甘肃杨上旧石器遗址剥片技术与策略

doi:10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2023.0040

人类学学报 ›› 2023, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (05): 604-615.doi: 10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2023.0040cstr: 32091.14.j.1000-3193/AAS.2023.0040

甘肃杨上旧石器遗址剥片技术与策略

赵宇超¹^,²(), 李锋³, 周静⁴, 陈福友², 高星²^,⁵

1.山东大学环境与社会考古国际合作联合实验室，山东大学文化遗产研究院，青岛 266237
2.中国科学院脊椎动物演化与人类起源重点实验室，中国科学院古脊椎动物与古人类研究所，北京100044
3.北京大学考古文博学院，北京100871
4.甘肃省文物考古研究所，兰州 730000
5.中国科学院大学，北京100049

收稿日期:2022-07-04 修回日期:2023-03-23 出版日期:2023-10-15 发布日期:2023-10-16
作者简介:赵宇超，副研究员，主要从事旧石器考古研究。E-mail: zhaoyuchao@sdu.edu.cn
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金(41872028);中国科学院“战略性先导科技专项”(XDB26000000);中国科学院国际伙伴计划项目(132311KYSB20190008)

Technology and strategy of core reduction at the Yangshang site, Gansu

ZHAO Yuchao¹^,²(), LI Feng³, ZHOU Jing⁴, CHEN Fuyou², GAO Xing²^,⁵

1. Joint International Research Laboratory of Environmental and Social Archaeology, Institute of Cultural Heritage, Shandong University, Qingdao 266237
2. Key Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution and Human Origins of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100044
3. School of Archaeology and Museology, Peking University, Beijing 100871
4. Gansu Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Lanzhou 730000
5. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049

Received:2022-07-04 Revised:2023-03-23 Online:2023-10-15 Published:2023-10-16

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

本文通过对甘肃杨上旧石器时代遗址出土石核与石片的原料、形态和类型的分析，探讨了石制品所体现的古人类的剥片技术及其特点，并从原料适应与文化传承的角度探讨了其技术策略产生的原因。杨上遗址石制品原料以脉石英为主，打片采用锤击法；包括普通石核和盘状石核两种剥片模式。由于脉石英原料易碎且破裂方式较难预判，导致剥片的掌控难度大，故而石核多呈现出台面选择的机会性与不确定性，缺少对于台面的修整以及剥片面的固定深入开发。在石片毛坯加工修整难度较大的情况下，古人可能更倾向于生产大量的石片，并从中选取形态角度合适的边刃直接使用。石核、石片的类型组合以及原料的构成比例从早到晚无明显变化，体现了陇西黄土高原旧石器时代早期文化传承的稳定性。

关键词: 旧石器时代早期, 考古学, 石制品, 石英, 技术

Abstract:

The Yangshang site (220-140 kaBP) is a late Early Paleolithic locale in Gansu Province. A total of 1696 lithic artifacts and 337 faunal remains were recovered during 2013 excavations. This paper summarizes the lithic reduction technology by analyzing raw materials, morphology and technical attributes of cores and flakes unearthed from the site. The cultural and adaptive implications of the lithic reduction strategies are further investigated. The results show that core reduction is characterized by hard-hammer percussion including platform-migrating and discoid core exploitation methods. The combination of core and flake types and composition of raw materials did not change significantly throughout the site’s occupation, which indicates stability of Early Paleolithic cultural transmission on the Longxi Loess Plateau. The Yangshang lithic assemblage is dominated by vein quartz. This material’s macrocrystalline and developed-inner flaw characters had significant impact on core reduction and flake morphology as the fragility and unpredictability of this material make it difficult to control core reduction process. As a result, core exploitation at Yangshang was a fairly opportunistic, migrating, platform strategy rather than focus on single platform preparation. Due to low workability of vein quartz for retouching and tool maintenance, retouch was only employed occasionally. Yangshang’s inhabitants may have preferred to produce a large quantity of flakes from which to select an edge with the appropriate form and angle for direct use.

Key words: Early Paleolithic, Archaeology, Lithics, Quartz, Technology

中图分类号:

K871.11

赵宇超, 李锋, 周静, 陈福友, 高星. 甘肃杨上旧石器遗址剥片技术与策略[J]. 人类学学报, 2023, 42(05): 604-615.

