Sediment characteristics and the formation processes of Paleolithic sites

doi:10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2021.0047

Abstract

Abstract:

Archaeological site formation is influenced by a range of geogenic, biogenic and anthropogenic processes. Geogenic processes play a fundamental role in influencing deposition, transformation, and post-deposition. Since natural factors have the potential to disrupt original archaeological contexts to varying degrees, it is crucial that researchers evaluate the influence of these processes prior to interpreting cultural materials. However, up until now, few studies in China have focused specifically on the influence of these natural factors in Paleolithic site formation. In this paper, we begin by providing a review of relevant site formation studies, followed by the identification of one key research subject—archaeological sediments, with properties relating to grain size, magnetic susceptibility, geochemical elements, mineral components and micromorphology. In addition, we also present two Paleolithic site case studies in which sedimentary indices have been employed to explore formation processes (i.e., at the Xuchang hominid site in Henan Province and at the Sandinggai site in Hunan Province). Finally, although the physical and chemical nature of sediments is valuable, we illustrate that landscape-scale geomorphological evolution coupled with excavated archaeological specimens should also be considered when reconstructing Paleolithic site formation. By doing so, and by using a combination of different analytical approaches and building systematic survey and sample-collecting protocols, we show the value of this approach in the study of the Chinese Paleolithic as we develop this multi-disciplinary approach in the region.

Key words: Paleolithic site, Formation processes, Natural factors, Sediments, Geoarchaeology

CLC Number:

K878
P534.63

LI Hao, ZHANG Yuzhu, LI Yiyuan, LI Zhanyang, JIA Yana. Sediment characteristics and the formation processes of Paleolithic sites[J]. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 2021, 40(03): 363-377.

