蔚县盆地吉家庄旧石器遗址动物骨骼的埋藏学分析

doi:10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2023.0006

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

泥河湾盆地南部蔚县盆地区域的河湖相地层发育良好，并保存有丰富的考古材料与人类活动信息，在研究我国北方中更新世人类演化与行为方面有重要的价值。本文对蔚县盆地吉家庄遗址群4个地点出土的动物遗存进行了初步埋藏学观察与研究。结果显示，A与D地点的动物骨骼数量较少，反映的埋藏信息有限，不作为本文主要讨论对象；E地点出土的部分动物骨骼带有异地埋藏的特点，人类行为信息可能受到干扰，变得模糊；B地点动物化石接近原地埋藏，中更新世古人类应该是该地点动物资源的初级利用者与动物骨骼富集的主要动因。分析表明，B地点古人类于原地对大中型食草动物进行了肢解、割肉与敲骨取髓等多种活动，随后食肉动物又利用了这些动物骨骼的剩余营养成分，但动物骨骼数量与组成说明古人类在此地点的生存活动是短暂且有限的。

关键词: 动物考古学, 埋藏学, 中更新世, 吉家庄, 泥河湾盆地

Abstract:

Yuxian Basin is located in the southeastern part of Nihewan Basin. Characterized by the presence of abundant archaeological materials from the well-preserved fluvio-lacustrine sequence of Middle Pleistocene Paleolithic sites, this basin bears significant implications for the study of human adaptive behaviors in North China. An analysis of the lithics from the Jijiazhuang site(JJZ) has highlighted the technological diversity of the Middle Pleistocene(MP) humans in the basin. However, little is known about human subsistence behaviors here. In this paper we present the results of a zooarchaeological analysis of the faunal remains from JJZ-A, JJZ-B, JJZ-D, and JJZ-E. While the limited number of animal specimens from JJZ-A and JJZ-D offers information of fauna, there can be ambiguities in the taphonomic interpretation; therefore, reconstruction of taphonomy of JJZ-A and JJZ-D is excluded. The research aim is to reconstruct taphonomic history of JJZ-B and JJZ-E and to investigate further potential transport and carcass processing decisions by early humans living at both sites. Our preliminary study shows that Equus sp. was the main animal species with Bovidae, Cervus sp., Rhinocerotidae, and Gazella sp. also represented. There are fundamental differences between JJZ-B and JJZ-E in terms of taphonomy. For example, animal remains at JJZ-E were most probably preserved in secondary context; in contrast, bones from JJZ-B are largely found in primary context, with humans as main agent for the accumulation and modification of this assemblage.
Construction of body part profiles of the main animal species form JJZ-B shows no trend in selective transport of animal parts at the site. Presence of cut marks indicates a variety of human activities, such as skinning, dismembering, and defleshing; while percussion traces on the bones suggests marrow extraction strategies.
Being located on a lakeshore, the JJZ-B site was probably an optimal place for human subsistence activities such as procurement, butchering, and marrow-extraction of large-sized herbivores that were attracted to this area by the water and variety of aquatic and terrestrial plants. And yet, the limited number of bones and stone artifacts suggests that the human presence was probably short-lived; and after their departure, carnivores might have ravaged animal parts left behind.

Key words: Zooarchaeology, Taphonomy, Middle Pleistocene, Jijiazhuang, Nihewan Basin

中图分类号:

杜雨薇, 张乐, 叶芷, 裴树文. 蔚县盆地吉家庄旧石器遗址动物骨骼的埋藏学分析[J]. 人类学学报, 2023, 42(03): 359-372.

DU Yuwei, ZHANG Yue, YE Zhi, PEI Shuwen. A taphonomic analysis of faunal remains from the Jijiazhuang Paleolithic site in the Yuxian Basin[J]. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 2023, 42(03): 359-372.

