阿舍利大石片的生产方式与策略

doi:10.16359/j.cnki.cn11-1963/q.2020.0005

人类学学报 ›› 2020, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (02): 183-192.doi: 10.16359/j.cnki.cn11-1963/q.2020.0005cstr: 32091.14.j.cnki.cn11-1963/q.2020.0005

阿舍利大石片的生产方式与策略

雷蕾¹^,²^,³, 李大伟⁴^,⁵, 麻晓荣⁶, 刘康体⁶, 侯亚梅¹^,², 王伟⁷, 李浩¹^,²

^1. 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
^2. 中国科学院生物演化与环境卓越创新中心,北京 100044
^3. 中国科学院大学,北京 100049
^4. 广西民族大学科技史和科技文化研究院,南宁530006
^5. 广西民族博物馆,南宁530018
^6. 广西百色右江民族博物馆百色 533000
^7. 山东大学文化遗产研究院,青岛 266235

收稿日期:2019-06-29 修回日期:2019-11-09 出版日期:2020-05-15 发布日期:2020-07-17
作者简介:雷蕾（1986-）,女,河北保定人,中国科学院古脊椎动物与古人类研究所博士研究生,主要从事旧石器时代考古学研究
基金资助:
中国科学院战略性先导科技专项(XDB26000000);中国科学院战略性先导科技专项(XDA19050102);中国科学院百人计划——广西哲学社会科学规划课题(17CKG001)

Production patterns and strategies of the Acheulean large flakes

LEI Lei¹^,²^,³, LI Dawei⁴^,⁵, MA Xiaorong⁶, LIU Kangti⁶, HOU Yamei¹^,², WANG Wei⁷, LI Hao¹^,²

^1. 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
^2. CAS Center for Excellence in Life and Paleoenvironment, Beijing 100044
^3. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049
^4. Institute for History and Culture of Science & Technology, Guangxi University for Nationalities, Nanning 530006;
^5. Guangxi Museum of Nationalities, Nanning, Guangxi 530018
^6. Youjiang Museum of Nationalities, Baise 533000
^7. Institute of Cultural Heritage, Shandong University, Qingdao 266235

Received:2019-06-29 Revised:2019-11-09 Online:2020-05-15 Published:2020-07-17

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

阿舍利技术的两个核心要素在于剥取大石片以及制作手斧等定型化大型工具。目前,国内有关手斧工业的研究中,关注较多的是大型工具的加工与制作,而对于大石片生产的方式与策略则缺乏系统的研究和介绍。本文重点介绍和综述了目前国外发现和报道的大石片生产技术,并对每种技术的具体特点进行了分析和阐释。根据剥片复杂程度的不同,阿舍利大石片生产技术可细分为三类;第一类指砾石初级剥片技术,是利用原料的自然特征,选择合适台面和剥片角度进行单次剥片;第二类包括两面剥片技术、板状石核剥片技术和昆比哇技术,是在了解原料特征的基础上,对石核进行有计划的剥片,以便连续生产出多个大石片;第三类包括奇尔基技术、塔拜勒巴拉-塔奇恩基特技术和西维多利亚技术,是在较为复杂的剥片流程引导下,通过对石核的预制,获取具有相对稳定形态的大石片。在此基础上,初步分析了广西百色盆地发现的大型石核和大石片标本,探讨其在深入认识该地区石器工业面貌方面的作用和意义。

关键词: 阿舍利技术, 大型石核, 大石片, 生产策略, 百色盆地

Abstract:

Producing large flakes and making the large cutting tools are two core elements of the Acheulean technology. Compared with extensive studies on the manufacture of Acheulean tools, technologies and strategies involved in producing Acheulean large flakes have received less attention in China. In this study, we focus on introducing a variety of the large flake production technologies abroad, with the analysis of patterns and characteristics of each method. According to the complexity of these methods, we have divided them into three groups. The first mainly refers to cobble opening technology, which uses natural features of the cobble to produce a single large flake. The second includes bifacial core, sliced slab and the Kombewa methods, all of which share common technological characteristics involving reduction sequences of large cores. The third includes the Chirki, Tabelbala-Tachenghit and Victoria West methods, which are the most sophisticated core flaking technologies in the Acheulean. These latter methods show a certain degree of core preparation and result in the production of large flakes with consistent morphology. Based on the above analysis, we present a preliminary study of large cores and flakes discovered from the Bose Basin in South China, and discuss the significance of these products in completing our understanding of the lithic technology in this region.

