人类学学报, 2023, 42(03): 398-411 doi: 10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2023.0019

综述

南亚次大陆打制石器的发现与研究综述

杨紫衣,1,2, 靳英帅1,2, 王社江1, 张晓凌,1

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.中国科学院大学，北京 100049

Discovery and research review of knapped lithics of the South Asian subcontinent

YANG Ziyi,1,2, JIN Yingshuai1,2, WANG Shejiang1, ZHANG Xiaoling,1

1. Key Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution and Human Origins, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100044

2. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049

通讯作者: 张晓凌，研究员，主要研究旧石器时代考古学。E-mail:zhangxiaoling@ivpp.ac.cn

收稿日期: 2022-07-31   修回日期: 2022-10-19  

基金资助: 第二次青藏高原综合科学考察研究(2019QZKK0601)
中国科学院A类战略性先导科技专项“泛第三极环境变化与绿色丝绸之路建设”(XDA2004010102)
国家自然科学基金(42072033)
国家社会科学基金中国历史研究院重大历史研究专项“现代中国人起源
演化与适应模式研究”(21@WTK001)

Received: 2022-07-31   Revised: 2022-10-19  

作者简介 About authors

杨紫衣，硕士研究生，主要研究旧石器时代考古学。E-mail: yangziyi@ivpp.ac.cn

摘要

南亚次大陆位于欧亚大陆南部，历来与东南亚和东亚关系密切，是东西方旧石器文化交流的枢纽之一。自旧石器时代早期开始，南亚次大陆就有古人类活动的踪迹，这一地区发现的打制石器遗存数量丰富、面貌多样；石核-石片技术具有本土特征，阿舍利技术、莫斯特技术、石叶技术和几何形细石器技术与欧亚大陆西侧十分相似；细石叶技术可能受到东亚的影响。本文回顾了南亚次大陆打制石器的发现与研究简史，梳理其文化分期和石器工业技术面貌特点，希望能对东西方旧石器文化起源、交流与扩散课题的深入研究有所启发，并为中国以后的旧石器考古研究工作提供一定的参考。

关键词： 旧石器时代; 石制品; 类型; 技术; 南亚次大陆

Abstract

The South Asian subcontinent, located south of the Eurasian continent and adjacent to East Asia, has a close relationship with Southeast Asia and China. It has long been a critical pivot of eastern and western Eurasia playing a unique and irreplaceable role in cultural communication and technology diffusion. In this paper, we clarify the research history, chronology and technology of knapped lithics from the South Asian subcontinent, in order to offer more information for further work.
Traces of ancient humans first appeared in the Early Paleolithic, and numerous lithics of different technological characteristics have been discovered since 1863, when Foote RB collected the first hand-axe in Madras, southeast India. Due to some historical reasons, however, there are three main problems in Paleolithic research of the South Asian subcontinent. First, only a few sites have been excavated, with most findings on the surface, which has led to controversies such as the identity of the Soan culture and its relationship to the Acheulian. Second, both the lack and uncertainty of dating data makes the chronology somewhat questionable and thus ambiguous for each stage of the Paleolithic. Third, despite the efforts of several generations of scholars, most archaeological reports of the subcontinent are still scarce, and many lack clear photographs or 3D models for researchers who do not have access to these important materials.
Various lithic technologies are recognized in the South Asian continent. Core-flake technology, including pebble tool and flake tool assemblages from the Early Pleistocene to the Holocene. This is a unique phenomenon because pebble tools such as chopper-chopping tools decrease and finally disappear with the rise of more complicated technologies in most cases. The Acheulian, Mousterian, blade, and geometric microlithic technologies are similar to those in western Eurasian, respectively. Large cutting tools such as hand-axes, cleavers and picks predominate in the Early Pleistocene, whereas geometric microliths are also widely distributed in Terminal Pleistocene and Holocene. Mousterian and blade products are not as common, which might hint at a different role that the subcontinent plays in human dispersal and communication in the early Late Pleistocene. Microblade products, such as minute blades(microblades) and specially prepared microblade cores, might come from East Asia where these products are large in quantity, mature in technique, and clear and complete in a developing sequence.

