stone Project in Hovsgol on 2003 (English and Mongolian) are 
on file at the Arctic Studies Center, National Museum of Natural History. See Fitzhugh 
and Bayarsaikhan (this vol.) for other relevant references, such as Askarov et al. 1992; 
Bokovenko 1994; Sementsov et al. 1998; Mon-Sol Project 1999/2000; Jacobson 1993, 
2001; Jacobson et al. 2001, 2002; National Museum of Korea 2002. 
preferences 
Fitzhugh, William W., ed., 2002. Mongolia’s Arctic Fitzhugh, William W., ed., 2004. Hovsgol Deer Stone 
Connections: The Hovsgol Deer Stone Project, Project 2003 Field Report. 169 pp. Arctic Studies 
2001-2002 Field Report, edited by William Center, National Museum of Natural History. 
W. Fitzhugh. Arctic Studies Center, National Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution. 
Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian 
Institution. Washington: Arctic Studies Center, 
105. 
# 
fSeld (Reports 
L 
SoijO ToigO!, KJlUg К iver 
Work was conducted at Soyo on June 11-14, 2004. This year we expanded the 
excavations begun in 2002-3 and selected a rectangular excavation area measuring 8 
meters along the west-east axis and 2 meters along the north-south axis. This site was 
located on the eastern part of sand terrace on the south side of the Khug River in Ulaan 
Uul sum, Hovsgol province. Its GPS location was N50°59,719 E099°09, 738. This 
terrace extends north from the base of Soyo hill, located where the Khug River exits the 
Sayan Mountains. The steep south face of this hill consists of cliffs and detritus while 
the north-facing slope adjacent to the site was covered with larch and brush. The local 
people call this Soyo Tolgoi, meaning “Fang Hill” in Mongolian. 
Beginning in 2003 we divided the Soyo 1 site into three features, each of which 
represented hearths or small settlement concentrations, designated from west to east: 
Feature 1, Feature 2, and Feature 3. Our 2004 work was directed at Feature 3 because 
the previous year we had found important archaeological artifacts here, including small 
ceramic fragments and burned animal bones. The rectangular area (8m x 2m) was 
divided into four 2m x 2m excavation units which we designated Squares 1 through 5 
(Figure 18.1). 
During excavation we noticed that the site consisted of 4 layers: (1) a surface 
layer with grey colored sand; (2) a second layer of burned and dark brown sand; (3) a 
third level of orange-colored sand; and (4) a light yellow-colored sand level (Figure 
18.2). The soils of the site area consisted of soft, sandy river bank deposits. The third 
and fourth layers contained gray and yellow colored sand spots where rodent burrows 
had refilled with sand from the upper two levels. Artifacts were found between the 
second and third layers but not in the fourth layer. Our 2003 and 2004 finds indicate that 
these levels date to the Early Neolithic. A 2003 radiocarbon sample of burned bone from 
one of the F3 hearths produced a date of cal. 6510-5940 BP. Well-preserved wood logs 
eroding from the riverbank 100 m east of the site produced a date of cal. 7180-6750 BP, 
but this wood has not been linked to the site and is probably a natural deposit. 
The archaeological artifacts found in 2004 are similar to those found in other 
Mongolian sites dated to the Early Neolithic. Specifically, two stone arrowheads found 
in the third layer of Square 3 at Soyo 1/F3 (Figure 18.10) are similar to points from sites 
in eastern Mongolia, including Monkh Tolgoi of Domod province, Baruun Shorvog 
Lake and Huiten Bulag Lake of Khalkha Gol sum, Baruun Els of Ongon sum, Ovoon 
Els of Dariganga sum, and Ehen Usnii Ereg of Naran sum, among others. These artifacts 
have been dated to the Neolithic, while similar artifacts were dated to 4000-3000 BC, 
the late Neolithic, which matched the results of our radiocarbon date. 
The small, poorly-fired, sand-tempered yellow-orange ceramic fragments 
(Figures 18.12, 18.18) which were excavated from the lower levels of Feature 3 in 
2003-2004 are similar to ceramics found at other Neolithic era sites in Mongolia and 
southern Siberia. 
225 £)ayarsaikhan et. al. 
