人类学学报 ›› 2009, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (03): 285-291.

• 人类学学报 • 上一篇    下一篇

周口店北京猿人遗址的年代综述兼评该遗址的铝铍埋藏年龄

陈铁梅; 周力平   

  • 出版日期:2009-09-15 发布日期:2009-09-15

Dating of the Peking Man Site: a comparison between existing chronology and the 26 Al/10 Be burial ages

CHEN Tie-mei; ZHOU Li-ping   

  • Online:2009-09-15 Published:2009-09-15

摘要: 本文综合评述了对周口店第一地点的测年结果。探讨了1)基于骨化石铀系、裂变径迹、古地磁和牙化石ESR测年的老年代框架与2)基于钙板铀系和铝铍埋藏测年的新年代框架之间的差异。着重分析了铝铍埋藏年龄测量方法因假设前提不完全满足而可能引起测年结果偏老的系统误差。文中还对周口店遗址进一步的年代学研究提出了建议。

关键词: 周口店; 北京猿人; 古人类遗址测年; 铝铍埋藏年龄

Abstract: Two chronological frameworks for Locality 1 at the Peking Man Site of Zhoukoudian, Beijing are discussed. One is based on the previously published dates using the fission track, U- series , palaeomagnetism and ESR methods. The other is based on the ages recently obtained with the U-series dating of flowstone and the 26 Al/10 Be burial dating.
While both frameworks recognize that the Brunhes-Matuyama Boundary of 0.78 Ma is placed below the 13th layer at Locality 1 of Zhoukoudian, two different ages of about 0.45 Ma and 0.77 ± 0.08 Ma are suggested for the 8-9th layers respectively by these two frameworks, i. e. the difference being as large as 0.3 Ma. Significant changes in lithography, fauna and flora were observed from the 8-9th to the 13th layer, indicating at least one glacial-interglacial cycle. The 26 Al/10 Be burial age of 0.77 Ma for the 8-9th layers would squeeze five stratigraphical layers into a narrow time interval. This is hard to understand.
Factors which may cause systematic errors in the 26 Al/10 Be burial dating are discussed, such as the uncertainty of the half-life of the 10 Be, the uncertainty with the ratio of the production rates of 26 Al and 10 Be, and the complexity and unpredictability of the exposure-burial history of the quartz samples.
Further chronological studies on the Peking Man Site are also suggested.

Key words: Zhoukoudian; Peking Man; Dating of paleoanthropological sites; 26 Al/10 Be burial dating