Keywords： Paleolithic; Lithics; Typology; Technology; South Asian subcontinent

PDF (7454KB) 元数据 多维度评价 相关文章 导出 EndNote| Ris| Bibtex  收藏本文

本文引用格式

杨紫衣, 靳英帅, 王社江, 张晓凌. 南亚次大陆打制石器的发现与研究综述[J]. 人类学学报, 2023, 42(03): 398-411 doi:10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2023.0019

YANG Ziyi, JIN Yingshuai, WANG Shejiang, ZHANG Xiaoling. Discovery and research review of knapped lithics of the South Asian subcontinent[J]. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 2023, 42(03): 398-411 doi:10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2023.0019

1 引言

南亚次大陆又称印巴次大陆、印度次大陆，是喜马拉雅山脉以南、亚欧大陆南延部分上一个相对独立的自然地理单元，包括印度、巴基斯坦、孟加拉国、尼泊尔、不丹等五个陆地国家，以及斯里兰卡和马尔代夫两个岛屿国家。该区域地理单元复杂，生态系统多样，按照地形与地貌特征大致可分为三个部分：西部与北部为兴都库什、喜马拉雅等山脉和塔尔沙漠，中部为印度河-恒河平原，南部半岛区域以德干高原为主体[1]。南亚历来与东南亚和东亚有密切的经济文化往来[2]，在东西方文化交流中起着桥梁的作用。

打制石器1)( 1) 本文中“打制石器”一词不包括与陶器共存的新石器时代打制石器。)作为揭示古人类演化与适应的重要材料，在南亚次大陆很早就引起了学者们的关注。19世纪中期，英国地质学者发现该区域存在手斧遗存，随后，各国学者开展了大量的工作[3⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓-9]。1948年，莫维斯参考东亚、南亚及东南亚的砍砸器与手斧遗存分布情况，沿着印度北部向西划出了“莫维斯线(Movius line)”，指出中国、印度北部和中南半岛在中更新世晚期时缺乏“进步”的阿舍利技术[10]。这一论断逐渐在学术界流行，认为东西方文化从旧石器时代早期开始就存在巨大的差异，并且一直延续至晚更新世。

近二十年，随着考古工作逐步开展，中国百色[11]、丹江口[12]、洛南[13]、川西[14]等地发现了许多含手斧的遗址，表明东亚并非一片孤立、落后的地区，旧大陆东西两侧在旧石器时代早期就已经存在人群或技术的交流。同时，内蒙古、新疆等地也陆续发现了莫斯特和石叶技术遗存[15,16]。关于这些旧石器中晚期技术因素的来源与传播路线，部分学者将目光聚焦于“北方路线”[17,18]；这一方面是因为欧洲和西亚的石器研究比较详尽，另一方面则是基于北方草原地带地理阻隔较少、便于人类迁徙。另外一些学者结合石制品、基因组学和人类化石的研究认为，早期现代人扩散采用“南方路线”[19,20]，南亚次大陆是其中重要的一站。此外，基于青藏高原尼阿底[21]、白石崖[22]、皮洛[14]、邱桑[23]等新发现，有学者提出了“高原丝绸之路”的概念[24]，与克什米尔地区相连的青藏高原西部、沟谷纵横的青藏高原东南部，乃至被视为“天堑”的喜马拉雅山脉都可能成为人类迁徙交流的通道[25]，青藏高原有着沟通东西与南北的重要功能。

南亚次大陆作为东西方交流的必经之路，对于讨论中国旧石器时代的人类活动历史具有重要意义。然而，受语言、历史和研究传统等因素的制约，国内研究缺乏对其石器材料的系统介绍，旧石器时代人群与文化的交流情况、时间节点和扩散路线仍不明了。本文尝试回顾南亚次大陆打制石器的发现与研究简史、梳理其文化分期和技术面貌，以期对深入研究东西方古人类文化交流有所裨益，为日后中国、尤其是青藏高原的研究工作提供一定的参考。

2 研究简史

受学科发展历史和自然环境制约，南亚次大陆打制石器遗存的发现和研究多集中于印度和巴基斯坦两国，斯里兰卡和尼泊尔也有一些材料见诸报道，不丹、马尔代夫、孟加拉等国则基本缺乏相关信息（图1）2)(2) 图中细石器的概念与东亚细石叶细石器的概念并不一致，详见后文。)。