Figure 18.1. Soy о 1, Feature 3 excavation. View north. 
1- Grey mixed upper soS level 
2- Burnt dark brown sand level 1m 
3- Red ye#ow sand level L - — ■■ 
4- Light yelow sand level 
Stone 
Grey spot 
Light orange colored spot 
Brown sand spot 
Soy o-1 Feature-3 
Square-3.4 Front walls profile 
Figure 18.2. South wall soil profile in Square 3-4. 
119 fdeld Reports 
Sova-1 F-3 1 -Grey mixed upper sand level 
* 2-Dark brown colored sand level 
Square-4 Riqht wall (profile) з-Red yeiiow colored sand ievei 
1 111 4-Light orange colored sand level 
PPP Light grey colored sand spot 
llllH Like upper sand colored Send spot 
Figure 18.3. West wall of Square 4 at Soyo 1 (Feature 3). 
1 -Grey mixed upper sand level 
2- Burnt dark brown sand level 
3- Red yelow colored sand level 
4- Light orange colored sand level 
Licpit yefow sand spot □ 
Grey said spot ни 
Soyo -1 Feature-3 
Square-5 Front wals profile 
Figure 18.4. South wall profile of Square 5, Soyo 1/F3 
3-Light orange colored said level 
Soyo-1 Feature -3 
Square-5 left walls profile 
[Щ] Dak striped brown sol 
HI Burnt dark brown said spot 
f%3 Light grey said spot 
E8 Grey sand spot 
Figure 18.5. East wall profile of Square 5, Soyo 1/F3. 
250 £)atjarsaikhan et. ai. 
1 -Grey mixed upper sand 
2- Grey sand lewd 
3- Burnt dark brown sand 
4- Light orange sand lewel 1 meter_ 
Grey sand spo, Щ Soyo-1 Feature-3 
Square-5 Right walls profile 
Figure 18.6. West wall profile of Square 5, Soy о 1/F3. 
Table 18.1. Artifacts found in Soyo-1, Feature 3, Square 3 
Artifact type QT Depth below datum Illustration 
1 Scraper 1PC surface area 18.8.1 
2 Microblade 1PC surface area 18.8.2 
3 Microblade 1PC 119cm 18.8.3 
4 Scraper 1PC 113cm 18.8.4 
5 Billet 1PC 119cm 18.8.5 
6 Microblade 1PC 121cm 18.8.6 
7 Microblade 1PC 121cm 18.8.7 
8 Microblade 1PC 124cm 18.8.8 
9 Scraper 1PC 125cm 18.8.9 
10 Mircoblade 1PC 125cm 18.8.10 
11 Utilized flake 1PC 128cm 18.8.11 
12 Waste 1PC 129cm 18.8.12 
13 Microblade 1PC Surface area 18.9.13 
14 Preparation 1PC Surface area 18.9.14 
15 Microblade 1PC Surface area 18.9.15 
16 Microblade 1PC Surface area 18.9.16 
17 Waste 1PC 121cm 18.9.17 
18 Microblade 1PC 122cm 18.9.18 
19 Small piece of bone 1PC 123cm — 
20 Small piece of bone 1PC 109cm — 
21 Stone arrowhead 1PC 124cm 18.10.21 
22 Stone arrowhead 1PC 131cm 18.10.22 
Rield Reports 25 1 
Square 4 Sauare 3 Square 2 Square 1 
sister"h 
m = Charcoal concentration 
Soye 1 Feature 3 
2003-2004 
N 
■ .20 
i~ii 48. • 8 
'ы242І.23Р-/ S4 16 Д9..’ 
ЩІ- 
it ‘AS 
B1 В»' AIO 
Square 5 
1 meter 
Figure 18.7. Soyo-l/F3 excavation plan map of Layers 2,3. 
ИЦИ 5 cm 
Figure 18.8. Soyo-l/F3 Square 3 artifacts FI2. 
f^atjarsaikhan et. al. 252 
Figure 18.10. Soyo-l/F3, Square 3 artifacts no. 21, 22. 
["іеісі Reports 255 
Table 18.2. Artifacts from Soyo-l/F3, Square 4. 
