简报/发掘报告

2020年江西高安上湖旧石器遗址发掘报告

  • 赵文杰 ,
  • 贾真秀 ,
  • 李三灵 ,
  • 李浩
展开
  • 1.江西省文物考古研究院,南昌 330095
    2.中国科学院青藏高原研究所,青藏高原地球系统与资源环境全国重点实验室,北京 100101
    3.北京师范大学历史学院,北京 100875
赵文杰,馆员,主要从事史前考古研究。E-mail: zwj5201.love@163.com

收稿日期: 2022-06-21

  修回日期: 2022-08-17

  网络出版日期: 2023-06-13

基金资助

中国科学院战略性先导科技专项(XDB26000000);青藏高原地球系统基础科学中心项目(CTPES);青藏高原地球系统基础科学中心项目(41988101)

A report of the 2020 excavation of the Shanghu Paleolithic site in Gaoan city, Jiangxi Province

  • Wenjie ZHAO ,
  • Zhenxiu JIA ,
  • Sanling LI ,
  • Hao LI
Expand
  • 1. Jiangxi Provincial Institute of Cultural Heritage and Archaeology, Nanchang 330095
    2. State Key Laboratory of Tibetan Plateau Earth System, Resources and Environment (TPESER), Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101
    3. School of History, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875

Received date: 2022-06-21

  Revised date: 2022-08-17

  Online published: 2023-06-13

摘要

上湖遗址埋藏于锦江右岸第3级阶地顶部的红色黏土堆积中。2020年对上湖遗址B区进行了发掘,发现石制品3030件。石制品类型包括石核、石片、石器、断块、碎屑和未经加工的砾石;原料主要来自附近河滩的砾石,岩性以脉石英为主;石核剥片以锤击法为主,辅以砸击法,缺乏预制程序,盘状石核占有一定比例;石器类型多样,以刮削器为主,另有少量凹缺器、锯齿刃器、尖状器和钻等;石器毛坯以断块和石片为主,修理程度有限。从尺寸来看,上湖遗址石制品组合表现出明显的小型化特征。初步光释光测年结果显示,古人类在该遗址频繁活动的时间始于距今约2.6万年前,处于深海氧同位素2阶段(MIS 2阶段)的早期。上湖遗址的发掘,为认识中国南方地区小型石片石器工业的出现和发展等问题提供了重要材料。

本文引用格式

赵文杰 , 贾真秀 , 李三灵 , 李浩 . 2020年江西高安上湖旧石器遗址发掘报告[J]. 人类学学报, 2023 , 42(03) : 373 -380 . DOI: 10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2023.0007

Abstract

The Shanghu Paleolithic site is located in the town of Shanghu, Gaoan city, Jiangxi Province in central South China. The site occurs in red clay soils that were deposited at the top of the third terrace of the Jinjiang River. A total of 3030 stone artifacts have been excavated from Area B of the site. Among them, 1274 were unearthed from Layer 1, 1722 from Layer 2, and only 34 from Layer 3. Layer 1 is disturbed by modern agricultural activities and its age has not been established. The OSL dating of Layer 2 indicates that intensive site occupations began at the early stage of MIS 2 (i.e., approximately 26 kaBP). Layer 3 yielded a few artifacts and its age has not yet been established. The types of stone artifacts include cores, flakes, tools, chunks, debris and unmodified cobbles, and our analysis shows that vein quartz from the nearby river bank was favored for exploitation by humans. In addition, cherts were infrequently used, and non-preferentially given their development of inner fractures that compromised reduction sequences. Various core reduction patterns have been identified including discoidal cores that reflect centripetal flaking, which indicates some degree of organization during reduction sequences. Scrapers are the predominant tool type, with small samples of notches, denticulates, points, awls, etc. Tools are small and light and occur primarily on chunk and flake blanks, along with limited retouching. Overall assemblage dimensions confirm the prevalence of miniaturized lithics, clearly evident in the average length, width and thickness for free-hand percussed flakes (24.6 mm, 18.2 mm, and 8.9 mm), free-hand percussed cores (43.7 mm, 34.8 mm, and 25.5 mm) and tools (29.2 mm, 22.6 mm, and 12.3 mm, respectively). Traditionally, South China lithic assemblages are well-known for their large cobble tools, but there is increasing evidence for small-sized cores and flakes and flake-based tools at sites in different regions across South China. Therefore, the emergence of a small-sized flake tool industry in South China has become a key academic question. Some scholars argue that such an industry may be related to the migration of northern China populations, under relatively dry and cold environmental conditions that prevailed during MIS2. However, recent discoveries in South China of similar yet far older (~100 kaBP) lithic assemblages likely indicate a different scenario, and that this technology was probably locally developed in response to changing climatic conditions. Given its chronology and lithic technology, the Shanghu assemblage therefore provides new data that significantly improve our understanding of the emergence and development of a small flake tool industry in South China.

