An excavation report of the Dingmo site in Tiandong of Guangxi

doi:10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2024.0018

Abstract

Abstract:

The Dingmo site is located in Bubing Basin, Tiandong County, Baise City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, south China. From 2010 to 2011, the Anthropology Museum of Guangxi and the Tiandong County Museum conducted a test-excavation at the Dingmo site, with a total area of 32 m², and a total of 2108 stone artifacts were excavated and collected during this excavation. Besides, this excavation also yielded a few animal fossils. The Dingmo lithic assemblage consists of ground stone tools and cores, retouched tools, flakes, spilt flakes, chunks fragments and manuports. The majority of the retouched tools were chipped stone tools and the types of them are diverse, including choppers, scrapers, denticulates, notches and the tools’ blanks were mainly cobbles and flakes. Based on our raw material investigation, the utilized cobbles and pebbles at this site were most possibly collected from the nearby Youjiang River, sandstone-dominated. Freehand hard hammer percussion was exclusively used for core reduction, and the cores in this site appear to be simply worked and expedient. No preparations for the cores’ morphology and platforms were found among the core specimens excavated at the site. Additionally, the flakes predominantly exhibit simple morphologies and platform characteristics. The age of the site is dated to 16000~5000 BP cal using AMS ¹⁴C method. This finding add new materials for exploring the Paleolithic to Neolithic culture during Terminal Pleistocene-Early Holocene in Bose region. Through the comparative analysis of sites within the basin, the Dingmo site exhibits both distinctions and connections with them. Most crucially, it demonstrates certain technological differences when compared with the Zhongshan Rockshelter, which is also located within the Bubin Basin and shares chronological overlap. This implies the existence of regional technological variations within the basin. Furthermore, in comparison with contemporary sites in South China and the Yungui Plateau, Dingmo site displays both technological affinities and disparities. These observed connections and differences serve as essential reference materials for further discussions on the diversity of lithic technology across regions.This preliminary study provides new clues for investigating the evolution of Late Pleistocene lithic technology in South China and Southeast Asia.

Key words: Bubing Basin, Dingmo site, Terminal Pleistocene, Early Holocene, Lithic technology

CLC Number:

K871.11

AI Lan, TIAN Chun, LI Dawei, LI Jinyan, WANG Wei. An excavation report of the Dingmo site in Tiandong of Guangxi[J]. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 2024, 43(02): 298-313.