图/表 6

参考文献 44

[1]	卫奇. 泥河湾盆地考证[J]. 文物春秋, 2016, 2: 3-11
[2]	裴树文, 马东东, 贾真秀, 等. 蔚县盆地吉家庄旧石器遗址发掘报告[J]. 人类学学报, 2018, 37(4): 510-528
[3]	马东东, 牛东伟, 裴树文, 等. 蔚县盆地2017-2018年旧石器考古调查简报[J]. 人类学学报, 2021, 40(1): 128-136
[4]	牛东伟, 闫晓蒙, 马东东, 等. 蔚县盆地2019-2020年旧石器考古调查[J]. 人类学学报, 2022, 41(5): 936-944
[5]	裴树文. 泥河湾盆地南部(蔚县盆地)发现一处重要古人类活动遗址群[J]. 人类学学报, 2017, 36(1): 26
[6]	叶芷, 杜雨薇, 裴树文, 等. 蔚县盆地吉家庄旧石器遗址的形成过程[J]. 人类学学报, 2022, 41(e), doi: 10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2022.0052 doi: 10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2022.0052 URL
[7]	Lyman RL. Vertebrate taphonomy[M]. Cambridge University Press, 1994
[8]	伊丽莎白·施密德. 动物骨骼图谱[M].译者:李天元. 北京: 中国地质大学出版社,1992
[9]	Binford LR. Faunal Remains from Klasies River Mouth[M]. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1984
[10]	张乐, Norton CJ, 张双权, 等. 量化单元在马鞍山遗址动物骨骼研究中的运用[J]. 人类学学报, 2008, 27(1): 80-90
[11]	Domínguez-Rodrigo M. Hunting and Scavenging by Early Humans: The State of the Debate[J]. Journal of World Prehistory, 2002, 16(1): 1-54 doi: 10.1023/A:1014507129795 URL
[12]	Domínguez-Rodrigo M. Meat-Eating by Early Hominids at the FLK 22 Zinjanthropus site, Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania): an experimental approach using cut-mark data[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 1997, 33: 669-690 pmid: 9467775
[13]	Fernandez-Jalvo Y, Andrews P. Atlas of Taphonomic Identifications: 1001+ Images of Fossil and Recent Mammal Bone Modification[M]. Dordrecht: Springer, 2016
[14]	Domínguez-Rodrigo M, Egeland CP, Barba R. Domínguez-Rodrigo M, Barba R, Egeland CP (The “physical attribute” taphonomic approach[A]. In: Eds.).Deconstructing Olduvai: A Taphonomic Study of the Bed I Sites[C]. Dordrecht: Springer, 2007, 23-32
[15]	Potts R, Shipman P. Cutmarks made by stone tools on bones from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania[J]. Nature, 1981, 291: 577-580 doi: 10.1038/291577a0
[16]	Bunn H. Archaeological evidence for meat-eating by Plio-Pleistocene hominids from Koobi Fora and Olduvai Gorge[J]. Nature, 1981, 291: 574-577 doi: 10.1038/291574a0
[17]	Behrensmeyer AK. Taphonomic and ecologic information from bone weathering[J]. Paleobiology, 1978, 4(2): 150-162 doi: 10.1017/S0094837300005820 URL
[18]	Fisher JW. Bone surface modifications in zooarchaeology[J]. Journal of Archaeological method and theory, 1995, 2(1): 7-68 doi: 10.1007/BF02228434 URL
[19]	Smith GM, Spasov R, Martisius NL, et al. Subsistence behavior during the initial Upper Paleolithic in Europe: site use, dietary practice, and carnivore exploitation at Bacho Kiro Cave (Bulgaria)[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2021, 161: 103074 doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2021.103074 URL
[20]	Domı́nguez-Rodrigo M, Piqueras A. The use of tooth pits to identify carnivore taxa in tooth-marked archaeofaunas and their relevance to reconstruct hominid carcass processing behaviours[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science. 2003, 30:1385-1391 doi: 10.1016/S0305-4403(03)00027-X URL
[21]	Blumenschine RJ, Marean CW, Capaldo SD. Blind tests of inter-analyst correspondence and accuracy in the identification of cut marks, percussion marks, and carnivore tooth marks on bone surfaces[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 1996, 23: 493-507 doi: 10.1006/jasc.1996.0047 URL
[22]	Vettese D, Blasco R, Cáceres I, et al. Towards an understanding of hominin marrow extraction strategies: a proposal for a percussion mark terminology[J]. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 2020, 12: 48 doi: 10.1007/s12520-019-00972-8
[23]	Capaldo SD, Blumenschine RJ. A quantitative diagnosis of notches made by hammerstone percussion and carnivore gnawing on bovid long bones[J]. American Antiquity, 1994, 59(4): 724-748 doi: 10.2307/282345 URL
[24]	Johnson EV, Parmenter PCR, Outram AK. A new approach to profiling taphonomic history through bone fracture analysis, with an example application to the Linearbandkeramik site of Ludwinowo 7[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 2016, 9: 623-629 doi: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.08.047 URL
[25]	Johnson E. Schiffer MB (Current developments in bone technology[A]. In: Eds.). Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory (Volume 8)[C]. Orlando: Academic Press, 1985, 157-235
