贵州普定穿洞遗址1981年出土的骨制品

doi:10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2024.0090

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

本文从微观宏观结合、定量定性并重的研究视角，对穿洞遗址1981年出土的数件典型骨器的形态特征、加工技术和使用痕迹进行了系统分析，对其工艺和功能进行了较为详细的阐释与恢复。结果显示：穿洞古人类倾向于选择大型鹿类动物的长骨骨干制作尖刃器，而以牛的长骨骨干制作铲型器；加工骨器的技术包括打制、刮削、磨制、切刻、抛光等。此外，与早年研究结果有所不同，穿洞遗址中的两尖器应为复合工具，且其主要应用于钻孔或切割等活动而非通常所认知的渔猎；骨锥类工具可能用于兽皮穿孔；铲形器刃口形态各异，但其使用痕迹特征基本一致，表明其主要用于挖掘地下块茎类植物。本文为穿洞史前骨工业的技术特征、文化源流以及古人类生计模式、生存状态的探索与研究提供了新的证据。

关键词: 骨器, 使用痕迹, 骨铲, 两尖器, 生计模式, 旧石器

Abstract:

Located in Puding County, central-western part of Guizhou Province, the Chuandong site is of great cultural significance for its extensive collection of bone tools. Dating from approximately 11±1 kaBP to 20±6 kaBP, this assemblage predominantly consists of sophisticated tools such as spatulas, points and awls, of which many exhibit remarkably well-preserved bone surfaces. However, so far the published researches on manufacturing of bone artifacts are based on naked-eye observations, and the presumed functions of such tools are largely rooted on typological comparisons or anecdotal records. In this paper, microscopic features found on the tools, along with results of bone surface modification analysis, bone implements from the 1981 field season using chaine opératoire and comparative ethnographic, experimental and archaeological data. Results shows that spatulas were made from the long bone shaft of large-sized bovids by percussion and engraving (probably with a relatively pointed or narrow-edged tool), while bipoint and awls were fabricated from the long bone shaft of large-sized cervids by extensive scraping or grinding. The present study shows that bone awls were principally used to perforate animal hides probably for cloth-making; rather than as a component of composite spear or fish gorge. Bipoints most probably used for drilling holes or in engraving activities. Further investigation of the spatulas from the cave shows that microstriations, ranging from 30 to 80 μm in width, are restricted within the polished parts of spatulas; with a progressive reduction in width from the tip, these striations are oriented parallel or sub-parallel to the long axis of the tool. This pattern is consistent with those observed in tuber exploitation experiments. It is thus concluded that, despite variations in morphology, the primary function of this category of tools was likely to exhume some kinds of under-ground storage organs, which are presumably to be one of the inhabitants main food resources. The bone tool assemblage from the Chuandong site provides a significant contribution to our understanding of the technological repertoire and subsistence patterns of Late Pleistocene hunter-gatherers in Southwestern China and also in tracing cultural contact between different peoples in southeastern Asia as a whole.

Key words: Bone tools, use wear, bone spatula, bipoints, subsistence, Paleolithic

中图分类号:

K871

张乐, 张双权. 贵州普定穿洞遗址1981年出土的骨制品[J]. 人类学学报, 2024, 43(06): 1048-1063.

ZHANG Yue, ZHANG Shuangquan. Bone artifacts unearthed from the Chuandong cave site in Puding of Guizhou in 1981[J]. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 2024, 43(06): 1048-1063.

图/表 4

图1 穿洞遗址出土的典型骨器 1~2.尖刃器Pointed bone tools：从左到右依次为144、142号标本的背面、右侧面、腹面、左侧面Dorsal, right lateral, ventral and left lateral views (from left to right) of specimens No. 144 and 142；3.尖刃器Pointed bone tool：从左到右依次为143号标本的背面、近端断面与腹面Dorsal, proximal, and ventral views (from left to right) of specimen No. 143；4, 6, 7.铲型器Spatulas：从左到右依次为145、147与146号标本的背面、右侧面、腹面、左侧面Dorsal, right lateral, ventral and left lateral views (from left to right) of specimens No. 145, 147 and 146；5.铲型器Spatula：从左到右依次为141号标本的背面、右侧面、腹面Dorsal, right lateral and ventral views (from left to right) of specimen No. 141。比例尺Scales: 1cm.