Figures/Tables 10

References 40

[1]	Liu W, Martinón-Torres M, Cai Y, et al. The earliest unequivocally modern humans in southern China[J]. Nature, 2015, 526: 696-699 doi: 10.1038/nature15696
[2]	Liu W, Jin CZ, Zhang YQ, et al. Human remains from Zhirendong, South China, and modern human emergence in East Asia[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2010, 107(45): 19201-19206 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1014386107 URL
[3]	Bae C, Wang W, Zhao J, et al. Modern human teeth from Late Pleistocene Luna Cave (Guangxi, China)[J]. Quaternary International, 2014, 354: 169-183 doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2014.06.051 URL
[4]	Yao YY, Liao W, Bae CJ, et al. New discovery of Late Pleistocene modern human teeth from Chongzuo, Guangxi, southern China[J]. Quaternary International, 2020, 563: 5-12 doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2020.02.002 URL
[5]	Bai F, Zhang XL, Ji XP, et al. Paleolithic genetic link between Southern China and Mainland Southeast Asia revealed by ancient mitochondrial genomes[J]. Journal of Human Genetics, 2020, 65: 1125-1128 doi: 10.1038/s10038-020-0796-9
[6]	Wang TY, Wang W, Xie GM, et al. Human population history at the crossroads of East and Southeast Asia since 11,000 years ago[J]. Cell, 2021, 184: 3829-3841 doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2021.05.018 pmid: 34171307
[7]	Chen XY, He AY, Sun XF, et al. Guomo open-air site (15-12 ka) in Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, southern China: A new cobble-based industry for rethinking the definition of “Hoabinhian”[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 2023, 49: 104033 doi: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2023.104033 URL
[8]	Zhou YD, Wei J, Wang R, et al. Between simplicity and complexity: The knapping flexibility on cobbles at the early Neolithic site of Zengpiyan Cave (12-7 ka), Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, southern China[J]. L’anthropologie, 2022, 126: 103098
[9]	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
[10]	Xie GM, Lin Q, Wu Y, et al. The Late Paleolithic industries of southern China (Lingnan region)[J]. Quaternary International, 2020, 535: 21-28 doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2018.09.043 URL
[11]	Wang YP. Late Pleistocene Human Migrations in China[J]. Current Anthropology, 2017, 58: S504-S513 doi: 10.1086/693899 URL
[12]	何乃汉, 黄云忠, 刘文. 柳州市大龙潭鲤鱼嘴新石器时代贝丘遗址[J]. 考古, 1983, 9: 769-774+865
[13]	邓婉文, 刘锁强, 巫幼波, 等. 广东英德青塘遗址黄门岩2号洞地点2016年度的发掘[J]. 人类学学报, 2020, 39(1): 64-73
[14]	广东省珠江文化研究会岭南考古研究专业委员会等编著. 英德牛栏洞遗址:稻作起源与环境综合研究[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2013.05
[15]	宋方义, 张镇洪, 邓增魁, 等. 广东封开黄岩洞1989年和1990年发掘简报[J]. 东南文化, 1992, 1: 148-156
[16]	广西柳州白莲洞洞穴科学博物馆编著. 柳州白莲洞[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2009
[17]	广西文物保护与考古研究所, 隆安县文物管理所. 广西隆安娅怀洞遗址发掘取得重要收获[N]. 中国文物报,2018-01-19(004)
[18]	李意愿, 谭远辉, 罗希, 等. 湖南澧县十里岗旧石器时代遗址发掘简报[J]. 考古与文物, 2020, 1: 3-13
[19]	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
[20]	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
[21]	王頠. 广西布兵盆地河流阶地新发现的史前石器遗址[J]. 人类学学报, 2014, 33(3: 270-284
[22]	Li D, Wang W, Tian F, et al. The oldest bark cloth beater in southern China (Dingmo, Bubing basin, Guangxi)[J]. Quaternary International. 2014, 354: 184-189 doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2014.06.062 URL
[23]	田丰, 黄芬, 黄秋艳, 等. 广西布兵盆地第四纪地貌与地质发育历史[A].见:第十一届中国古脊椎动物学学术年会论文集[C]. 北京: 海洋出版社, 2008:221-228
[24]	王頠, Richard Potts, 侯亚梅, 等. 广西布兵盆地么会洞新发现的早更新世人类化石[J]. 科学通报, 2005, 50(17): 1879-1883
[25]	王頠. 广西田东么会洞早更新世遗址[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2013
[26]	Wang W, Potts R, Yuan B, et al. Sequence of mammalian fossils, including hominoid teeth, from the Bubing Basin Caves, South China[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2007, 52: 370-379 pmid: 17198721
[27]	Tian C, Liao W, Chen Q, et al. Human behavioral responses to the 8.2 ka BP climatic event: Archaeological evidence from the Zhongshandong Cave Site in Bubing basin, Guangxi, southern China[J]. Quaternary International, 2020, 563: 96-104 doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2020.01.004 URL
[28]	Tian C, Liao W, Yao YY, et al. New lithic evidence from Terminal Pleistocene-Early Holocene Zhongshan Rockshelter, Guangxi, southern China[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 2023, 49: 103916 doi: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2023.103916 URL
[29]	李有恒, 吴茂霖, 彭书琳, 等. 广西田东县祥周公社定模洞调查报告[J]. 人类学学报, 1985(02): 127-131
[30]	Bordes F. The old stone age[M]. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1968
[31]	Debenath A, Dibble HL. Hand book of Paleolithic Typology: Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe[M]. University Museum,University of Pennsylvania, 1994
[32]	Wright K. A classification system for ground stone tools from the prehistoric Levant[J]. Paléorient, 1992, 2: 53-81
[33]	周玉端, 李英华, 韦军, 等. 广西桂林市甑皮岩遗址砾石工具的技术-功能分析及相关问题[J]. 考古, 2023, 1: 65-78
[34]	Thong PH. Con Moong Cave: A Noteworthy Archaeological Discovery in Vietnam[J]. Asian Perspectives, 1980, 23(1): 17-21
[35]	Anisyutkin NK, Timofeyev VI. The Paleolithic flake industry in Vietnam[J]. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia, 2006, 27: 16-24
[36]	Wu Y, Qiu K, Luo Y, et al. Dedan Cave: Extending the evidence of the Hoabinhian technocomplex in southwest China[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 2022, 44: 103524 doi: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2022.103524 URL
[37]	Ji X, Kuman K, Clarke RJ, et al. The oldest Hoabinhian technocomplex in Asia (43.5 ka) at Xiaodong rockshelter, Yunnan Province, southwest China[J]. Quaternary International, 2015, 1-9
[38]	Zhou Y, Forestier H, Wu Y, Jet al. Final Pleistocene-Early Holocene ( -40-8 ka) Lithic Industries in Southern China and Their Implications for Understanding the Prehistory of Mainland Southeast Asia[J]. Lithic Technology, 2023, 2247645
[39]	Zhou Y, Ji X, Li Y, et al. Tangzigou open-air site: A unique lithic assemblage during the Early Holocene in Yunnan Province, Southwest China[J]. Quaternary International, 2020, 563: 105-118 doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2019.11.011 URL
[40]	Zhou YD, Cai SF, Liu XD, et al. Cobbles during the final Pleistocene-early Holocene transition: An original lithic assemblage from Maomaodong rockshelter, Guizhou Province, southwest China[J]. Archaeological Research in Asia, 2022, 32: 100411 doi: 10.1016/j.ara.2022.100411 URL