[26]	Outram AK. A new approach to identifying bone marrow and grease exploitation: why the “indeterminate” fragments should not be ignored[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2001, 28: 401-410 doi: 10.1006/jasc.2000.0619 URL
[27]	Binford LR. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology[M]. New York: Academic Press, 1978
[28]	Villa P, Mahieu E. Breakage patterns of human long bones[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 1991, 21: 27-48 doi: 10.1016/0047-2484(91)90034-S URL
[29]	Lam YM, Chen XB, Pearson OM. Intertaxonomic Variability in Patterns of Bone Density and the differential representation of Bovid, Cervid, and Equid elements in the archaeological record[J]. American Antiquity, 1999, 64(2): 343-362 doi: 10.2307/2694283 URL
[30]	Kreutzer LA. Bison and Deer Bone Mineral Densities: comparisons and implications for the interpretation of archaeological faunas[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 1992, 19: 271-294 doi: 10.1016/0305-4403(92)90017-W URL
[31]	Blumenschine RJ. An Experimental Model of the Timing of Hominid and Carnivore Influence on Archaeological Bone Assemblages[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 1988, 15: 483-502 doi: 10.1016/0305-4403(88)90078-7 URL
[32]	张双权. 河南许昌灵井动物群的埋藏学研究[D]. 北京: 中国科学院大学, 2009
[33]	Brain CK. The Hunters or the Hunted? An Introduction to African Cave Taphonomy[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981
[34]	Bunn HT, Kroll EM. Systematic Butchery by Plio/Pleistocene Hominids at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania[J]. Current Anthropology, 1986, 627(5): 431-452
[35]	Fairnell E. 101 ways to skin a fur-bearing animal: the implications for zooarchaeological interpretation[A]. In: Cunningham P, Heeb J, Paardekooper R (Eds.). Experiencing archaeology by experiment [C]. Oxbow: Oxford, 2008, 47-60
[36]	Selvaggio MM. Carnivore tooth marks and stone tool butchery marks on scavenged bones: archaeological implications[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 1994, 27: 215-228 doi: 10.1006/jhev.1994.1043 URL
[37]	Capaldo SD. Experimental determinations of carcass processing by Plio-Pleistocene hominids and carnivores at FLK 22 (Zinjanthropus), Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 1997, 33: 555-597 pmid: 9403079
[38]	Domínguez-Rodrigo M, Barba R. The behavioral meaning of cut marks at the FLK Zinj level: the carnivore-hominid-carnivore hypothesis falsified (II)[A]. In: Domínguez-Rodrigo M, Barba R, Egeland CP (Eds.). Deconstructing Olduvai: A Taphonomic Study of the Bed I Sites[C]. Dordrecht: Springer, 2007, 75-100
[39]	Lupo KD, O’Connell JF. Cut and tooth mark distributions on large animal bones: ethnoarchaeological data from the Hadza and their implications for current ideas about early human carnivory[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2002, 29:85-109 doi: 10.1006/jasc.2001.0690 URL
[40]	Pickering TR, Domínguez-Rodrigo M, Heaton JL, et al. Taphonomy of ungulate ribs and the consumption of meat and bone by 1.2-million-year-old hominins at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2013, 40: 1295-1309 doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2012.09.025 URL
[41]	Blumenschine RJ. Percussion marks, tooth marks, and experimental determinations of the timing of hominid and carnivore access to long bones at FLK Zinjanthropus, Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 1995, 29: 21-51 doi: 10.1006/jhev.1995.1046 URL
[42]	张双权, 彭菲, 张乐, 等. 宁夏鸽子山遗址第10地点出土动物骨骼的埋藏学初步观察[J]. 人类学学报, 2019, 38(2): 232-244
[43]	Pickering TR, Egeland CP. Experimental patterns of hammerstone percussion damage on bones: implications for inferences of carcass processing by humans[J]. Journal of Archaeological Sciences, 2006, 33: 459-469 doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2005.09.001 URL
[44]	Starkovich BM, Conard NJ. What were they up against? Lower Paleolithic hominin meat acquisition and competition with Plio-Pleistocene carnivores[A]. In: García-Moreno A, Hutson JM, Smith GM, et al (Eds.). Human behavioral adaptations to interglacial lakeshore environments[C]. Mainz and Heidelberg: RGZM-Tagungen, 2020, 105-130