Figures/Tables 6

References 58

[1]	Shiffer MB. Toward the identification of formation process[J]. American Antiquity, 1983,48:675-706 doi: 10.2307/279771 URL
[2]	Shiffer MB. Formation processes of the archaeological record[M]. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1987
[3]	Hassan FA. Geoarchaeology: the geologist and archaeology[J]. American Antiquity, 1979,44(2):267-270 doi: 10.2307/279076 URL
[4]	Herz N, Garrison EG. Geological methods for archaeology[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998
[5]	Rapp G, Hill CL. Geoarchaeology: the Earth Science approach to archaeological interpretation, second edition [M]. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006
[6]	Goldberg P, Macphail RI. Practical and theoretical geoarchaeology[M]. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2006
[7]	George R, Christopher LH. 地质考古学:地球科学方法在考古学中的应用[M]. 译者：杨石霞,赵克良,李小强．北京: 科学出版社, 2020
[8]	Renfrew C, Bahn P. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice, eighth edition[M]. London: Thames & Hudson, 2020
[9]	Garrison E. Techniques in archaeological geology, second edition[M]. New York:Springer, 2016
[10]	Isaac GL. Towards the interpretation of occupation debris: some experiments and observations[J]. Kroeber Anthropology Society Papers, 1967,37:31-57
[11]	Isaac GL. Bones in contention: Competing explanations for the juxtaposition of Early Pleistocene artifacts and faunal remains[A]. In: Clutton-Brock JH, Grigson C (Eds.). Animals and Archaeology[M], BAR International Series 202. Oxford: Archaeopress, 1983, 3-19
[12]	Isaac GL. Archaeological tests of alternative models of early hominid behavior: Excavation and experiments[J]. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 1981,292(1057):177-188
[13]	Schick KD. 1986. Stone Age Sites in the Making: Experiments in the formation and transformation of archaeological occurrences[M]. Oxford: BAR International Series 319, 1986
[14]	Schick KD. Modeling the formation of early stone artifact concentration[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 1987,16:789-807 doi: 10.1016/0047-2484(87)90024-8 URL
[15]	Schiffer MB. Archaeology as behavioral science[J]. American Anthropologist, 1975,77:836-848 doi: 10.1525/aa.1975.77.issue-4 URL
[16]	Cahen D, Moeyersons J. Subsurface movements of stone artefacts and their implications for the prehistory of Central Africa[J]. Nature, 1977,266:812-815 doi: 10.1038/266812a0 URL
[17]	Stein JK. Earthworm activity: A source of potential disturbance of archaeological sediments[J]. American Antiquity, 1983,48:277-289 doi: 10.2307/280451 URL
[18]	Hofman JL. Vertical movement of artifacts in alluvial and stratified deposits[J]. Current Anthropology, 1986,27:163-171 doi: 10.1086/203414 URL
[19]	McBrearty S. Consider the humble termite: Termites as agents of post-depositional disturbance at African archaeological sites[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 1990,17:111-143 doi: 10.1016/0305-4403(90)90054-9 URL
[20]	Eren MI, Durant A, Neudorf C, et al. Experimental examination of animal trampling effects on artifact movement in dry and water saturated substrates: a test case from South India[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2010,37:3010-3021 doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2010.06.024 URL
[21]	McBrearty S, Bishop L, Plummer T, et al. Tools underfoot: Human trampling as an agent of lithic artifact edge modification[J]. American Antiquity, 1998,63:108-129 doi: 10.2307/2694779 URL
[22]	裴树文. 旧石器时代旷野遗址形成过程研究综述[J]. 人类学学报, 2019,38(1):1-18
[23]	Stein JK. Interpreting sediments in cultural settings[A]. In: Stein JK, Farrand WR (Eds.). Archaeological sediments in context[C]. Orono: Center for the Study of Man, 1988, 5-19
[24]	Mandel R, Bettis EA. Use and analysis of soils by archaeologists and geoscientists: a North American perspective[A]. In: Goldberg P, Holliday VT, Ferring CR (Eds.). Earth Sciences and Archaeology[C]. New York: Plenum Publishers, 2001, 173-204
[25]	朱鹤健, 陈健飞, 陈松林. 土壤地理学(第三版)[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2019
[26]	Jenny H. Factors of soil formation[M]. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1941 Dover Publications, 1994
[27]	Mullins CE. The magnetic properties of the soil and their application to archaeological prospecting[J]. Archaeo-Physica, 1974,5:144-148