Key words: Archaeology, Lithics, Acheulean, Cores, Flakes, Production, Bose Basin

中图分类号:

雷蕾, 李大伟, 麻晓荣, 刘康体, 侯亚梅, 王伟, 李浩. 阿舍利大石片的生产方式与策略[J]. 人类学学报, 2020, 39(02): 183-192.

LEI Lei, LI Dawei, MA Xiaorong, LIU Kangti, HOU Yamei, WANG Wei, LI Hao. Production patterns and strategies of the Acheulean large flakes[J]. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 2020, 39(02): 183-192.

图/表 3

Fig.1 different types of large cores and their reduction sequence

图2 广西百色盆地大型石核剥片示意图 1, 4. 南坡山遗址Nanposhan site;2, 3. 二塘遗址Ertang site

Fig.2 Flaking strategy of large cores at Baise Basin

图3 百色盆地大石片三维模型图 1.檀河遗址Tanhe site; 2. 南坡山遗址Nanposhan site; 3. 大法遗址Dafa site; 4. 鸬鹚岛遗址 Lucidao site;5. 东增遗址Dongzeng site; 6. 那模遗址Name site

Fig.3 3D-models of large flakes at Baise Basin

参考文献 43

[1]	Toth N, Schick K. Evolution of tool use[A]. In: Michael P. Muehlenbein, Basics in Human Evolution[C]. Academic Press, 2015
[2]	Beyene Y, Katoh S, WoldeGabriel G, et al. The characteristics and chronology of the earliest Acheulean at Konso, Ethiopia[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2013,110(5):1584-1591 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1221285110 URL
[3]	Texier PJ, Roche H . The impact of predetermination on the development of some Acheulean chaînes opératoires[J]. Evolución Humana en Europa y los Yacimientos de la Sierra de Atapuerca, 1995,2:403-420
[4]	Madsen B, Goren-Inbar N . Acheulian giant core technology and beyond: an archaeological and experimental case study[J]. Eurasian Prehistory, 2004,2(1):3-52
[5]	Inizan M, Reduron-Ballinger M, Roche H , et al. Technology and terminology of knapped stone[M]. Crep: Nanterre, 1999
[6]	Sohnge PG, Visser DJL, van Riet Lowe CVR. The geology and archaeology of the Vaal RiverBasin[J]. South African Geological Survey Memoirs. 1937,35(1-2):1-184
[7]	Sharon G . Acheulian large flake industries: technology, chronology, and significance[M]. British Archaeological Reports Ltd, 2007
[8]	Sharon G . Large flake Acheulian[J]. Quaternary International, 2010,223(5):226-233
[9]	Balout L, Biberson P, Tixier J . L’Acheuleén de Ternefine (Algérie): gisement de l’Atlanthrope[J]. L’Anthropologie, 1967,71(3-4):217-238
[10]	Corvinus G . A Survey of the Pravara River System in Western Maharashtra, India, Vol 2.: The Excavations of the Acheulian Site of Chirki-on-Pravara, India[J]. Tübinger Monographien zur Urgeschichte, 1983,7:1-466
[11]	Jansen FJ . A new type of stone implement from Victoria West[J]. South African Journal of Science, 1926,23(12):818-825
[12]	Goodwin AJH . The Victoria West Industry[J]. Annals of the South african Museum, 1929,27:53-69
[13]	Goodwin AJH . Some developments in technique during the Earlier Stone Age[J]. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa, 1933,21(2):109-123 doi: 10.1080/00359193309519316 URL
[14]	van Riet Lowe CVR . Fresh light on the prehistoric archaeology of South Africa[J]. Bantu Studies, 1927,3(1):385-393 doi: 10.1080/02561751.1927.9676220 URL
[15]	van Riet Lowe CVR . The Evolution of the Levallois Technique in South Africa[J]. Man, 1945,45:49-59 doi: 10.2307/2791434 URL
[16]	Kuman K . An Acheulean factory site with prepared core technology near Taung, South Africa[J]. The South African Archaeological Bulletin, 2001: 8-22
[17]	Sharon G, Beaumont P. Victoria West: a highly standardized prepared core technology[A]. In: Naama Goren-Inbar, Gonen Sharon eds. Axe age: Acheulian toolmaking from Quarry to Discard[C]. London: Equinox, 2006, 181-199
[18]	Li H, Kuman K, Lotter M , et al. The Victoria West: Earliest prepared core technology in the Acheulean at Canteen Kopje and implications for the cognitive evolution of early hominids[J]. Royal Society Open Science, 2017,4(6):170288 doi: 10.1098/rsos.170288 URL pmid: 28680682
[19]	Leader G . New excavations at Canteen Kopje, Northern Cape Province, South Africa: A techno-typological comparison of three earlier Acheulean assemblages with new interpretations on the Victoria West phenomenon[D]. 2014
[20]	Breuil H . Premieres impressions de voyage sur la préhistoire sud-africaine[J]. L’anthropologie, 1930,40:209-223
[21]	Alimen M, Zuber J . L’évolution de l’Acheuléen au Sahara nord-occidental (Saoura-Ougarta-Tabelbala)[M]. France: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1978
[22]	Tixier J. Le hachereau dans l´Acheuléen nord-africain. Notes typologiques[A]. Congrès Préhistorique de France. Comptes Rendus de la XVe Session, Poitiers-Angoulème[C]. 1956, 914-923