地点Sites→ 动物种属Animal species↓	A地点		B地点		D地点		E地点
地点Sites→ 动物种属Animal species↓	NISP	MNI	NISP	MNI	NISP	MNI	NISP	MNI
兔类Lagomorpha	0	0	3	1	1	1	2	2
啮齿类Rodentia	0	0	8	2	2	1	8	2
狐Vulpes sp.	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
小型食肉类Small carnivores	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
马Equus sp.	16	1	46	4	1	1	37	2
犀科Rhinocerotidae	6	1	16	1	3	1	15	1
鹿Cervus sp.	2	1	25	3	0	0	11	1
瞪羚Gazella sp.	0	0	7	3	0	0	3	1
牛科Bovidae	0	0	11	1	3	1	7	1
大型食草类Large herbivores	7	1	27	2	3	1	13	2
小计Sum	32	5	143	17	13	6	97	13
其他Others ^*	0	0	13	0	0	0	14	0
总计Total	32		156		13		111

地点Sites→ 动物种属Animal species↓	A地点		B地点		D地点		E地点
地点Sites→ 动物种属Animal species↓	NISP	MNI	NISP	MNI	NISP	MNI	NISP	MNI
兔类Lagomorpha	0	0	3	1	1	1	2	2
啮齿类Rodentia	0	0	8	2	2	1	8	2
狐Vulpes sp.	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
小型食肉类Small carnivores	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
马Equus sp.	16	1	46	4	1	1	37	2
犀科Rhinocerotidae	6	1	16	1	3	1	15	1
鹿Cervus sp.	2	1	25	3	0	0	11	1
瞪羚Gazella sp.	0	0	7	3	0	0	3	1
牛科Bovidae	0	0	11	1	3	1	7	1
大型食草类Large herbivores	7	1	27	2	3	1	13	2
小计Sum	32	5	143	17	13	6	97	13
其他Others ^*	0	0	13	0	0	0	14	0
总计Total	32		156		13		111

种属Species→ 骨骼部位Bone element↓	马Equus sp.		犀科Rhinocerotidae		鹿Cervus sp.		牛Bovidae
种属Species→ 骨骼部位Bone element↓	B地点	E地点	B地点	E地点	B地点	E地点	B地点	E地点
下颌骨Mandibles	0	0	0	0	100.0%	62.5%	0	0
颈椎Cervical vertebrae	28.6%	0	0	14.3%	0	0	0	0
胸椎Thoracic vertebrae	15.1%	1.7%	9.4%	16.3%	19.2%	0	0	15.4%
腰椎Lumbar vertebrae	9.6%	8.3%	0	0	0	37.5%	0	0
肋骨Ribs	4.0%	0	5.2%	0	0	0	11.6%	0
髋骨Innominates	21.4%	100.0%	50.0%	0	25.0%	50.0%	0	20.0%
肱骨Humerus	71.4%	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
股骨Femurs	28.6%	5.0%	30.0%	0	83.3%	50.0%	40.0%	0
髌骨Patellas	71.4%	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
尺桡骨Radius-Ulna	0	25.0%	100.0%	50.0%	66.7%	100.0%	60.0%	40.0%
胫骨Tibia	71.4%	35.0%		50.0%	41.7%	50.0%	60.0%	30.0%
腓骨Fibula	0	0	50.0%	100.0%	0	0	0	0
腕骨Carpals	71.4%	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
其他跗骨Other tarsals	71.4%	0	0	0	0	0	0	100.0%
跟骨Calcaneus	0	5.0%	0	0	0	0	0	0
距骨Astragalus	71.4%	50.0%	0	0	75.0%	0	100.0%	0
掌骨Metacarpals	71.4%	50.0%	0	0	0	0	0	0
跖骨Metatarsals	100.0%	50.0%	0	0	0	0	100.0%	0
第一趾节骨Phalange I	25.0%	0	0	5.8%	0	0	0	0
第二趾节骨Phalange II	71.4%	0	0	0	0	0	0	25.0%
第三趾节骨Phalange III	35.7%	0	0	8.3%	0	0	0	0