Name of object Qty Depth Illustration 
1 Microblade 1PC 139cm 18.11.1 
2 Microblade 1PC 128cm 18.11.2 
3 Microblade 1PC 130cm 18.11.3 
4 Scraper 1PC 131cm 18.11.4 
5 Microblade 1PC 131cm 18.11.5 
6 Microblade 1PC 122cm 18.11.6 
7 Microblade 1PC 122cm 18.11.7 
8 Microblade 1PC 116cm 18.11.8 
9 Microblade 1PC 122cm 18.11.9 
10 Microblade 1PC 121cm 18.11.10 
11 Scraper 1PC 121cm 18.11.11 
12 Microblade 1PC 118cm 18.11.12 
13 Microblade 1PC 129cm 18.11.13 
14 Microblade 1PC 126cm 18.11.14 
15 Microblade 1PC 131cm 18.11.15 
16 Microblade 1PC 125cm 18.11.16 
17 Microblade 1PC 128cm 18.11.17 
18 Microblade 1PC 126cm 18.11.18 
19 Small piece of bone 1PC Surface area — 
Figure 18.11. Flint artifacts from Soyo-l/F3, Square 4. 
£>a(jarsaikban et. al. 
Table 18.3. Artifacts from Soyo-l/F3, Square 5. 
Name of specimen Qty Depth Illustration 
1 Microblade 1PC 103cm 18.14.8 
2 Biface fragment 1PC 104cm 18.14.9 
3 Microblade 1PC 109cm 18.14.10 
4 Microblade 1PC 114cm 18.14.11 
5 Waste 1PC 111 cm 18.13.6 
6 Scraper 1PC 115cm 18.14.16 
7 Scraper 1PC 111 cm 18.14.14 
8 Microblade 1PC 114cin 18.14.15a 
9 Microblade 1PC 116cm 18.14.13 
10 Microblade 1PC 116cm 18.14.15b 
11 Ceramic 1PC 117cm 18.12.1 
12 Ceramic 1PC 122cm 18.12.2 
13 Ceramic 1PC 123cm 18.12.4 
14 Ceramic 1PC 125cm 18.12.3 
15 Waste 2 PC — 18.13.5 
16 Waste 1PC — 18.13.7 
17 Bone fragment of large mammal 1PC — 18.15.17 
18 Burnt bone fragments 3PC under sod 18.15.18 
19 Mammal marrow bone 1PC surface level 18.15.19 
20 Mammal marrow bone 1PC surface level 18.15.20 
21 Bone fragment 1PC surface level 18.15.21 
22 Bone fragment 1PC surface level 18.15.22 
23 Horse tooth fragment 1PC surface level 18.15.23 
24 Bone fragment 1PC surface level 18.15.24 
25 Bone fragment 1PC surface level 18.15.25 
26 Bone fragment 1PC surface level 13.15.26 
27 Bone fragment 1PC surface level 18.15.27 
28 Bone fragment 1PC surface level 18.15.28 
Figure 18.12. Ceramics from Soyo-l/F3, 
Square 5. 
Figure 18.13. Lithics from Soyo-1/ 
F3, Square 5. 
fdeld (Reports 255 
Figure 18.14. Lit hies from Soyo-l/F3 Square 5 
V 
Figure 18.15. Bone fragments from Soyo-l/F3 Square 5. 
ZJ6 £)ayarsai^^an et. al. 
Соёо 3 1-р талбай 1 -р тувшин 
N 
о ST 5 (-11) 
/ b 2 (-10) 
р 1 (-8) 
ST6(-13) 
лЗо “ ^ 
О й » 
ST4 
(-10) 
в Р - ваарны хагархай 
Q ST - чулуун зэвсэг 
* b - яс 0 0,5 1м 
Figure 18.16. Soyo-l/F3, Square 5, Level 1 map. 