图1

新窗口打开| 下载原图ZIP| 生成PPT

图1   南亚次大陆重要旧石器时代遗址分布图

Fig.1   Location of critical Paleolithic sites in the South Asian subcontinent


南亚次大陆打制石器的研究始于19世纪60年代，但早年的工作中，石制品的分类与分期大多没有统一的标准和术语，影响力非常有限。Foote最早将南亚次大陆旧石器时代的文化性质与欧洲旧石器时代早中期的舍利-莫斯特文化(Chellian-Mousteria)对应起来，认为印度旧石器时代缺乏晚期遗存，与新石器时代之间存在一段空白[3]。有的学者提出南亚存在一个旧、新石器时代过渡阶段的中石器时代，以细石器为主要特征[4,5]。20世纪30年代，南亚次大陆的旧石器研究进入了新阶段[26]，Cammiade和Burkitt将印度东南部石制品划分为手斧产品、石片石器、石叶-雕刻器-端刮器组合和细石器产品[6]。随后，Todd又划分出手斧、发达手斧和石片石器、石叶和刮削器、石叶-雕刻器、细石器等组合[7]。上述分类虽无明确分期命名，但已有相对明确的时间涵义，这使得南亚次大陆石器技术的年代序列逐渐清晰起来。

20世纪中叶，随着欧洲与非洲旧石器类型学研究持续深入[27]，南亚次大陆的学者先后引入了非洲和欧洲的相关研究术语[28,29]。目前，综合前人研究，按照欧洲的术语，南亚次大陆打制石器可分为四个时段（表1）。

表1   南亚次大陆旧石器时代分期表（据Kenndy[30]，Korisettar[31]，Chauhan[32]）

Tab.1  Division of Paleolithic in South Asia

分期Period石器特征Characteristics of lithic artifacts年代范围Age (kaBP)
旧石器时代早期
Lower Paleolithic		模式I与模式II，石制品类型有大石片、手斧、薄刃斧、砍砸器等。1500-130
旧石器时代中期
Middle Paleolithic		石片石器技术，存在莫斯特技术。石制品类型有石片、勒瓦娄哇石片、刮削器、尖状器、小型化的手斧、钻等。385/114-40
旧石器时代晚期
Upper Paleolithic		以棱柱状石核剥离的两边平行石叶为显著特征，石器包括雕刻器、琢背石叶等。同时开始出现细石器技术产品。40-10
中石器时代Mesolithic以细石器技术产品为代表。10-6

新窗口打开| 下载CSV


上述分期体系使用了常用术语便于开展研究，但也存在如下问题：

首先，各个时期年代的划分并不十分明确[30⇓⇓-33]。南亚次大陆手斧的年代可能延续到很晚，如据欧洲的技术模式划分，旧石器早期可延续至130 kaBP；旧石器中期的上限一般在114 kaBP[34]，但也有一些颇具争议的材料表明可早至385 kaBP[35]；石叶和细石器遗存在45 kaBP前后有一段并行的时间[36]，旧石器晚期特征还需进一步厘清。

其次，南亚次大陆各期的文化内涵与欧洲的石器技术[37]不能一一对应，相反，多种技术共存的现象却十分普遍，如一贯被认为属于旧石器早期的索安文化(Soanian Culture)，由于文化面貌并不清晰，不少学者对其“独立文化”的地位提出质疑[30]；旧石器中期以石片工业为主，莫斯特技术虽然存在，但并不占主导地位；最早的细石器遗存年代更是早至约45 kaBP，与欧洲旧石器晚期遗存同期，不能直接与中石器时代(Mesolithic)划等号[38]。

除上述两点之外，南亚次大陆经发掘的遗址较少，标本多采自地表，地层和年代信息缺乏[39]，不同年代、技术组合的遗存混合共存[40]，使用的术语也常有混淆，以这些标本为基础所进行的分期研究是否可靠还有待进一步的工作验证[41]。基于这些问题，本文进行材料梳理时主要基于石制品技术特征，而非传统的年代分期。

3 石器技术

3.1 石核-石片技术

石核-石片技术(Core-flake technology，又称Instant technology[42])常被称作模式I技术[37]。该技术通常被认为是最简单的石器生产方式，其以硬锤打击法为最主要打片方法，使用原料质量不一，耗费的时间和精力少[42]。目前，南亚次大陆已知最早的石核-石片技术遗存为巴基斯坦的Riwat遗址，其地层经古地磁测定为2.01 MaBP[43]，石制品主要为石核、大型石片与砍砸器。

南亚次大陆该类技术特征的遗址数量少、分布分散，多无绝对测年数据[44]，石器也较为简单[45,46]。这一方面可能是因为石核-石片技术产品特征简单、易被忽视，或者是保存环境不佳、工作不到位[9]；另一方面也有学者提出，早期人类走出非洲选择了南亚次大陆沿海路线或北方草原路线，并未深入到南亚次大陆的内陆地区[1]，缺乏相应遗存也在情理之中。