种属Species→ 骨骼部位Bone element↓	马Equus sp.		犀科Rhinocerotidae		鹿Cervus sp.		牛Bovidae
种属Species→ 骨骼部位Bone element↓	B地点	E地点	B地点	E地点	B地点	E地点	B地点	E地点
下颌骨Mandibles	0	0	0	0	100.0%	62.5%	0	0
颈椎Cervical vertebrae	28.6%	0	0	14.3%	0	0	0	0
胸椎Thoracic vertebrae	15.1%	1.7%	9.4%	16.3%	19.2%	0	0	15.4%
腰椎Lumbar vertebrae	9.6%	8.3%	0	0	0	37.5%	0	0
肋骨Ribs	4.0%	0	5.2%	0	0	0	11.6%	0
髋骨Innominates	21.4%	100.0%	50.0%	0	25.0%	50.0%	0	20.0%
肱骨Humerus	71.4%	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
股骨Femurs	28.6%	5.0%	30.0%	0	83.3%	50.0%	40.0%	0
髌骨Patellas	71.4%	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
尺桡骨Radius-Ulna	0	25.0%	100.0%	50.0%	66.7%	100.0%	60.0%	40.0%
胫骨Tibia	71.4%	35.0%		50.0%	41.7%	50.0%	60.0%	30.0%
腓骨Fibula	0	0	50.0%	100.0%	0	0	0	0
腕骨Carpals	71.4%	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
其他跗骨Other tarsals	71.4%	0	0	0	0	0	0	100.0%
跟骨Calcaneus	0	5.0%	0	0	0	0	0	0
距骨Astragalus	71.4%	50.0%	0	0	75.0%	0	100.0%	0
掌骨Metacarpals	71.4%	50.0%	0	0	0	0	0	0
跖骨Metatarsals	100.0%	50.0%	0	0	0	0	100.0%	0
第一趾节骨Phalange I	25.0%	0	0	5.8%	0	0	0	0
第二趾节骨Phalange II	71.4%	0	0	0	0	0	0	25.0%
第三趾节骨Phalange III	35.7%	0	0	8.3%	0	0	0	0

种属Species→ 部位Element↓	鹿Cervus sp.		马或牛Equus sp. or Bovidae		犀Rhinocerotidae		总计Total
种属Species→ 部位Element↓	Gnaw	Cut	Gnaw	Cut	Gnaw	Cut	Gnaw	Cut
颅骨Cranial bones	0	0	14.3%	0	0	12.5%	14.3%	12.5%
下颌骨Mandibles	33.3%	0	0	0	0	33.3%	16.7%	16.7%
颈椎Cervical vertebrae	0	0	50%	0	0	0	50%	0
胸椎Thoracic vertebrae	0	0	0	0	50%	0	16.7%	0
肋骨Ribs	0	0	0	0	0	7.7%	0	5.6%
上部肢骨Upper limbs	25%	25%	0	10%	0	14.3%	15.4%	14.3%
中部肢骨Middle limbs	0	0	6.3%	50%	0	11.8%	5.3%	15.8%
距骨Astragalus	100%	0	50%	0	0	0	66.7%	0