I N Соёо 3 Талбай 1 2-р тувшин 
а ваарны хагархай 
•'* яс 0,5 і-Ьі. 1 м 
257 
Figure 18.17. Soyo-l/F3, Square 5, Level 2 map. 
f^ield Reports 
Table 18.4. Archaeological artifacts found in Soy о 1/F3, Square 5 
No. Specimen Depth Qty Description Fig- 
18.18 
length, width, 
thickness 
1 Ceramic fragment 8 cm 1 With pattern, thin 1 2 x 1,3 x 0,4 
2 Bone 10 cm 1 White colored 1,7 x 1,4 x 1 
3 Bone 15 cm 1 4,9 x 0,8 x 0,5 
4 Flint waste 10 cm 1 Small, thin 1,2 x 0,9 x 0,1 
5 Waste 11 cm 1 Thin fiat 2,7 x 2 x 0,6 
6 Microblade 13 cm 3 Small 2,1 x 0,6 x 0,2 
1,1 x 0,5 x 0,1 
1,1 x 0,4 x 0,1 
7 Ceramic fragment 16 cm 1 Bad condition 2 3 x 2 x 0,9 
8 Ceramic fragment 21 cm 1 Body sherd 3 4,1 x 3,2 x 0,9 
9 Ceramic fragment 15 cm 1 Body sherd 4 2,2 x 2 x 1 ni 
10 Ceramic fragment 16 cm 1 Body sherd 5 3,3 x 3,1 x 0,9 
11 Ceramic fragment 15 cm 1 Body sherd 6 3,3 x 2,9 x 0,9 
12 Ceramic fragment 21 cm 1 Body sherd 7 2,2 x 2 x 0,9 
13 Ceramic fragment 18 cm 1 Body sherd 8 2,3 x 1,2 x 0,8 
14 Ceramic fragment 16 cm 1 Surf, missing 9 5,1 x 3,6 x 0,9 
15 Ceramic fragment 17 cm 1 Body sherd 10 3,1 x 2,7 x 0,8 
16 Ceramic fragment 24 cm 1 Body sherd 11 3 x 2,9 x 0,8 
17 Ceramic fragment 14 cm 1 Body sherd 12 2,3 x 2,2 x 0,9 
І8 Ceramic fragment 14 cm 1 Body sherd 13 3,2 x 2,2 x 1,1 
19 Bone 20 cm 2 Marrow, neck 
area? 4,7 x 1,6 x 0,3 
3,2 x 1,5 x 0,9 
20 Bone 15 cm 2 Marrow? 3,5 x 1,4 x 0,3 
2,8 5 x 1,9 x 1,2 
0 1,5 cm 
Figure 18.18. Soyo-l/F3, Square 5 ceramics. 
£>ayarsai!cban et. a!. 255 
A L°°ted M ound at Cbodomn j^}araa 
On June 13, 2004, while the crew continued work at Soyo Tolgoi, we decided to 
look into a rumor we heard from local people that some theives had illegally excavated a 
mound located at the center of the Hondiin bag (administrative district), in Renchinlhumbe 
sum, revealing an unusal-looking stone or monument which we thought might be a deer 
stone. The police caught the looters and provincial officers preserved and transferred the 
stone to the provincial administration center. Following this information, we found the 
site with the help of a local guide named Mishig. The mound was located near the Khug 
River, 1km west of the center of Hondiin bag, and had a GPS location of N51°09.1338 
and E99°22.548, ALT. 1558m. 
When we arrived at the site, we noticed that several places had been recently 
excavated and back-filled. Local people told us that skulls and human bones were found at 
one of these excavated places and had been reburied. Because this interested the physical 
anthropologists on our team, we decided to study the site more closely. 
We worked in this area on June 13-14, 2004. We found only a single piece of red- 
colored pottery and a few small pieces of human bone; but it was interesting to find a very 
roughly-formed human-shaped stone monument but without any diagnostic deer stone 
features (Figure 18.19a,b). It took all day to excavate the mound to the depth the theives 
had reached, which was about 175cm. 
Figure 18.19a-b. The stone slab associated with the looted mound at Chodoriin Daraa. 
252 jAeld Keports 
In the morning of the June 14, we tested a one-meter diameter boulder cluster 100 
meters west of the looted mound. We excavated a square area with the dimension of 150cm 
x 150cm to a depth of 70cm (Figure 18.20), finding a red-painted ceramic fragment, three 
small pieces of animal bone (Figure 18.21) 30cm below the ground surface. We also found 
burned charcoal at 40cm. 