ZHAO Yuchao, LI Feng, ZHOU Jing, CHEN Fuyou, GAO Xing. Technology and strategy of core reduction at the Yangshang site, Gansu[J]. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 2023, 42(05): 604-615.

图/表 8

参考文献 21

[1]	Zhao YC, Zhou J, Chen FY, et al. Lithic technological responses to environmental change during the penultimate glacial cycle (MIS 7-6) at the Yangshang site, western Chinese Loess Plateau[J]. Quaternary Research, 2021, 103: 148-159 doi: 10.1017/qua.2020.114 URL
[2]	Yang SX, Petraglia MD, Hou YM, et al. The lithic assemblages of Donggutuo, Nihewan basin: Knapping skills of Early Pleistocene hominins in North China[J]. PLoS ONE, 2017, 9: e0185101
[3]	Pei SW, Xie F, Deng, CL, et al. Early Pleistocene archaeological occurrences at the Feiliang site, and the archaeology of human origins in the Nihewan Basin, North China[J]. PLoS One, 2017, 11: e0187251
[4]	Li H, Li ZY, Gao X, et al. Technological behavior of the early Late Pleistocene archaic humans at Lingjing (Xuchang, China)[J]. Archaeological and Anthropological Science, 2019, 11: 3477-3490 doi: 10.1007/s12520-018-0759-7
[5]	Yang SX, Wang FG, Xie F, et al. Technological innovations at the onset of the Mid-Pleistocene Climate Transition in high-latitude East Asia[J]. National Science Review, 2021, 1: nwaa053
[6]	赵宇超, 周静, 李锋, 等. 甘肃张家川县杨上旧石器时代遗址的发掘[J]. 考古, 2019, 5: 66-77
[7]	Nelson MC. The study of technological organization[J]. Archaeological Method and Theory, 1991, 3: 57-100
[8]	Debénath A, Dibble HL. Handbook of Paleolithic Typology-Volume One: Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe[M]. Philadelphia: University Museum University of Pennsylvania,1994
[9]	高星. 周口店第15地点剥片技术研究[J]. 人类学学报, 2000, 19(3): 119-215
[10]	Toth N. The artifact assemblages in the light of experimental studies[A]. In: Isaac, GL.(Ed.) Koobi Fora research project[C]. Oxford: Clarenden Press, 1997
[11]	李锋. “文化传播”与“生态适应”—水洞沟遗址第二地点考古学观察[D]. 北京: 中国科学院大学, 2012
[12]	高星. 周口店第15 地点石器原料开发方略与经济形态研究[J]. 人类学学报, 2001, 20(3): 186-200
[13]	Seong CT. Quartzite and vein quartz as lithic raw materials reconsidered: Aview from the Korean Paleolithic[J]. Asian Perspectives, 2004, 43: 73-90 doi: 10.1353/asi.2004.0016 URL
[14]	Knutsson K. ‘Simple’ need not mean ‘archaic’[J]. Antiquity, 2014, 88: 950-953 doi: 10.1017/S0003598X00050894 URL
[15]	Manninen MA. The effect of raw material properties on flake and flake-tool dimensions: a comparison between quartz and chert[J]. Quaternary International, 2016, 424: 24-31 doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2015.12.096 URL
[16]	Knutsson H, Knutsson K, Taipale N, et al. How shattered flakes were used: Micro-wear analysis of quartz flake fragments[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 2016, 24: 517-531
[17]	Bordes. Principes d’une méhode d’éude des techniques de déitage et de la typologie du Palélithique ancien et moyen[J]. L’Anthropologie, 1950, 54: 19-34
[18]	Terradas X. Discoid flaking method:Conception and Technological Variavvility[A]. In: Peresani M(eds). Discoid Lithic Technology-Advance and Implications[M]. BAR International Series, 2003, 1120: 19-32
[19]	Yee MK. The Middle Paleolithic in China: a review of current interpretations[J]. Antiquity, 2012, 86: 619-626 doi: 10.1017/S0003598X00047803 URL
[20]	陈宥成, 曲彤丽. 盘状石核相关问题探讨[J]. 考古, 2016, 2: 88-94
[21]	李占扬. 许昌灵井旧石器时代遗址2006年发掘报告[J]. 考古学报, 2010, 1: 73-100