索安文化发现于20世纪30年代，它是南亚次大陆最具特点的石核-石片技术传统文化，代表了一种不含手斧的石器工业。它在广义上囊括了砾石石器、石片石器、莫斯特技术产品的技术混合体[9]，狭义上仅指以砾石石器为代表的砍砸器传统[10]。由于缺乏明确的地层信息和测年数据[32]，研究者们对其文化内涵与分期观点不一。de Terra和Paterson认为索安文化包括砍砸器、预制石核、长石片等元素[9]，莫维斯将其统一归为砍砸器传统[10]，而Stiles则认为所谓的砍砸器传统是调查时采样偏差造成的[47]。之后，学者又按照石制品组合将其分为下层索安(Lower Soanian)、早期索安(Early Soanian)、上层索安(Upper Soanian)和末期索安(Final Soanian)，分别对应砾石石器、盘状石核石器、石片石器和勒瓦娄哇技术产品[48]，同时包括了模式I与模式III技术。

索安文化的具体文化面貌长期争议不休，与阿舍利技术的对比研究举步维艰，直接证据不足和石制品类型划分标准不统一导致了各种主观性极强的结论。有学者根据磨圆程度论证索安文化与阿舍利文化遗存的相对早晚关系[49]，但这很大程度上取决于遗存所处的自然环境。还有些学者根据手斧与砍砸器在地表共存的现象提出二者同期，只是分属不同的人群[10]或不同的适应机制[50]。另一些学者甚至强调其中的莫斯特因素[48]，结合不断更新的测年结果，认为索安文化要晚至旧石器中晚期[51]。

根据砍砸器的存在，部分学者认为印度中部的Mahedevian和Durkadian砾石石器组合属于奥杜威工业[52]。而另一些学者又以整体数量偏少、技术面貌混杂为由加以反对，认为南亚次大陆石核-石片技术的文化面貌模糊，不能轻易归入奥杜威或克拉克当工业[36]，一些曾被认为属于旧石器早期的砾石石器可能属于和平文化(Hoabinhian Culture)和安雅辛文化(Anyathian Culture)等更晚的文化类型[46]。有学者甚至认为“索安文化”并不是一个有效的概念[36]、已属历史话题[30]。目前学界仍保留着“索安文化”这一术语，但其确切的文化面貌尚有待未来新的发现和研究工作进一步厘清。

3.2 阿舍利技术

阿舍利类型工业产品组合包括手斧、薄刃斧、手镐、石刀等重型砍伐或切割工具，前三者是该技术最典型的产品。手斧通常被定义为两面加工的泪滴形或椭圆形器物，长轴两侧大致对称[53]；薄刃斧大多以大石片为毛坯，尾部和两侧两面加工，毛坯石片的远端作为使用刃口一般不做加工[54]。

手斧是南亚次大陆最早发现的石器产品。早年学者根据印度南部发现的遗存提出马德拉文化(Madrasian Culture)，包含手斧、薄刃斧、石片、砍砸器、勒瓦娄哇石器等[55]，与西方阿舍利技术面貌并不完全一致。后来经过进一步研究，发现该组合是在缺乏地层依据情况下不同时期石制品的混合体，其中手斧等应属于阿舍利遗存[50]。

南亚次大陆的阿舍利石器组合以手斧、薄刃斧为代表，部分地点还包括砍砸器、刮削器、尖状器、盘状器等[56]，这可能与地表遗物组合混杂有关。石制品原料多为石英岩，但不同地区有就地取材的现象，如印度西南部存在石灰岩、玄武岩、粉色花岗岩质的手斧[57]。根据技术学和类型学，研究者们将阿舍利技术分为早期和晚期，年代大致以0.78 MaBP为界，从早到晚的整体变化趋势为：石器尺寸变小而个体差异增大，石器形态趋于稳定，片疤密度变大，石片在毛坯中占比增加等[58]。早期阿舍利遗存多有地层证据，而晚期阿舍利遗存则多暴露于地表[59]，这很可能与南亚次大陆强烈的地表剥蚀有关。

阿舍利遗存在南亚次大陆分布广泛，它是南亚次大陆旧石器时代早期最具特色的石器遗存。除恒河平原、东北部雨林和半岛最南端外[32]，喜马拉雅山区、西北部沙漠、中部河谷、东部高原和南部沿海地区均发现有大量的手斧遗存[57]。然而，与南亚次大陆其他旧石器遗址的问题一样，大部分阿舍利技术遗址缺乏绝对测年数据[36]。在为数不多经过测年的遗址中，最早的可早至1.50 MaBP前后[60]，其他则多在0.70~0.40 MaBP的范围内。一些遗址的测年结果还存在争议，如Bori遗址通过K-Ar测年法可至1.38 MaBP[61]，但后续的工作并不支持这一结果[62]。值得一提的是，南亚次大陆还存在晚至MIS 6（约130 kaBP)、非常年轻的阿舍利遗存[63]。