N 
Figure 18.20. Chuduriin Daraa 
west feature excavation map. 
x- 
Л-ML 
f 1 I /////// / / / / 
1- dark brown colored цэрег sod 
2- Licfit brown colored sod lewd 
3- Light yeiow colored sol lewd 
Hu-RtTKnrtfumbe 
VhudLxin daraa 
West feature 
Left wals profile 
4 5 6 
1 1.5cm НИ 
Figure 18.21. Bone finds from Chudriin Daraa 
240 £)aqarsai!<han et. al. 
A Looted M ound near j\jamnan Aogos Mountain 
Our group worked together at the Soyo Tolgoi site until June 14 and then we 
divided into two groups. The first group consisted of J. Bayarsaikhan, T. Sanjmyatav, and 
student L. Manlaibaatar, who went off to study a hidden mound located at Namnan Togos 
Mountain in Renchinlhumbe sum. Dr. William Fitzhugh, Ts. Odbaatar and others in the 
second group went to join the Tsaatan camp at the Menge Bulag. 
Our guide Mishig was the one who gave us information about this looted mound 
at Namnan Togos Mountain, and he led us across the Khugiin Gol River bridge to the 
Namnan Togos Mountain forest. Because it was impossible to drive up to the mountain by 
car, we left it at a winter camp near the mountain and walked on. We reached the summit 
and, to the left of the mountain forest (on the north side), found what looked like a looted 
mound. 
It appeared to us that the thieves had restored the mound after looting it. Therefore, 
we had to excavate what they had buried if we hoped to find any archaeological artifacts. 
We excavated the mound with the help of our guide Mishig and found a few artifacts, 
including: 
a) a small iron knife or blade (Figure 18.22) 
b) a small bone object decorated with a triangle pattern on one side (Figure 18.23) 
c) a piece of birch-bark that has pattern of fish scales (Figure 18.24) 
d) a broken pelvic bone of small child (Figure 18.25) 
e) pieces of bone from a young child (Figure 18.26-13.28) 
We were unable to determine the inside and outside parts of the mound structure 
due to the damage. However, by examining the artifacts and the mound dimensions, it is 
possible that the mound dated to the period of the Mongol Empire period or the end of 
Mongolian feudalism. 
Upon finding this mound, Mishig told us a local legend about the site that he heard 
from his ancestors. According to this legend, the Lord Chingunjav, who lived from 1710 to 
1757 and was of the Hotgoid people, led a rebellion against the Manchu Dynasty, which 
was fighting to establish control over the Mongol people in that time. The rebellion failed 
and he and his soldiers were forced to flee from Manchu troops to the north. On their 
journey, they climbed up the top of the Namnan Togos Mountain and took a short break 
to watch for the Manchu troops. The local people say that at that time Lord Chingunjav’s 
soldiers hid their valuables and treasures in this mountain. Chingunjav might have lost one 
his soldiers while fleeing and buried him in this mountain. It is probable that this legend 
of the leader and his treasure was told and retold by local people for many years. 
hgure 18.22 A small iron kmje or blade. Figure 18.23 A small bone object deco¬ 
rated with a triangle pattern on one side. 
f~ield Reports 1A\ 
О 1.5 cm 
Figure 18.24. A piece of birch-bark with 
fish-scale decoration. 
0 1.5 cm 
V 
Figure 18.25. A broken pelvic bone of 
a small child. 
Figure 18.26. Bones from a small child. 
242 {^)ayarsailchan et. al 
Figure 18.27. Bones from a small child. 
Figure 18.28. Bones from a small child. 
j~ield Reports 245 
Excavation of а Ееег З^опе at satstain Eoshuu 
We started our three-day excavation of a deer stone at the Tsatstain Hoshuu site in 
Renchinlhumbe sum on the morning of June 16 (Figure 18.29). The excavation was done 
by J. Bayarsaikhan, T. Sanjmyatav, and L.Manlaibaatar. This deer stone had dimensions 
of 108cm x 33cm x 38cm and was located at GPS location N51°10’1428, Е099°22’554, 
ALT. 1557m. The deer stone did not bear any design except for a circular figure near the 
top of the east side. We excavated 5m to the east of the stone and 5.5m along a north-south 
axis. While cleaning the excavation area we found a broken piece of antler, probably that 
of a deer (Figure 18.30). 