参考文献

[1] 李超荣, 徐长青. 江西安义潦河发现的旧石器及其意义[J]. 人类学学报, 1991, 10(1): 34-41+89-90
[2] 李超荣, 侯远志, 王强. 江西新余发现的旧石器[J]. 人类学学报, 1994, 13(4): 309-313
[3] 李浩. 探究早期现代人的南方扩散路线[J]. 人类学学报, 2022, 41(4): 630-648
[4] Toth N. The Oldowan reassessed: A close look at early stone artifacts[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 1985, 12(2): 101-120
[5] 李三灵, 李浩. 旧石器时代早期石核分类方法试析[J]. 人类学学报, 2021, 40(2): 194-207
[6] 袁家荣. 长江中游地区的旧石器时代考古[A].见:吕遵谔.中国考古学研究的世纪回顾—旧石器时代考古卷[C]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2004, 370-391
[7] 董哲, 裴树文, 袁四方. 安徽水阳江流域2017年旧石器考古调查简报[J]. 人类学学报, 2019, 38(2): 223-231
[8] 张森水, 徐新民, 邱宏亮, 等. 浙江安吉上马坎遗址石制品研究[J]. 人类学学报, 2004, 23(4): 264-280
[9] 房迎三. 江苏南部旧石器调查报告[J]. 东南文化, 2002, 1: 17-25
[10] 祝恒富. 湖北旧石器文化初步研究[J]. 华夏考古, 2002, 3: 13-23
[11] 王幼平. 华南晚更新世晚期人类行为复杂化的个案——江西万年吊桶环遗址的发现[J]. 人类学学报, 2016, 35(3): 397-406
[12] 王幼平. 砾石工业传统与华南旧石器晚期文化[J]. 南方文物, 2021, 1: 91-97
[13] Xie GM, Lin Q, Wu Y, et al. The Late Paleolithic industries of southern China (Lingnan Region)[J]. Quaternary International, 2020, 535: 21-28
[14] 杜水生, 周立, 庞海娇, 等. 河南栾川龙泉洞遗址2011年发掘报告[J]. 考古学报, 2017, 2: 227-252
[15] 杜水生. 连续与断裂:重新认识下川遗址在中国旧石器文化研究上的意义[J]. 第四纪研究, 2021, 41(1): 153-163
[16] 王幼平. 华北晚更新世的石片石器[J]. 人类学学报, 2019, 38(4): 525-535
[17] 王小庆. 陕西宜川龙王辿遗址第一地点细石器的观察与研究[J]. 考古与文物, 2014, 6: 59-64
[18] 李昱龙. 华北地区石叶技术源流——河南登封西施遗址的发现及相关研究[D]. 北京: 北京大学, 2018, 1-209
[19] 北京大学考古文博学院, 江西省文物考古研究所. 仙人洞与吊桶环[M]. 北京: 文物出版社, 2014
[20] 广西柳州市白莲洞洞穴科学博物馆. 柳州白莲洞[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2009
[21] 蒋远金, 刘文. 鲤鱼嘴遗址旧石器文化向新石器文化过渡的探讨[J]. 史前研究, 2004, 232-240
[22] 李意愿, 李浩. 湖南临澧发掘伞顶盖旧石器遗址[N]. 中国文物报,2019-12-20(008)
[23] 李意愿. 湖南临澧县条头岗旧石器时代遗址发掘简报[J]. 考古, 2019, 3: 3-14+2
[24] 李意愿, 王轩, 陆翼捷, 等. 湖南澧县乌鸦山旧石器遗址2011年发掘简报[J]. 江汉考古, 2019, 6: 20-31+16
[25] 李意愿. 华南旧石器时代中期文化初步探讨[J]. 南方文物, 2021, 1: 98-104
文章导航

/