Fig.1 The exemplary bone tools from the Chuandong cave

图2 尖刃器表面的制作痕迹与使用痕迹 1. 144号标本Specimen No. 144：A.上部尖表面密集分布着垂直于长轴的线状痕迹，其边缘被磨圆、磨光Groups of transverse striations on the distal end, with edges smoothed by heavy polish；B.下部尖腹面分布着成组的横向、较宽、短的平行线状痕迹，疑似绑缚造成的压痕Groups of transverse, wider and shorter striations on the proximal end, which were likely produced by the pressure exerted by a binding agent while in hafting。 2. 142号标本Specimen No.142：A.尖端分布着成组的较深、宽的横向线状痕迹，它们的边缘被更细小的线状痕迹磨圆磨光Groups of transverse, deep and wide striations on the pointed end, with edges covered by micro-striations；B.器身腹面分布着较宽的线状切刻痕迹Engraved lines on mesial part of the tool；C.器身光亮表面布满密集、极细的横向线状痕，可能是古人类有意识地抛光修理造成Intensive micro-striations on mesial part of the tool, suggesting that it was intentionally polished by the crafter。 3. 143号标本Specimen No. 143：A.尖端反光特性明显，磨制痕迹边缘被严重磨光磨圆The reflective tip of the tool, with grinding traces partially obliterated by polish；B.尖端表面分布一些比磨制痕迹细小很多的横向线状痕迹，边缘被磨圆磨光Groups of fine transverse striations developed on the pointed end, with their edges smoothed by a heavy polish. C.标本表面布满横向或斜向的磨制痕迹，它们分布于数个平行于器物长轴的窄平面上Oblique or transverse grinding marks on distinct adjacent facets parallel to the long axis.

Fig.2 Manufacturing traces and use-wear on the pointed tools

图3 铲形器的表面痕迹 1-6. 145号标本Specimen No.145：1, 2.上部刃缘背、腹面分布的线状痕迹Linear striations on the dorsal and ventral surfaces of the distal end；3.上部刃缘中部垂直于器物长轴的细长小面The middle part of the distal end, with a flat crushed facet perpendicular to the long axis of the tool；4.下部刃缘表面分布的线状痕迹Linear striations on the proximal end；5.腹面的切刻痕迹Engraved lines on the ventral surface；6.两侧边缘腹面分布着连续、磨光磨圆的小疤Polished scars on the ventral part of the lateral sides。 7-12. 146号标本Specimen No.146：7.上部刃缘左侧部分被磨圆磨光，其上可见三处微凹陷The polished distal end, with three. depressions on its left part；8.上部刃缘右侧细长的、垂直于器身的平面刃The right part of the distal end, with a flat crushed facet perpendicular to the long axis of the tool；9.下部刃缘表面分布的细线状痕迹Linear striations on the proximal end；10.修整石制品造成的骨表脱落凹陷区Scaled areas created by the detachment of cortical flakes when the tool was used as a retoucher；11.背面的切刻痕迹Engraved lines on the dorsal surface；12.骨表脱落凹陷区内部分布的切刻痕Engraved lines observable in the scaled areas of the tools。 13-14. 147号标本Specimen No.147；13.上部刃缘表面分布的细线状痕迹Linear striations on the surfaces of the distal end14.器身背面的刮削痕迹Scraping marks on the dorsal surface of the tool. 15. 141号标本Specimen No.141：上部刃缘的细线状痕迹Linear striations on the distal end.

Fig.3 Manufacturing traces and use-wear on the Spatulas

表1 铲形器的观察与测量表

Tab.1 Attributes of the spatulas

	上部Distal end		中部 Mesial end			下部刃 Proximal end
标本号Specimen number	线状痕迹宽度Width of linear striations (μm)	刃角 Angle	腹面切刻痕迹宽度Width of engraved lines (μm)	背面修理痕迹宽度Width of manufacturing traces (μm)	两侧修疤Scars on lateral sides	刃部修疤Scars on proximal end	线状痕迹宽度Width of linear striations (μm)	刃角Angle
145	27~45	33°	245~386	67-170 (scraping)	是 Y	是 Y	31~48	76°
147	38~45	40°	346-470	133-224 (scraping)	是 Y	是 Y	NA	30°
146	31~57	45°	287~471	344~672 (engraving)	是 Y	否 N	30~46	57°~70°
141	37~48	33°	NA	13~19 (Polishing)	是 Y	NA	NA	NA

