Research Articles

Craniofacial morphology of human remains from the Zhanmatun site of the late Yangshao Period

  • Lei SUN ,
  • Yanzhen LI ,
  • Zhijiang WU
Expand
  • 1. Henan Provincial International Joint Laboratory on Origins of Modern Humans in East Asia, Henan Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Zhengzhou 450099
    2. Henan Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Zhengzhou 450099

Received date: 2022-05-17

  Revised date: 2022-08-30

  Online published: 2023-06-13

Abstract

The Zhanmatun site is located in the southern suburb of Zhengzhou city, Henan Province, Shibalihe town. From 2009 to 2010, the Zhanmatun site was excavated by Henan Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology with rich remains of the Qinwangzhai culture (3900 BC~2900 BC) were found in the western area of the site. To analyze the composition of human population of Qinwangzhai culture at the site, 45 relatively complete skulls (25 males, 20 females) were observed and measured. Craniofacial morphology of the skulls was compared with other skull groups of different archaeological cultures in prehistoric age by applying cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling of Euclidean distances. Results show that Zhanmatun craniofacial morphology is closest to skull groups of the Qinwangzhai culture in Zhengzhou, such as the Wanggou and Xishan group, and also has many similarities with the Xixiahou group of Dawenkou culture (4200 BC~2600 BC). All these skull groups in the Qinwangzhai and Dawenkou cultures show occipital deformation and tooth extraction. The Zhanmatun craniofacial morphology group differs greatly from groups in center distribution area of the Yangshao culture (4900BC~2700BC). The central distribution area of Yangshao culture and peripheral remains have different connotations and sources. The Qinwangzhai culture (or Dahe Village culture) belongs to these peripheral remains, mainly distributed in the central area of Henan with Songshan Mountain as its center. This may indicate that different archeological and cultural factors may be the reason for the great difference in skull groups in the two distribution areas. Moreover, it means that in about 3000 BC, the influence and expansion of Dawenkou culture on the Central Plains was not limited to the eastern and southeastern areas of Henan, and the spread of culture and migration of people had already extended to the central area of Henan where the Zhanmatun site is located. There are some differences between males and females in Zhanmatun, with males similar to the Longqiuzhuang group in Jianghuai, and females similar to the Jiangjialiang group in North China. The first reason is that the Dawenkou culture, Longqiuzhuang culture (6600~5000 BP) and Dahe village culture have a common source, namely the Peiligang culture (6200 BC~5500 BC). The second reason is that the ancient North China type represented by Jiangjialiang residents reflects genic and cultural exchanges between the ancient Central Plains type in the late Yangshao period and the original residents of the northern Great Wall area suggesting that the genes of the northern people were also mixed into the Zhanmatun population. On the whole, although craniofacial features of Zhanmatun group are mostly common, there are a few differences, and the population composition is of multi-origin and integration that is consistent with obvious characteristics of the complex and multiple factors of Qinwangzhai culture.

Cite this article

Lei SUN , Yanzhen LI , Zhijiang WU . Craniofacial morphology of human remains from the Zhanmatun site of the late Yangshao Period[J]. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 2023 , 42(03) : 331 -341 . DOI: 10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2023.0012