[28]	王建, 刘泽纯, 姜文英, 等. 磁化率与粒度、矿物的关系及其古环境意义[J]. 地理学报, 1996,51(2):155-163 doi: 10.11821/xb199602009
[29]	Linderholm J. Soil chemical surveying: A path to a deeper understanding of prehistoric sites and societies in Sweden[J]. Geoarchaeology, 2007,22(4):417-438 doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6548 URL
[30]	Liu QS, Deng CL, Torrent J, et al. Review of recent developments of mineral magnetism of the Chinese loess[J]. Quaternary Science Reviews, 2007,26(3-4):368-385 doi: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2006.08.004 URL
[31]	邓成龙, 刘青松, 潘永信, 等. 中国黄土环境磁学[J]. 第四纪研究, 2007,27(2):193-209
[32]	杨浩, 夏应菲, 赵其国, 等. 红土系列剖面的磁化率特征与古气候冷暖变换[J]. 土壤学报, 1995,32(2):195-200
[33]	胡雪峰, 程天凡, 巫和昕. 南方网纹红土内是否可能存在多个“沉积-成土”过程的旋回?[J]. 科学通报, 2003,48(9):969-975
[34]	卢升高. 中国南方红土环境磁学[J]. 第四纪研究, 2007,27(6):1016-1022
[35]	吕厚远, 韩家懋, 吴乃琴, 等. 中国现代土壤磁化率分析及其古气候意义[J]. 中国科学（B辑）, 1994,24(12):1290-1297
[36]	刘青松, 邓成龙. 磁化率及其环境意义[J]. 地球物理学报, 2009,52(4):1041-1048
[37]	Nesbitt HW, Young GM. Early Proterozoic climates and plate motions inferred from major element chemistry of lutites[J]. Nature, 1982,299:715-717 doi: 10.1038/299715a0 URL
[38]	冯连君, 储雪蕾, 张启锐, 等. 化学蚀变指数(CIA)及其在新元古代碎屑岩中的应用[J]. 地学前缘, 2003,10(4):539-544
[39]	Cornwall IW. Soils for the archaeologist[M]. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1958
[40]	Goldberg P. Micromorphology of sediments from Hayonim Cave, Israel[J]. Catena, 1979,6(2):167-181 doi: 10.1016/0341-8162(79)90006-7 URL
[41]	Goldberg P. Micromorphology in archaeology and prehistory[J]. Paléorient, 1980,6:159-164 doi: 10.3406/paleo.1980.4265 URL
[42]	Courty M, Fédoroff N. Micromorphology of a Holocene dwelling[J]. Pact, 1982,7(2):257-277
[43]	Goldberg P, Aldeias V. Why does (archaeological) micromorphology have such little traction in (geo)archaeology?[J]. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 2018,10:269-278 doi: 10.1007/s12520-016-0353-9 URL
[44]	Bullock P, Fedoroff N, Jongerius A, et al. Handbook for soil thin section description[M]. Wolverhampton: Waine Research Publications, 1985
[45]	Stoops G. Guidelines for analysis and description of soil and regolith thin sections[M]. Madison: Soil Science Society of America, 2003
[46]	Macphail RI, Goldberg P. Applied soils and micromorphology in archaeology[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018
[47]	靳桂云, 郭正堂. 北京王府井东方广场旧石器文化遗址——沉积物的土壤微形态学研究[J]. 东方考古(第8集), 2011, 349-352
[48]	Li XL, Pei SW, Jia ZX, et al. Paleoenvironmental conditions at Madigou (MDG), a newly discovered Early Paleolithic site in the Nihewan Basin, North China[J]. Quaternary International, 2016,400:100-110 doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2015.07.071 URL
[49]	Song YH, Cohen DJ, Shi JM, et al. Environmental reconstruction and dating of Shizitan 29, Shanxi Province: An early microblade sites in north China[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2017,79:19-35 doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2017.01.007 URL
[50]	Patania I, Goldberg P, Cohen DJ, et al. Micromorphological analysis of the deposits at the early pottery Xianrendong cave site, China: formation processes and site use in the Late Pleistocene[J]. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 2019,11:4229-4249 doi: 10.1007/s12520-019-00788-6
[51]	Li ZY, Wu XJ, Zhou LP, et al. Late Pleistocene Archaic Human Crania from Xuchang, China[J]. Science, 2017,355(6328):969-972 doi: 10.1126/science.aal2482 URL
[52]	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 Sciences, 2019,11:3477-3490 doi: 10.1007/s12520-018-0759-7 URL
[53]	Li H, Li ZY, Lotter MG, et al. Formation processes at the early Late Pleistocene archaic human site of Lingjing, China[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2018,96:73-84 doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2018.05.004 URL
[54]	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(8)
[55]	杨立辉, 叶玮, 朱丽东, 等. 第四纪加积型红土与黄土的风成相似性探讨[J]. 干旱区地理(汉文版), 2008,31(3):341-346
[56]	朱丽东, 姜永见, 张明强, 等. 庐山JL剖面红土磁化率特征及古环境记录[J]. 山地学报, 2011,29(4):385-394
[57]	Renfrew C. Archaeology and the earth sciences[A]. In: Davidson DA, Shackley ML (Eds.). Geoarchaeology: Earth science and the Past[C]. London: Duckworth, 1976, 1-5
[58]	Stein JK. A review of site formation processes and their relevance to geoarchaeology[A]. In: Goldberg P, Holliday VT, Ferring CR (Eds.). Earth Sciences and Archaeology[C]. New York: Plenum Publishers, 2001, 37-51