参考文献 55

[1]	Klein RG. The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins[M]. the 3^rd edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009
[2]	Mellars P. The character of the Middle-Upper Palaeolithic transition in south-west France[A]. In: The Explanation of Culture Change:Models in Prehistory[C]. London: Duckworth, 1973, 255-276
[3]	吴秀杰, 张乐, 张双权. 四川资阳人遗址出土的骨锥[J]. 人类学学报, 2023, 42(1): 1-14
[4]	安家瑗. 华北地区旧石器时代的骨、角器[J]. 人类学学报, 2001, 20: 319-330
[5]	McBrearty S, Brooks AS. The revolution that wasn’t: a new interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2000, 39(5): 453-563
[6]	Henshilwood CS, d’Errico F, Marean CW, et al. An early bone tool industry from the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South Africa: implications for the origins of modern human behaviour, symbolism and language[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2001, 41(6): 631-678 pmid: 11782112
[7]	d’Errico F, Henshilwood C, Lawson G, et al. Archaeological evidence for the emergence of language, symbolism, and music-an alternative multidisciplinary perspective[J]. Journal of World Prehistory, 2003, 17(1): 1-70
[8]	Pei WC. The Upper Cave industry of Choukoutien[J]. Palaeontologia Sinica (Series D), 1939, 9: 1-58
[9]	黄慰文, 张镇洪, 傅仁义, 等. 海城小孤山的骨制品[J]. 人类学学报, 1986, 5: 259-266
[10]	蔡回阳. 白岩脚洞的人化石和骨制品[A]. 见: 董为(主编). 第十三届中国古脊椎动物学学术年会论文集[C]. 北京: 海洋出版社, 2012, 203-210
[11]	Zhang S, d’Errico F, Backwell LR, et al. Ma’anshan cave and the origin of bone tool technology in China[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2016, 65: 57-69
[12]	张森水. 穿洞史前遗址(1981年发掘)初步研究[J]. 人类学学报, 1995, 14(2): 132-146
[13]	毛永琴, 曹泽田. 贵州穿洞遗址1979年发现的磨制骨器的初步研究[J]. 人类学学报, 2012, 31(4): 335-343
[14]	Zhang S, Doyon L, Zhang Y, et al. Innovation in bone technology and artefact types in the late Upper Palaeolithic of China: Insights from Shuidonggou Locality 12[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2018, 93: 82-93
[15]	Zhang Y, Gao X, Pei SW, et al. The bone needles from Shuidonggou locality 12 and implications for human subsistence behaviors in North China[J]. Quaternary International, 2016, 400: 149-157
[16]	d’Errico F, Doyon L, Zhang S, et al. The origin and evolution of sewing technologies in Eurasia and North America[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2018, 125: 71-86 doi: S0047-2484(18)30085-X pmid: 30502899
[17]	俞锦林. 贵州普定县穿洞古人类化石及其文化遗物的初步研究[J]. 南京大学学报(自然), 1984, 145
[18]	Wang Y, Zhang X, Sun X, et al. A new chronological framework for Chuandong Cave and its implications for the appearance of modern humans in southern China[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2023, 178: 103344
[19]	Zhao M, Shen GJ, He JN, et al. AMS ¹⁴C dating of the hominin archaeological site Chuandong Cave in Guizhou Province, southwestern China[J]. Quaternary International, 2017, 447: 102-110
[20]	Shipman P, Rose J. Early hominid hunting, butchering, and carcass-processing behaviors: Approaches to the fossil record[J]. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 1983, 2(1): 57-98
[21]	Behrensmeyer AK, Gordon KD, Yanagi GT. Trampling as a cause of bone surface damage and pseudo-cutmarks[J]. Nature, 1986, 319(6056): 768-771
[22]	Lyman RL. Vertebrate Taphonomy[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994, 1-552
[23]	Fisher JW. Bone surface modifications in zooarchaeology[J]. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 1995, 2(1): 7-68
[24]	White T. Prehistoric Cannibalism at Mancos 5MTUMR-2346[M]. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992
[25]	Dominguez-Rodrigo M, de Juana S, Galan AB, et al. A new protocol to differentiate trampling marks from butchery cut marks[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2009, 36(12): 2643-2654
[26]	Bradfield J. Macrofractures on bone-tipped arrows: analysis of hunter-gatherer arrows in the Fourie collection from Namibia[J]. Antiquity, 2012, 86(334): 1179-1191
[27]	Bradfield J, Brand T. Results of utilitarian and accidental breakage experiments on bone points[J]. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 2013, 1-12
[28]	Bradfield J, Lombard M. A macrofracture study of bone points used in experimental hunting with reference to the South African Middle Stone Age[J]. South African Archaeological Bulletin, 2011, 66: 67-76
[29]	Buc N. Experimental series and use-wear in bone tools[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2011, 38(3): 546-557
[30]	Byrd BF, Monahan CM. Death, Mortuary Ritual, and Natufian Social Structure[J]. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 1995, 14(3): 251-287