The stones that covered the offering deposites were heavily smashed and broken, 
which made it difficult to identify the structure of the offering features and to distinguish 
between soil types. Thus, without lifting and removing the stones, it would have been 
impossible to identify the area where the offerings were placed. When we removed the 
upper stones and continued excavating, we discovered that the offering consisted of three 
horseheads (Figure 18.31). The depths beneath the soil surface at which the horse heads 
were found were not the same. The first horse head was 10-15cm beneath the soil surface; 
the second was at 40-50cm; and the third was at 65cm. The first horse head was located 
near the east side of the deer stone, buried under a thin layer of soil. It was not complete, 
but rather consisted of only small pieces of broken occiput and mandible. The second horse 
head was located to the southeast of the deer stone with its head facing east. The neck 
vertebrae were placed to the south of the head and the four hooves were placed under the 
chin. The third horsehead was located east of the stone. Its head also faced east and the 
neck was placed along the north side of the head. 
During the excavation we found a large flat rock buried to the north of the deer 
stone, in the northwest part of the excavation (Figure 18.32). We had hoped to find some 
significant archaeological artifacts under this rock, but unfortunately, we found nothing. 
During the field excavation we collected samples of the horse heads for radiocarbon dating. 
The one sample analyzed (Feature 1, B-207208) produced a date of cal. B.P. 3160-2920), 
the earliest of any deer stone horse head we have dated so far. 
Figure 18.29. Tsatstain 
Hoshuu site cleared to the 
top of the rock deposit. 
f^aLjarsaikhan et. al. 1A-A 
Figure 18.30. Tsatstain Hoshuu upper level finds with two horseheads and an antler 
fragment. 
50cm 
Figure 18.31. Tsatstain Hoshuu rock layer showing locations and orientation of horse 
head offerings. View to north. 
24^ Rield Reports 
large rock slab buried 1 
meter north of the deer 
stone. View to south. 
Hoshuu excavation showing 
Figure 18.32. Tsatstain 
In June 14, 2004, some of our group traveled to Menge Bulag, a Tsaatan summer 
camp, to conduct botanical and archeological studies of the tundra area. The crew members 
included William Fitzhugh, Paula DePriest, Gregory McKee, Andrea Neighbors, Ts. 
Odbaatar, translator Adyabold, and students Oyunbileg and Undarmaa. We left Soyo 
Tolgoi at noon and crossed the bridge over the Khugiin Gol River before heading north 
towards the Evdein River. (The name is derived from the Uigur word “ivd” and “ivtsaa,” 
and is translated as “reindeer” or “river with reindeer” in Mongolian.) We went up until 
it became too difficult to drive jeeps and then stopped to wait for reindeer herders who 
were supposed to give us a ride. Around two o’clock that afternoon, Tsaatans arrived and 
began loading our equipment after letting their horses rest a little. They came with a total 
of 25 horses. About an hour later we headed to Menge Bulag. 
The weather was very chilly, windy, and cloudy. It took us four hours to go up along 
the Evdein River. We continued our journey through the Evdein Mountain pass and then 
down to the Menge Bulag River. We walked on foot in some areas. When we asked the 
Tsaatans about the meaning of Menge Bulag, there were two kinds of explanations. Monh 
Bulag means “forever river” and Myangan Bulag means “a thousand rivers.” 
We arrived at the Tsaatan summer camp at Menge Bulag around 8:30 that evening. 
There were a total of ten families at the camp and we stayed next to the family tents of 
Bayandalai, Zolzaya and Batzaya. Menge Bulag is located within a high mountain zone of 
the Red Taiga Mountain and it was one of main summer camping areas for the Tsaatan. 
The next morning, we rode by horse to do field research with local people. We 
questioned them about any archeaological artifacts they had or had seen that could have 
been made by human beings. One of our Tsaatan helpers, Bayandalai, showed us a small 
cylindrical microblade core he had found in the area - clearly a Neolithic period implment 
- but he could not remember exactly where he had found it. 