遗址/ Site	地层编号/ Layer number	深度/ Depth (cm)	平均粒径/ Mean grain size (μm)	黏土/ Clay (%)	细粉砂/ Fine silt (%)	粗粉砂/ Coarse silt (%)	砂/ Sand (%)	磁化率/ Magnetic susceptibility (10^-8 m³/kg)
许昌人遗址	第1层	0-25	34.44	15.25%	23.97%	43.72%	17.06%	10.51
	第2层	25-55	34.51	15.97%	24.20%	42.40%	17.43%	22.03
	第3层	55-105	33.35	14.29%	25.61%	44.33%	15.78%	7.92
伞顶盖遗址	第2层	30-70	13.31	47.61%	48.37%	3.71%	0.31%	189.36
伞顶盖遗址	第3层	70-110	16.56	38.97%	49.35%	11.39%	0.28%	32.61
	第4层	110-230	12.21	48.99%	44.10%	6.82%	0.09%	56.94

遗址/ Site	地层编号/ Layer number	深度/ Depth (cm)	平均粒径/ Mean grain size (μm)	黏土/ Clay (%)	细粉砂/ Fine silt (%)	粗粉砂/ Coarse silt (%)	砂/ Sand (%)	磁化率/ Magnetic susceptibility (10^-8 m³/kg)
许昌人遗址	第1层	0-25	34.44	15.25%	23.97%	43.72%	17.06%	10.51
	第2层	25-55	34.51	15.97%	24.20%	42.40%	17.43%	22.03
	第3层	55-105	33.35	14.29%	25.61%	44.33%	15.78%	7.92
伞顶盖遗址	第2层	30-70	13.31	47.61%	48.37%	3.71%	0.31%	189.36
伞顶盖遗址	第3层	70-110	16.56	38.97%	49.35%	11.39%	0.28%	32.61
	第4层	110-230	12.21	48.99%	44.10%	6.82%	0.09%	56.94

地层编号/ Layer number	深度/ Depth	伊利石/ Illite	石英/ Quartz	白云母/ Muscovite	黑云母/ Biotite	辉石/ Augite	钙长石/ Anorthite	钠长石/ Albite	正长石/ Orthoclase
第1层	0-25 cm	30.5%	22.3%	20.0%	6.1%	3.4%	8.0%	6.7%	2.7%
第2层	25-55 cm	32.6%	23.0%	16.6%	5.4%	3.8%	7.0%	6.8%	2.9%
第3层	55-105 cm	28.1%	20.9%	17.6%	4.9%	2.9%	6.4%	6.4%	2.5%

地层编号/ Layer number	深度/ Depth	伊利石/ Illite	石英/ Quartz	白云母/ Muscovite	黑云母/ Biotite	辉石/ Augite	钙长石/ Anorthite	钠长石/ Albite	正长石/ Orthoclase
第1层	0-25 cm	30.5%	22.3%	20.0%	6.1%	3.4%	8.0%	6.7%	2.7%
第2层	25-55 cm	32.6%	23.0%	16.6%	5.4%	3.8%	7.0%	6.8%	2.9%
第3层	55-105 cm	28.1%	20.9%	17.6%	4.9%	2.9%	6.4%	6.4%	2.5%

遗址/ Site	地层编号/ Layer number	深度/ Depth (cm)	SiO₂	Al₂O₃	Fe₂O₃	K₂O	Na₂O	CaO	MgO	MnO	TiO₂
许昌人遗址	第1层	0-25	72.84%	11.37%	3.23%	2.49%	1.58%	1.15%	1.19%	0.07%	0.63%
	第2层	25-55	72.97%	11.63%	3.36%	2.56%	1.55%	0.97%	1.11%	0.05%	0.65%
	第3层	55-105	73.35%	11.26%	3.06%	2.57%	1.64%	1.01%	1.18%	0.05%	0.63%
伞顶盖遗址	第2层	30-70	52.81%	22.18%	8.30%	1.76%	0.12%	0.29%	0.79%	0.01%	0.01%
	第3层	70-110	52.00%	24.01%	7.99%	1.90%	0.11%	0.09%	0.61%	0.01%	0.01%
	第4层	110-230	52.53%	23.04%	8.16%	1.71%	0.11%	0.16%	0.66%	0.01%	0.01%