[23]	Champault B . L’industrie de Tachenrhit[J]. 70ème Congrès de l’Association Française pour l’Avancement des Sciences (Tunis, 1951), 1951,3:123-130
[24]	Champault B . Nucléus atechnique Levalloisienne accompagné d’une partie de ses éclats de taille (industrie de Tachenrhit, Sahara algéro-marocain)[J]. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, 1956,53:267
[25]	Champault B . L’acheuléen évolué au Sahara occidental. Notes sur l’homme au paléolithique ancien[D]. Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, 1966
[26]	Bar-Yosef O, Wang YP . Paleolithic archaeology in China[J]. Annual Review of Anthropology, 2012,41:319-335 doi: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145832 URL
[27]	Hou YM, Richard P, Yuan BY , et al. Mid-Pleistocene Acheulean-likestone technology of the Bose Basin, South China[J]. Science, 2000,287:1622-1626 doi: 10.1126/science.287.5458.1622 URL pmid: 10698732
[28]	Zhang P, Huang WW, Wang W . Acheulean handaxes from Fengshudao, Bose sites of south China[J]. Quaternary International, 2010,223:440-443
[29]	Dennell RW. The Acheulean Assemblages of Asia: A Review[A]. In: Gallotti R, Mussi M eds. The Emergence of the Acheulean in East Africa and Beyond[C]. Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology. Springer, 2018
[30]	Corvinus G . Homo erectus in East and Southeast Asia, and the questions of the age of the species and its association with stone artifacts, with special attention to handaxe-like tools[J]. Quaternary International, 2004,117(1):141-151 doi: 10.1016/S1040-6182(03)00124-1 URL
[31]	Gao X . Characteristics and significance of Paleolithic handaxes from China[J]. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 2012,31(2):97-112
[32]	Lycett SJ, Bae CJ . The Movius Line controversy: the state of the debate[J]. World Archaeology, 2010,42(4):521-544 doi: 10.1080/00438243.2010.517667 URL
[33]	Lycett SJ, Norton CJ . A demographic model for Palaeolithic technological evolution: the case of East Asia and the Movius Line[J]. Quaternary International, 2010,211(1-2):55-65 doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2008.12.001 URL
[34]	Kuman K. Acheulean Industrial Complex[A]. In: Smith C eds, Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology[C]. Springer New York, 2019
[35]	Moncel MH, Santagata C, Pereira A , et al. A biface production older than 600 ka ago at Notarchirico (Southern Italy) contribution to understanding early Acheulean cognition and skills in Europe[J]. PloS One, 2019,14(9) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222534 URL pmid: 31568514
[36]	Petraglia MD, Shipton C . Large cutting tool variation west and east of the Movius Line[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2008,55(6):962-966 doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2007.11.007 URL
[37]	Wang W, Lycett SJ, Cramon-Taubadel NV , et al. Comparison of Handaxes from Bose Basin (China) and the Western Acheulean Indicates Convergence of Form, Not Cognitive Differences[J]. PloS one, 2012,7(4):e35804 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035804 URL pmid: 22536441
[38]	Wang SJ . Perspectives on Hominid Behaviour and Settlement Patterns: A Study of the Lower Palaeolithic Sites in the Luonan Basin, China. BAR International Series 1406, Oxford: Archaeopress, 2005
[39]	Sun X, Lu H, Wang SJ , et al. Age of newly discovered Paleolithic assemblages at Liuwan site Luonan Basin, central China[J]. Quaternary International, 2014,347:193-199 doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2014.04.061 URL
[40]	Li H, Li CR, Kuman K , et al. The Middle Pleis-tocene Acheulean site of Shuangshu in the Danjiangkou ReservoirRegion, central China. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2014,52, 391-409 doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2014.08.033 URL
[41]	Li H, Kuman K, Li CR . Re-examination of the morphological variability of East Asian handaxes from a comparative perspective[J]. World Archaeology, 2014,46(5):705-733 doi: 10.1080/00438243.2014.953707 URL
[42]	Li H, Kuman K, Li CR . What is currently (un) known about the Chinese Acheulean, with implications for hypotheses on the earlier dispersal of hominids[J]. Comptes Rendus Palevol, 2018,17(1-2):120-130 doi: 10.1016/j.crpv.2015.09.008 URL
[43]	Yang SX, Huang WW, Hou YM , et al. Is the Dingcun lithic assembly a “chopper-chopping tool industry”, or “Late Acheulian”?[J]. Quaternary International, 2014,321:3-11 doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2013.05.012 URL