序号No.	实验室编号Lab No.	深度Depth(cm)	测年结果Dating result(BP)	校正年龄Age calibrated (95.4%)(BP)
1	XA7219	60	4177±28	4734±76
2	XA7250	120	5356±38	6136±83
3	XA7233	125	5744±25	6556±48
4	XA7222	160	7052±31	7898±34
5	DM-135	135	12100±70	13960±164
6	DM-155	155	13750±100	16672±317

序号No.	实验室编号Lab No.	深度Depth(cm)	测年结果Dating result(BP)	校正年龄Age calibrated (95.4%)(BP)
1	XA7219	60	4177±28	4734±76
2	XA7250	120	5356±38	6136±83
3	XA7233	125	5744±25	6556±48
4	XA7222	160	7052±31	7898±34
5	DM-135	135	12100±70	13960±164
6	DM-155	155	13750±100	16672±317

类型Type 层位Layer	备料 Manuport		石锤Stone hammer		石核Core		石片Flake		打制石器Chipped stone tools		磨制石器Ground stone tools		断块和碎片Chunk/Debitage		合计Total
类型Type 层位Layer	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
地表Surface	0		0		0		149	26.5%	6	1.1%	5	0.9%	402	71.5%	562	26.7%
L2	3	0.6%	2	0.4%	24	4.9%	159	32.7%	72	14.8%	9	1.9%	217	44.7%	486	23.0%
L3	13	1.2%	9	0.8%	59	5.6%	391	36.9%	197	18.6%	19	1.8%	372	35.1%	1060	50.3%
合计Total	16		11		83		699		275		33		991		2108	100%

类型Type 层位Layer	备料 Manuport		石锤Stone hammer		石核Core		石片Flake		打制石器Chipped stone tools		磨制石器Ground stone tools		断块和碎片Chunk/Debitage		合计Total
类型Type 层位Layer	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
地表Surface	0		0		0		149	26.5%	6	1.1%	5	0.9%	402	71.5%	562	26.7%
L2	3	0.6%	2	0.4%	24	4.9%	159	32.7%	72	14.8%	9	1.9%	217	44.7%	486	23.0%
L3	13	1.2%	9	0.8%	59	5.6%	391	36.9%	197	18.6%	19	1.8%	372	35.1%	1060	50.3%
合计Total	16		11		83		699		275		33		991		2108	100%