We also went up and down along the Menge Bulag River in hopes of spotting any 
monuments or mounds, but found nothing. However, we did find some microblades and 
2+6 j^aqarsaikhan et. al. 
waste flakes at the old camp where the team had excavated in 2002 (then called Baran gol; 
see Fitzhugh, this volume, Figure 1.20). Despite our limited finds, we decided that it was 
necessary to continue research here in the future. 
We prepared to go return to the steppe on the morning of June 16. The botany 
crew members decided to do some field research on their own, thus we separated into 
two groups. Before we left, Paula DePriest created a competition among the Tsaatans, 
offering 5,000 tugrugs to the owner of the largest reindeer and horse. The largest reindeer 
was owned by Mandakh, whereas the largest horse was owned by Baasankhuu (whose 
nickname was Tartag). At eleven o’clock in the morning, we headed to Soyo Tolgoi and 
by 3:30 pm arrived at the vehicles that were waiting for us. On the way back, we stopped 
by Tsatstain Hoshuu, where we excavated around this deer stone, before heading back to 
Soyo Tolgoi. 
f^inds from saga an [\Juur and /\ngarkhai sum areas 
On the morning of June 18, we left Soyo Tolgoi for field research in the Tsagaan 
Nuur sum area for one day. Besides the research, we also hoped to find archeaological 
Figure 18.33. Site of shaman s cache at Angarkhai Mountain, Arbulag sum. Shamanic 
paraphernalia was found scattered about this hilltop cleft where it had been placed, 
probably decades ago, inside a wooden box found nearby. 
2+/ f i'eld Reports 
artifacts preserved in the museum of Tsagaan nuur sum. However, we ultimately could not 
visit the musuem and so moved on to do our field research. 
From Tsagaan Nuur sum our team divided into two groups, one of which went to 
do field work in the northwestern part of the sum, while the other went to the eastern part. 
The group that went to the northwest did field research on Gurvan Saihan Mountain and 
found several mounds and khirigsuurs and recorded their GPS locations. Among them 
were two looted mounds. 
The second group headed north to cross the Shishin Gol by raft. We arrived on the 
east side and continued our research around Khogorgo River area. During our work around 
the Khogorgo River side we located some artifacts that may date to the Stone Age. 
While we headed back to Erkhel Lake, in Alag Erdene sum, from Soyo Tolgoi, 
we re-visited the site where some old shamanic artifacts we had found at Angarkhai 
Mountain in Arbulag sum in 2001. Because many items had been removed from the 
cache, we collected the remainder to preserve them (Figure 18.33-34). 
0 5 cm ■ ■ ■ 
Figure 18.34. A selection of shaman s equipment recovered from the Angarkhai hill 
cache. Illustrated are a drum handle with rattles, a drum beater with rattlers, rattles for 
a shaman s robe or belt, mouth harps, and a small offering cup. (see also Figure 1.28) 
£)aijarsailcban et. al. ТАЪ 
Research on the R) eer ^tones at (Jlaan T olgol 
During June 21-24, 2004 we continued excavations at Ulaan Tolgoi hill west of 
Erkhel Lake in Alag Erden sum. This isolated conical hill has a large mound complex 
with five deer stones on its southeastern side. In 2003, we had excavated around Deer 
Stone 4 and found four offering features. We began excavating a 4x4m area west of 
DS4 (Figure 18.35), because we noticed an exterior boulder structure. We also needed 
to excavate as much as possible around the deer stone to reveal evidence of ceremonial 
activity. After removing the surface layer we discovered a circular rock structure 
(Figure 18.36), within which we found charcoal stains and small pieces of broken bone 
extending to sterile soil at a depth of 30cm, but no artifacts or recognizeable horse 
remains were found (Figure 18.37, 38). 
We then turned our attention to excavating five squares north and east of Deer 
Stone 4, finding two horse head offerings beneath small rock mounds. Feature 5 in the 
western part of Square 4N/0E (Figure 18.39, 40), contained an east-facing horse skull 
and mandible lying upside-down with six articulated cervical vertebrae and a single 
hoof lying aligned 101 degr. mag. along the north side of the skull, which was oriented 
110 degrees and was -103 to -117 cm below datum. A small fragment of Bronze Age 
ceramic was recovered at -109 in the lower brown soil above the sterile zone south of 
the burial. Feature 6 was in the northeast comer of Square 4N/2E and also contained 
an east-facing horse head burial beneath a rock mound (Figure 18.41) accompanied by 
six cervical vertebrae and two hooves along the south side of the skull (Figure 18.42), 
which was aligned 120 degrees (mag) and like Feature 5 was also up-side-down, but 
in this case the vertebrae and hooves were along the south side of the skull and were 
oriented 110 degrees. 