3.3 莫斯特技术

莫斯特技术一词源自法国西南部的一处遗址，以勒瓦娄哇技术或盘状石核等产品为典型标志，在欧洲已作为旧石器中期文化的代名词[64]。随着多学科研究的发展和考古发现的增加，学术界对于莫斯特技术的认识不断深入，目前该技术出现的最早年代可追溯至0.31 MaBP前，掌握该技术的人群除了尼安德特人，可能包括现代人[65]。

早在1932年，南亚次大陆就有莫斯特技术因素的石器见诸报道[66]，但当时未引起太多关注，直到20世纪下半叶才得到学术界的正式认可[67]。目前，南亚次大陆最早的莫斯特技术遗存出自印度东南部的Attirampakkam遗址，约0.385 MaBP，其莫斯特遗存地层下伏阿舍利遗存地层，被研究者认为是阿舍利技术向莫斯特技术转变的证据[35]。然而，该遗址的勒瓦娄哇产品并不典型，是否属于真正的莫斯特技术目前颇有争议。另一年代较早的Hanumanthunipadu遗址经红外激发发光测年，约0.247 MaBP[68]，其他经过测年的遗址年代数据在114~34 kaBP之间[69]。

南亚次大陆的莫斯特石制品组合有勒瓦娄哇石片、莫斯特尖状器、端刮器、锯齿刃器、尖状器等，其中尖状器多分布在印度南部[70]。石器原料以石英岩为主，也有部分地区使用了燧石和玛瑙等优质原料[71,72]。南亚次大陆莫斯特技术遗存分布相当广泛，遍布西北部的沙漠和洞穴、东部高原、南部河谷以及中北部盆地[31]，但在东南沿海地区几乎看不到这类遗存。喜马拉雅山脉南麓尼泊尔的Arjun3遗址也报道有旧石器时代中期遗存，光释光测年数据为67~30 kaBP，但其石制品以盘状石核为主，缺乏真正意义上的勒瓦娄哇技术产品[73]。

南亚次大陆莫斯特技术的来源并不明确。有学者依据小型手斧和莫斯特技术共存等特点，认为南亚次大陆本土的阿舍利技术可以发展出预制石核等复杂的旧石器时代中期遗存[71]；但也有学者根据测年结果，认为南亚次大陆的旧石器时代中期遗存普遍晚于旧大陆西岸的同类遗存，应该是现代人由西向东扩散带来的技术[69]。

3.4 石叶技术

Bordes最初将石叶定义为两边平行、长大于宽两倍以上的石片，其背面至少有一条与打击方向平行的脊[27]。其后，考古学者据此识别出了三种主要的石叶技术：勒瓦娄哇技术(Levallois blade technique)、棱柱状石核技术(Prismatic blade technique)以及呼马尔技术(Hummalian technique)[74]。

南亚次大陆的石叶属于典型的棱柱状石核石叶。勒瓦娄哇石叶虽有报道，但并不典型[75]。呼马尔石叶技术则不见。石叶技术产品的原料多是燧石、黑色板岩、玉髓、玛瑙等均质材料。Murty根据技术和类型，将印度的旧石器晚期遗存划分为石片-石叶(flake-blade)、石叶-石器(blade-tool)、石叶-雕刻器(blade-burin)三大工业[76]，然而其研究的大多数标本采自地表，也存在不同时期产品混合的可能，因此这种分类并不能代表当地石器技术实际的阶段性、区域性和功能性特点。

与欧洲、非洲和西亚更新世的石叶技术相比[77]，南亚次大陆的石叶技术出现年代非常晚[78]。目前所见最早的石叶遗存是位于巴基斯坦的55遗址，热释光测年数据为约45 kaBP，出土石制品以石英岩为主要原料，类型包括石核、石片和石叶等，未见典型石叶石核等[79]。

石叶技术产品出现在气候干冷的时段，此时南亚次大陆西北部主要是沙漠，中部和东南部植被减少，沿海地区出现海退[57]。总体而言，石叶遗存多见于印度中部和西北部沙漠地区，尼泊尔、斯里兰卡等国则非常少见[33]。由于目前发现的石叶遗存很少，要讨论其分布情况、具体的文化面貌以及探索其背后所代表的人群和行为信息为时尚早。就目前的情况推测，典型的旧石器晚期遗存可能只出现在南亚次大陆的部分地区，由于原料或气候条件的限制，拥有石叶技术的人群可能并未扩散到其他地理单元[32]。