原料Material→ 层位Layer↓	脉石英Vein quartz		石英岩Quartzite		花岗岩Granite		硅质灰岩Siliceous		其他Other		总计Total
原料Material→ 层位Layer↓	石核Core	石片Flake	石核Core	石片Flake	石核Core	石片Flake	石核Core	石片Flake	石核Core	石片Flake	石核Core	石片Flake
L4	1	2		4							1	6
L5	1	2									1	2
L6	15	59	17	15	5	4		2	1		38	80
L7	18	39	3	5		10	1	2			22	56
L8	32	154	6	18		2		2		1	38	177
L9	0	5	2				1				3	5
Total n	67	261	28	42	5	16	2	6	1	1	103	326
%	65%	80%	27%	12.9%	5%	4.9%	2%	1.9%	1%	0.3%	100%	100%

原料Material→ 层位Layer↓	脉石英Vein quartz		石英岩Quartzite		花岗岩Granite		硅质灰岩Siliceous		其他Other		总计Total
原料Material→ 层位Layer↓	石核Core	石片Flake	石核Core	石片Flake	石核Core	石片Flake	石核Core	石片Flake	石核Core	石片Flake	石核Core	石片Flake
L4	1	2		4							1	6
L5	1	2									1	2
L6	15	59	17	15	5	4		2	1		38	80
L7	18	39	3	5		10	1	2			22	56
L8	32	154	6	18		2		2		1	38	177
L9	0	5	2				1				3	5
Total n	67	261	28	42	5	16	2	6	1	1	103	326
%	65%	80%	27%	12.9%	5%	4.9%	2%	1.9%	1%	0.3%	100%	100%

特征Attributes		单台面Sin (n=28)	双台面Dou (n=37)	多台面Mul (n=33)	总计Total	特征Attributes		单台面Sin (n=28)	双台面Dou (n=37)	多台面Mul (n=33)	总计Total
台面Platforms	自然Natual	20	49	51	120	剥片面疤	垂直Vertical		2	8	10
	素Plain	8	13	19	40	Scars	多向Multiple		1	1	2
	多疤Multi-scars		6	25	31	疤数 n of	1~2	40	82	102	224
	剥片面Worked		6	10	16	scars	3~4	6	17	19	42
剥片面数Number of working faces	1	13			13		≥5			3	3
	2	11	19	4	34		Uncertain	1			1
	3	4	12	8	24	自然面比Ratio of natural face	0	4	1	3	8
	4		5	13	18		0~25%	5	11	14	30
	≥5		1	8	9		25%~50%	7	17	13	37
剥片面疤Scars	单向Single	47	89	104	240		50%~75%	6	5	2	13
剥片面疤Scars	对向Opposite		7	11	18		75%~100%	6	3	1	10

特征Attributes		单台面Sin (n=28)	双台面Dou (n=37)	多台面Mul (n=33)	总计Total	特征Attributes		单台面Sin (n=28)	双台面Dou (n=37)	多台面Mul (n=33)	总计Total
台面Platforms	自然Natual	20	49	51	120	剥片面疤	垂直Vertical		2	8	10
	素Plain	8	13	19	40	Scars	多向Multiple		1	1	2
	多疤Multi-scars		6	25	31	疤数 n of	1~2	40	82	102	224
	剥片面Worked		6	10	16	scars	3~4	6	17	19	42
剥片面数Number of working faces	1	13			13		≥5			3	3
	2	11	19	4	34		Uncertain	1			1
	3	4	12	8	24	自然面比Ratio of natural face	0	4	1	3	8
	4		5	13	18		0~25%	5	11	14	30
	≥5		1	8	9		25%~50%	7	17	13	37
剥片面疤Scars	单向Single	47	89	104	240		50%~75%	6	5	2	13
剥片面疤Scars	对向Opposite		7	11	18		75%~100%	6	3	1	10