While clearing excavating the area between F1 and F4 we discovered a poorly- 
preserved horse head burial beneath large rocks forming the west wall of Feature 1 
(Figure 18.43, 18.44). This horse head, designated Feature 7, probably pre-dates Feature 
1 and seems to have been crushed during its construction. 
Figure 18.35. Ulaan Tolgoi deer stone site west of Erkhel Lake, showing Deer Stones 5 
(left) and 4 (right). The western DS4 squares are shown here before excavation. 
24? fAeld Reports 
Улаан толгой L_ім 
Буган чулуун хѳшѳѳ-4 
1-р ye 
Figure 18.36. Ulaan Tolgoi (Erkhel) DS4, Feature 4 upper level rock structure. 
Ulaantolgoi 
Feature-4 
lewel-2 
N 
ch - charcoal 
В - bone 1m 
Figure 18.37. Ulaan Tolgoi 
DS4, Feature 4 lower level 
bone (B) and charcoal (CH) 
finds. 
150 £>ayarsaii<han et. al. 
1 meter 
I- Brown surface soil 
II- Grey sandy soil 
III- Dark soil level 
IV- Soil with grindstones level 
Figure 18.38. Ulaan Tolgoi (Erkhel) soil profile of north wall of DS4, Feature 4 from 
OS 8W to 0S4W. 
1. Bronze age ceramic fragment in lower brown soil above sterile gravel 
2. Horse head bone fragment 
3. Horse head burial 
Figure 18.39. Ulaan Tolgoi (Erkhel) Deer Stone 4, Feature 5, Square 4N OE upper level 
rocks andfinds with insert showing east-facing horse head burial in lower level. 
15 i f^ieid Reports 
A 
ON 2 W 
В 
4N 2W 
III- Dark humic zone, former ground surface 
IV- Light brown sandy soil 
V- Sterile gravel 
Horse head 
Feature 5 
Figure 18.40. Ulaan Tolgoi (Erkhel) Deer Stone 4, Feature 5 west wall soil profile 
ON 2 W to 4N 2 W. 
I 
4N0E 4N2E 
1. Bone fragment (Metacarpal?) at -102, at ledge of a large rock in lower brown soil. 
Figure 18.41. Ulaan Tolgoi (Erkhel) Deer Stone 4, Feature 6 upper level rocks andfinds 
in Square 4N 2E. 
£>ayarsai!chan et. al. 
4N0E 4N2E 
N 
Figure 18.42. Ulaan Tolgoi (Erkhel) Deer Stone 4, Feature 6, lower level rocks and 
horse head burial in Square 4N 2E. 
1. Charcoal sample starting at -130 to -135 in upper tan soil without gravel. 
2. Horse vertebra - only one at -142cm. Oil top of sterile gravel. 
Figure 18.43. Ulaan Tolgoi (Erkhel) Deer Stone 4 upper level map of Feature 7. 
{Held Reports 
OS 8W 
This waDs profile 
2S 2W 
I- Brown surface soil 
II- Grey sandy soil 
III- Dark soil 
IV- Soil with grindstones level 
Figure 18.44. Ulacm Tolgoi (Erkhel) Deer Stone 4 wall profile from 2S/4W to 2S/1W. 
Figure 18.45 Calibrated plot of radiocarbon dates from deer stone sites (Stuiver and 
Reimers Calib 5.02) (reference Table 1.1 in this volume) 
2^4 j^ayarsaikhan et. al. 



S^rrHSOni^N LIBRARIES 
3 9088 0 865 3469 
2004 Expedition with Tsaatan 
National Museum of Mongolian History Arctic Studies Center 
Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia National Museum of Natural History 
Smithsonian Institution 
Washington, D.C. 
Smithsonian Institution 
National Museum of Natural History