3.5 细石器技术

Clark根据欧洲发现的石器遗存，将细石器(microlith)定义为以小石片或石叶为毛坯修理成的石器，通常捆绑、镶嵌后作为复合工具使用[37]。此后学者从石器制作的角度对石器小型化进行了专门讨论，总结出一些标准[80]。针对南亚次大陆的情况，Wedage将细石器定义为最大长度小于4 cm的小石片、小石叶及相关工具，并且特别说明小石叶和琢背修理并非必需的要素[81]，不过大部分学者还是以几何形细石器或小石叶作为主要的判断依据。

南亚次大陆的细石器包括几何形细石器和非几何形细石器两大类[72]：前者是该区域细石器的主流产品，以半月形器、梯形器、三角形器等为代表；后者则是一个较为混杂的概念，同时包括细石核、细石叶，以及小石片、端刮器、边刮器等。在东亚地区的研究中，细石器以细石叶、细石核及相关石制品为限，一般不囊括小型石片石器[82,83]。南亚和东亚细石器的概念存在一定差异，细石叶细石器和小型石片石器揭示的文化传播与适应意义也大有不同，在开展地区对比研究时需要格外注意。如斯里兰卡约45 kaBP的Kitulgala遗址[84]，原研究者认为的细石器遗存实为脉石英质小型石片石器组合，并非严格意义上的细石器遗存[85]，无论是讨论几何形细石器技术或是细石叶细石器技术的扩散都不宜包括此类遗存。

南亚细石器的打制方法主要是硬锤或间接法，台面小或破碎，石器通常是琢背(backed)或斜折(obliquely truncated)修理。细石核可见金字塔形(pyramidal)、长方形(rectangular)、锥形(conical)、亚金字塔形(sub-pyramidal)、亚长方形(sub-rectangular)、亚锥形(sub-conical)等形态[86,87]。细石叶常被有意截断成各种形态，其形状和尺寸的差异可能是由于时代或生计模式不同[81]。原料上，大部分地区以燧石、玛瑙、玉髓等为主要原料，而在斯里兰卡则是脉石英和水晶占主导地位。南亚报道最早的细石器在45 kaBP前后，如印度北部47 kaBP的Dhaba第3地点[75]，中部44 kaBP的Mehtakheri遗址[71]，东南部38~35 kaBP的Jwalapuram 9遗址[87]，东部48~25 kaBP的Kana和Mahadebbera遗址[88]。不过其年代虽早，文化面貌却与东亚细石器存在显著差异，在对比研究时需详细辨析斯里兰卡的细石器遗存多为几何形细石器，从更新世晚期一直延续到全新世[81]。在空间分布上，除了东北部雨林地区之外[81]，细石器在河岸、岩石露头地、山麓、沙丘、洞穴、岩厦等各种地貌环境均有所见[89]。有学者认为南亚次大陆西北部沙漠地区的细石器出现很晚，与更早的石器遗存没有太多联系，可能并非本地起源；中部纳尔默达河流域则有非几何形细石器出现早于几何形细石器的现象[90]，可能代表了细石器工业内部的发展变化。

石器小型化作为晚更新世期间全球石器共有的显著特点，其起源与扩散问题一直备受关注，许多学者将其与现代人及其复杂化行为、象征性行为等联系在一起[91]。在西方学者的视角下，南亚次大陆细石器的来源大致有以下两种假说[92]：扩散假说(dispersal model)认为掌握几何形细石器技术的非洲现代人群沿海岸线向东迁徙，在距今50 ka前后将该技术带到了南亚[91]；适应假说(adaptive model)认为南亚次大陆与非洲的细石器并不相似，且两者存在时间差[93]，因此南亚细石器技术是本地人群适应人口增长和环境恶化的产物[72]。事实上，南亚次大陆是东西方旧石器文化交流的枢纽，流动性极高、掌握细石器技术的人群在这一区域可能有着更为复杂的迁徙路线和交流活动。除几何形细石器外，南亚还有特殊的细石叶细石器，这类技术可能受到东亚周边地区人群的影响，其具体扩散路线和时间节点有待进一步研究。

4 讨论与结语

4.1 南亚次大陆打制石器的特点

自19世纪中叶以来，多国学者在南亚次大陆开展石器调查和研究，积累了大量考古材料，涉及诸多重要学术问题。该地区旧石器研究中，系统发掘遗址数量有限、遗址绝对测年数据的缺乏、对采集标本相关研究的可靠性常被质疑[94]，术语和范式存在概念不一、阐释不清的现象。因此，总结和梳理南亚次大陆打制石器的研究状况，有助于了解和讨论其石器文化序列及其与周边地区的文化交流。