特征Attributes			L4	L5	L6	L7	L8	L9	总计Total
特征Attributes			L4	L5	L6	L7	L8	L9	n	%
几何形状 Forms	窄尾Narrow tail				14	14	40		68	21%
几何形状 Forms	平行Parallel on both sides		1	1	34	21	56	3	116	35%
	半圆、近圆形Circular				1		1		2	1%
	不规则Irregular		5	1	31	21	80	2	140	43%
类型Types	自然台面Natural platform	Type I			5		9	1	15	14.6%
	自然台面Natural platform	Type II			19	14	37	1	71	21.8%
		Type III	3		28	27	71	2	131	40.2%
	人工台面artificial platform	Type IV		1			3		4	1.2%
	人工台面artificial platform	Type V			9	5	15		29	8.9%
		Type VI	3	1	19	10	42	1	76	23.3%
背面疤痕 Scar directions in back	无背疤No		1	5		12	1		19	5.8%
	单向Single	同向Same	3	1	53	39	122	3	221	67.8%
		横向Cross	1		2	4	6		13	4%
		反向Reverse				1			1	0.3%
	双向Double	对向Opposite	2		7	1	7	1	18	5.5%
		垂向Vertical			6	6	11		23	7.1%
	多向Multiple			2	1	1			4	1.2%
	疤向不定Uncertain			5	4	18			27	8.3%

甘肃杨上旧石器遗址剥片技术与策略

Technology and strategy of core reduction at the Yangshang site, Gansu

在线阅读

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 8

参考文献 21

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	任进成, 李锋, 陈福友, 高星. 泥河湾盆地板井子遗址2015年出土石制品的剥片技术[J]. 人类学学报, 2024, 43(05): 712-726.
[2]	高黄文, 刘颖杰, 陆成秋, 孙雪峰, 黄旭初, 徐静玥. 湖北郧阳包包岭遗址2021年发掘简报[J]. 人类学学报, 2024, 43(05): 828-838.
[3]	崔祚文, 王春雪, 陈全家, 曾庆硕, 张楠. 2021年河南南召新发现的旧石器[J]. 人类学学报, 2024, 43(05): 853-864.
[4]	王家琪, 张雪微, 王春雪, 盛立双. 天津蓟州区太子陵旧石器地点2021年发掘简报[J]. 人类学学报, 2024, 43(03): 440-447.
[5]	肖培源, 阮齐军, 高玉, 贾真秀, 张明, 杨李靖, 刘建辉, 李三灵, 李浩. 2022年云南宾川盆地旧石器遗址调查报告[J]. 人类学学报, 2024, 43(03): 448-457.
[6]	Hiroyuki SATO, Kazuki MORISAKI. 日本旧石器晚期石器技术起源的新考古学与人类学证据[J]. 人类学学报, 2024, 43(03): 470-487.
[7]	艾兰, 田淳, 李大伟, 李金燕, 王伟. 广西田东定模遗址发掘简报[J]. 人类学学报, 2024, 43(02): 298-313.
[8]	魏天旭, 王春雪, 张雪微, 王家琪, 盛立双. 天津蓟州区朝阳洞遗址2号地点发掘简报[J]. 人类学学报, 2024, 43(02): 314-320.
[9]	赵清坡, 马欢欢. 河南灵宝旧石器考古调查报告[J]. 人类学学报, 2024, 43(02): 321-330.
[10]	高星, 张月书, 李锋, 陈福友, 王晓敏, 仪明洁. 泥河湾盆地东谷坨遗址2016-2019年发掘简报[J]. 人类学学报, 2024, 43(01): 106-121.
[11]	赵云啸, 仝广, 涂华, 赵海龙. 河北省泥河湾盆地石沟遗址C区发掘简报[J]. 人类学学报, 2024, 43(01): 122-131.
[12]	周士航, 何湘栋, 徐静玥, 李潇丽, 牛东伟. 蔚县盆地东沟遗址2017年度发掘简报[J]. 人类学学报, 2024, 43(01): 132-142.
[13]	刘连强, 蒲昱晓, 侯佳岐, 王法岗. 泥河湾盆地马圈沟遗址鱼咀沟1号地点2017-2018年发掘出土的石制品[J]. 人类学学报, 2024, 43(01): 40-54.
[14]	周振宇, 王法岗, 关莹. 河北泥河湾盆地西白马营遗址1985-1986年出土的石制品[J]. 人类学学报, 2024, 43(01): 55-66.
[15]	仝广, 李锋, 赵海龙, 闫晓蒙, 高星. 泥河湾盆地火山角砾岩原料的热处理实验[J]. 人类学学报, 2024, 43(01): 81-90.