阿舍利大石片的生产方式与策略

Production patterns and strategies of the Acheulean large flakes

在线阅读

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 3

参考文献 43

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	战世佳, 董哲, 弋双文, 张红艳, 李浩, 裴树文. 安徽巢湖地区2019年旧石器考古调查的新发现[J]. 人类学学报, 2022, 41(05): 927-935.
[2]	高立红, 侯亚梅, 黄秋艳, 李金燕, 陆正勤, 黄德奖. 百色盆地六林岭旧石器遗址试掘报告[J]. 人类学学报, 2022, 41(01): 135-147.
[3]	谢光茂, 林强, 余明辉, 陈晓颖, 胡章华, 鹿化煜, 黄秋艳. 广西百色盆地高岭坡遗址的地层及年代[J]. 人类学学报, 2020, 39(01): 106-117.
[4]	陈晓颖;谢光茂;林强. 百色大梅遗址第一地点发掘简报[J]. 人类学学报, 2017, 36(03): 289-303.
[5]	李大伟;黄中政;罗志柏;廖卫;王頠. 田阳百峰遗址发现的含手斧石制品研究[J]. 人类学学报, 2015, 34(03): 288-298.
[6]	陈宥成;曲彤丽. 试析中国长江中游地区大型尖状类石器遗存的区域传统[J]. 人类学学报, 2015, 34(01): 28-40.
[7]	高立红;袁俊杰;侯亚梅. 百色盆地高岭坡遗址的石制品[J]. 人类学学报, 2014, 33(02): 137-148.
[8]	徐欣; 李锋; 陈福友; 黄鑫; 高星. 百色六怀山遗址周边新发现的旧石器[J]. 人类学学报, 2012, 31(02): 144-150.
[9]	高星. 中国旧石器时代手斧的特点与意义[J]. 人类学学报, 2012, 31(02): 97-112.
[10]	侯亚梅; 高立红; 黄慰文; 谢光茂; 林强; 王頠; 田丰. 百色高岭坡旧石器遗址1993年发掘简报[J]. 人类学学报, 2011, 30(01): 1-12.
[11]	谢光茂; 林强; 黄鑫. 百色田东百渡旧石器遗址发掘简报[J]. 人类学学报, 2010, 29(04): 355-371.
[12]	裴树文;陈福友;张乐;曹明明;黄鑫;高星. 百色六怀山旧石器遗址发掘简报[J]. 人类学学报, 2007, 26(01): 1-15.
[13]	袁俊杰. 百色盆地旧石器暨旧大陆早期人类迁徙与演化国际学术研讨会在广色百色市召开[J]. 人类学学报, 2006, 25(01): 16-16.
[14]	谢光茂. 关于百色手斧问题——兼论手斧的划分标准[J]. 人类学学报, 2002, 21(01): 65-73.
[15]	袁宝印,侯亚梅,王頠,鲍立克,郭正堂,黄慰文. 百色旧石器遗址的若干地貌演化问题[J]. 人类学学报, 1999, 18(03): 215-224.