南亚次大陆的打制石器遗存数量丰富、面貌多样，整体上与旧大陆西侧的石器技术类似。南亚次大陆的石核-石片技术存续时间很长，且分布范围广、特点突出，应当存在自身发展和演化的序列。旧石器时代早期的阿舍利遗存遍布整个南亚次大陆地区，最早的Attirampakkam遗址在年代上与亚洲西部和非洲的早期遗存接近，这或许意味着使用手斧的直立人群体走出非洲后很快就扩散到了这里。旧石器时代中晚期的勒瓦娄哇和石叶技术则有所不同，尽管存在特例[35]，但南亚次大陆遗存整体晚于欧洲同类技术的遗存，数量上也不占优势。这一现象与阿舍利技术阶段有显著区别，可能代表该阶段南亚的本土因素更占上风。随后，全球石器技术出现小型化趋势，南亚出现了几何形和非几何形细石器遗存，前者应为旧大陆西侧技术或人群扩散的结果，细石叶细石器则可能受到东亚的影响。

南亚次大陆的石器技术和人类活动呈现出复杂性与多样性，各方学者对莫斯特技术与细石器技术的来源也是各执一词。尽管本土起源说与外来说针锋相对，但南亚次大陆独特的地理位置使它成为人类交流、扩散路途上重要的交汇点，本土与外来因素在这片土地上相互交织，其遗存与文化丰富多元。

4.2 南亚次大陆打制石器相关的重要科学问题

由手斧和砍砸器两大传统引发的“莫维斯线”之争长达半个多世纪，看似是对阿舍利手斧有无、或判断标准的争论，实际上是对模式II阿舍利石器技术时空分布特点及其背后人群迁徙流动认识的差异[95]。随着中国各地手斧遗存的不断发现[11⇓⇓-14]，关于“莫维斯线”旷日持久的争论逐渐走向平息，然而针对阿舍利技术人群扩散的时间与路线、对东亚环境的适应方式、与东亚其他石器技术人群的交流等问题一直悬而未决。此外，石核-石片技术研究也处于初步阶段，要探明南亚次大陆西部、北部的遗存与青藏高原西部、南部的砾石-石片石器[96]是否存在联系，登上青藏高原的石核-石片技术人群来自何方等问题，还需要今后持续的工作。

中国境内主要存在勒瓦娄哇石叶与棱柱状石叶两大类石叶技术，它们在旧石器晚期初段(Initial Upper Paleolithic)共存，其后，棱柱状/似棱柱状石叶石核技术与细石叶技术共存[97]。针对东亚地区的石叶技术与细石叶技术，有学者提出两者之间存在流变与传承关系，后者系由前者发展而来[98]。反观南亚次大陆，尽管存在莫斯特技术，却极少见到勒瓦娄哇石叶的报道[75]，尽管存在典型的棱柱状石叶技术，却未大规模出现与东亚相似的细石叶遗存，这是由于人群、技术传播、环境适应的差异，还是此前报道存在材料认识上的偏差，值得进一步的思考和研究。

在更晚的阶段，根据一些报道，南亚次大陆西北部确实存在典型的细石叶技术产品[32]，但其来源并不明确。如：Patne遗址的细石核[99]与楔形细石核十分类似，巴基斯坦全新世早期遗址的一些“雕刻器”[100]也更接近于东亚的细石叶细石核（图2）[101⇓-103]。这很可能是南亚次大陆考古学家对东亚的材料不熟悉而产生的误判。南亚次大陆西北部毗邻青藏高原西部，环境相似，这些地区出现原料、类型一致的细石核应该并非巧合。东亚的细石叶技术遗存不仅面貌多样、技术成熟，而且发展序列清晰，从华北直至青藏高原均广泛分布[101⇓⇓-104]，该技术很可能以青藏高原为通道辐射到了南亚次大陆西北部。

图2

新窗口打开| 下载原图ZIP| 生成PPT

图2   南亚次大陆细石核与青藏高原细石核图

1-2. 南亚“雕刻器”‘Burin’ from South Asia，引自[100]；3. 青海拉乙亥遗址柱状石核Cylinder microblade core from Layihai Site,Qinghai，改自[103]；4. 南亚楔形石核Wedge microblade core from South Asia，改自[99]；5. 南亚柱状石核Cylinder microblade core from South Asia ，改自[32]；6. 西藏丁仲胡珠遗址柱状石核Cylinder microblade core from Dingzhonghuzhuzi site, Tibet，改自[96]；7. 青海参雄尕硕遗址楔形石核Wedge microblade core fromTshem gzhung kha thog site, Qinghai，引自[101,102]