[31]	d’Errico F, Henshilwood CS. Additional evidence for bone technology in the southern African middle stone age[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2007, 52(2): 142-163 pmid: 16996574
[32]	d’Errico F. The invisible frontier. A multiple species model for the origin of behavioral modernity[J]. Evolutionary Anthropology, 2003, 12(4): 188-202
[33]	Griffitts JL. Bone tools and technological choice: Change and stability on the Northern Plains[D]. Ph.D Dissertation. Arizona: University of Arizona, 2006
[34]	Legrand A, Radi G. Manufacture and use of bone points from Early Neolithic Colle Santo Stefano, Abruzzo, Italy[J]. Journal of Field Archaeology, 2008, 33(3): 305-320
[35]	Legrand A, Sidéra I. Methods, means and results when studying European bone industries[A]. In: Gates St-Pierre C, Walker R(eds). Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies[C]. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1622[C]. 2007, 291-304
[36]	LeMoine GM. Use wear on bone and antler tools from the Mackenzie Delta, Northwest Territories[J]. American Antiquity, 1994, 59(2): 316-334
[37]	Gates Saint-Pierre C, Walker RB. Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies[C]. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1622. Oxford:Archaeopress, 2007, 1-182
[38]	Karavanić I, Šokec T. The Middle Paleolithic percussion or pressure flaking tools? The comparison of experimental and archaeological material from Croatia[J]. Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu, 2003, 20(1): 5-14
[39]	Backwell LR, d’Errico F. The first use of bone tools: a reappraisal of the evidence from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania[J]. Palaeontologia africana, 2004, 40(9): 95-158
[40]	Blasco R, Rosell J, Cuartero F, et al. Using bones to shape stones: MIS 9 bone retouchers at both edges of the Mediterranean Sea[J]. Plos One, 2013, 8(10): e76780
[41]	Daujeard C, Moncel MH, Fiore I, et al. Middle Paleolithic bone retouchers in Southeastern France: Variability and functionality[J]. Quaternary International, 2014, 326: 492-518
[42]	Moigne AM, Valensi P, Auguste P, et al. Bone retouchers from Lower Palaeolithic sites: Terra Amata, Orgnac 3, Cagny-l’Epinette and Cueva del Angel[J]. Quaternary International, 2016, 409: 195-212
[43]	Tejero JM, Arrizabalaga Á, Villaluenga A. The Proto-Aurignacian and Early Aurignacian retouchers of Labeko Koba (Basque Country, Spain). A techno-economic and chrono-cultural interpretation using lithic and faunal data[J]. Comptes Rendus Palevol, 2016, 15(8): 994-1010
[44]	Yeshurun R, Tejero JM, Barzilai O, et al. Upper Palaeolithic bone retouchers from Manot Cave (Israel): A preliminary analysis of a (yet) rare phenomenon in the Levant[J]. The Origins of Bone Tool Technologies, 2017, 1-9
[45]	Buc N, Loponte D. Bone Tool Types and Microwear Patterns: Some Examples from the Pampa Region, South America[C]. In: Gates St-Pierre C, Walker R(eds). Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies[M]. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 1622, Archaeopress, 2007, 143-157
[46]	d’Errico F. La vie sociale de l’art mobilier Paléolithique. Manipulation, transport, suspension des objets on os, bois de cervidés, ivoire[J]. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 1993, 12(2): 145-174
[47]	d’Errico F, Backwell LR, Berger LR. Bone tool use in termite foraging by early hominids and its impact on our understanding of early hominid behaviour: research in action[J]. South African Journal of Science, 2001, 97(3): 71-75
[48]	d’Errico F, Backwell L. Assessing the function of early hominin bone tools[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2009, 36(8): 1764-1773
[49]	Pasveer J. Bone Artefacts from Liang Lemdubuand Liang Nabulei Lisa, Aru Islands[J]. Terra Australis, 2007, 22: 235-254
[50]	Sillitoe P. Made in Niugini: technology in the Highlands of Papua New Guinea[M]. London: British Museum Publications, 1988
[51]	Pasveer JM, Bellwood P. Prehistoric bone artefacts from the northern Moluccas, Indonesia[A]. In: Keates SG, Pasveer JM(eds). Quaternary Research in Indonesia[C]. Lisse: AA. Balkema Publishers, 2004, 301-359
[52]	Pasveer JM. The Djief Hunters, 26,000 Years of Rainforest Exploitation on the Bird’s Head of Papua, Indonesia[C]. Modern Quaternary Research in Southeast Asia. Lisse: AA. Balkema, 2004, 17
[53]	Backwell L, d’Errico F, Wadley L. Middle Stone Age bone tools from the Howiesons Poort Layers, Sibudu Cave, South Africa[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2008, 35(6): 1566-1580
[54]	Brain CK, Shipman P. The Swartkrans bone tools[A]. In: In: Brain CK(ed). Swartkrans: a Cave’s Chronicle of Early Man: Transvaal Museum Monograph, 1993, 195-215
[55]	刘旻, 王运辅, 付永旭, 等. 简论贵州高原史前时代的骨角铲、锥系统[J]. 南方文物, 2019, 5: 210-219