References

[1] 河南省文物研究所, 文化部文物局郑州培训中心. 郑州市站马屯遗址发掘报告[J]. 华夏考古, 1987, 1: 3-45
[2] 中国社会科学院考古研究所河南新砦队, 河南省文物局南水北调文物保护办公室. 郑州市站马屯西遗址新石器时代遗存[J]. 考古, 2012, 4: 14-35
[3] 河南省文物考古研究所, 河南省文物局南水北调文物保护办公室. 郑州市站马屯遗址仰韶文化遗存2009-2010年的发掘[J]. 考古, 2011, 12: 58-73
[4] 张海, 赵晓军. 仰韶与龙山之间:公元前3千纪前半叶中原社会的变革[J]. 中原文物, 2021, 6: 68-81
[5] 朱泓, 赵东月. 中国新石器时代北方地区居民人种类型的分布与演变[A].见:吉林大学边疆考古研究中心(编).边疆考古研究(第18辑)[A]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2015, 331-349
[6] 朱泓. 中原地区的古代种族,中国古代居民体质人类学研究[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2014, 35-43
[7] 邵象清. 人体测量手册[M]. 上海: 上海辞书出版社, 1985, 34-56
[8] 朱泓. 体质人类学[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2004, 92-106
[9] 陈世贤. 法医人类学[M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 1998, 83-86
[10] 赵永生, 曾雯, 魏成敏, 等. 大汶口文化居民枕部变形研究[J]. 东南文化, 2017, 3: 64-72
[11] 中桥孝博, 高椋浩史, 栾丰实. 山东北阡遗址出土之大汶口时期人骨[A].见:山东大学东方考古研究中心(编).东方考古(10)[C]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2013, 13-49
[12] 朱泓. 内蒙古察右前旗庙子沟新石器时代颅骨的人类学特征[J]. 人类学学报, 1994, 2: 126-133
[13] 李法军. 河北阳原姜家梁新石器时代人骨研究[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2008, 115-141
[14] 潘其风, 韩康信. 柳湾墓地的人骨研究[A].见:中国社会科学院考古研究所(编).青海柳湾[R]. 北京: 文物出版社, 1984, 261-303
[15] 韩康信. 青海民和阳山墓地人骨[A].见:青海省文物考古研究所(编).民和阳山[R]. 北京: 文物出版社, 1990,160-173
[16] 陈德珍, 吴新智. 河南长葛石固早期新石器时代人骨的研究[J]. 人类学学报, 1985, 3: 205-214
[17] 颜訚. 西夏侯新石器时代人骨的研究报告[J]. 考古学报, 1973, 2: 91-126
[18] 孙蕾, 曹艳鹏, 张海. 河南平粮台和郝家台遗址龙山文化的颅骨形态学分析[J]. 江汉考古, 2021, 5: 128-133
[19] 潘其风, 韩康信. 柳湾墓地的人骨研究[A].见:青海省文物考古研究所(编).青海柳湾[R]. 北京: 文物出版社, 1984: 261-303
[20] 魏东, 张桦, 朱泓. 郑州西山遗址出土人类遗骸研究[J]. 中原文物, 2015, 2: 111-119
[21] 周亚威, 张晓冉, 顾万发. 郑州孙庄遗址仰韶文化居民的颅骨形态[J]. 人类学学报, 2021, 40(4): 611-627
[22] 周亚威, 王艳杰, 顾万发. 汪沟遗址仰韶文化居民的颅骨形态学分析[A].见:吉林大学边疆考古研究中心(编).边疆考古研究(第27辑)[C]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2020, 371-393
[23] 颜誾. 华县新石器时代人骨的研究[J]. 考古学报, 1962, 2: 85-104
[24] 韩康信. 西乡县何家湾仰韶文化居民头骨[A].见:陕西省考古研究所(编).陕南考古报告集[C]. 北京: 三秦出版社, 1994, 192-200
[25] 朱泓. 兖州西吴寺龙山文化颅骨的人类学特征[J]. 考古, 1990, 10: 908-914
[26] 方启. 陕西神木县寨峁遗址古人骨研究[A].见:吉林大学边疆考古研究中心(编).边疆考古研究(第二辑)[C]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2004: 316-336
[27] 龙虬庄遗址考古队. 龙虬庄[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1999: 419-439
[28] 韩康信, 潘其风. 浙江余姚河姆渡新石器时代人类头骨[J]. 人类学学报, 1983, 2(2): 124-131
[29] 李法军, 王明辉, 等. 鲤鱼墩—一个华南新石器时代遗址的生物考古学研究[M]. 广州: 中山大学出版社, 2013: 49
[30] 韩康信, 常兴照. 广饶古墓地出土人类学材料的观察与研究[A].见:山东省文物考古研究所(编).海岱考古(第一辑)[C]. 山东大学出版社, 1989, 390-418
[31] 杜强, 贾丽艳. SPSS统计分析从入门到精通[M]. 北京: 人民邮电出版社, 2009, 371-376
[32] 赵守盈, 吕红云. 多维尺度分析技术的特点及几个基础问题[J]. 中国考试, 2010, 4: 13-19
[33] 中国社会科学院考古研究所. 中国考古学新石器时代卷[M]. 北京: 中国社会科学出版社, 2010, 208+220+278
[34] 赵辉. 中国的史前基础——再论以中原为中心的历史趋势[J]. 文物, 2006, 8: 50-54
[35] 陕西省考古研究所. 陕西神木县寨峁遗址发掘简报[J]. 考古与文物, 2002, 3: 3-18
[36] 段宏振. 河北考古的世纪回顾与思考[J]. 考古, 2001, 2: 1-12
[37] 高广仁. 淮河史前文化大系提出的学术意义[J]. 郑州大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2005, 38(2): 5-7
[38] 秦存誉. 秦王寨文化研究的回顾与思考[J]. 洛阳考古, 2021, 3: 41-49
Outlines

/