Fig.2   Microblade cores from the Subcontinent and the Tibetan Plateau


4.3 结语

本文通过回顾南亚次大陆百余年来旧石器时代考古的发现与研究发现，南亚次大陆因其特殊的地理位置，在旧石器时代就扮演着旧大陆东西两侧人类沟通的重要作用，文化因素呈现多元交融的特点。南亚次大陆有相对本土的石核-石片工业，阿舍利、莫斯特、石叶技术等与旧大陆西侧近乎同步，而晚期的细石叶技术则明显受到东亚地区的影响。

南亚次大陆紧邻中国，了解、辨析南亚次大陆旧石器时代石器技术的面貌和源流，对于研究东亚地区旧石器时代“西方因素”技术产品的来源和传播过程有重要的参考价值。更加重要的是，南亚次大陆与青藏高原在地理位置更为接近，旧石器时代考古遗存的分布、类型与保存状况也存在相似之处，分析和总结南亚次大陆的材料，对未来在青藏高原地区开展调查和发掘工作，研究喜马拉雅山脉南北古人类活动具有重要的参考价值。

致谢

本文在写作过程中得到中国科学院古脊椎动物与古人类研究所高星研究员、裴树文研究员，青藏高原研究所李浩研究员，以及北京大学李锋研究员的帮助，谨表谢忱！

参考文献

Petraglia MD, Allchin B.

Human evolution and culture change in the Indian subcontinent[A]. In:The Evolution and History Populations in South Asia

[C]. The Netherlands: Springer, 2007, 1-20

[本文引用: 2]

全洪涛. 古代“南丝路”经济文化探究[D]. 昆明: 云南大学, 2015

[本文引用: 1]

Foote RB.

The Foote collection of Indian Prehistoric and Protohistoric antiquities

[M]. Chennai, Madras Government Museum, 1914

[本文引用: 2]

Logan AC. Old Chipped Stones of India[M]. Calcutta: Thacker, Spink and co, 1906

[本文引用: 2]

Brown JA.

On some small highly specialized forms of stone implements found in Asia, North Africa and Europe

[J]. The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 1899, 18: 134-139

DOI:10.2307/2842407      URL     [本文引用: 2]

Cammiade LA, Burkitt MC.

Fresh light on the stone ages in Southeast India

[J]. Antiquity, 1930, 4(15): 327-339

DOI:10.1017/S0003598X00004919      URL     [本文引用: 2]

The first Indian Palaeolithic stone implement was found more than 60 years ago in a ballast pit at Pallavaram, a little to the west of the Madras-Trichinopoly road. Since then a large number of stone tools belonging to various prehistoric cultures have been discovered by several keen archaeologists, among whom Bruce Foote deserves special mention.

Todd KRU.

Palaeolithic industries of Bombay

[J]. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 1939, 59: 257-272

[本文引用: 2]

de Terra H, Paterson TT. Studies on The Ice Age in India and Associated Human cultures[M]. Washington DC: The Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1939

[本文引用: 1]

de Terra H.

Joint geological and prehistoric studies of the late Cenozoic in India

[J]. Science, 1936, 83: 233-236

PMID:17809311      [本文引用: 4]

Movius HL.

The Lower Palaeolithic Cultures of Southern and Eastern Asia

[J]. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, 1948, 38(4): 329-420

DOI:10.2307/1005632      URL     [本文引用: 4]

Hou YM R. Potts, Yuan BY, et al.

Mid-Pleistocene Acheulean-like Stone Technology of the Bose Basin, South China

[J]. Science, 2000, 287(5458): 1622-1626

PMID:10698732      [本文引用: 2]

Stone artifacts from the Bose basin, South China, are associated with tektites dated to 803,000 +/- 3000 years ago and represent the oldest known large cutting tools (LCTs) in East Asia. Bose toolmaking is compatible with Mode 2 (Acheulean) technologies in Africa in its targeted manufacture and biased spatial distribution of LCTs, large-scale flaking, and high flake scar counts. Acheulean-like tools in the mid-Pleistocene of South China imply that Mode 2 technical advances were manifested in East Asia contemporaneously with handaxe technology in Africa and western Eurasia. Bose lithic technology is associated with a tektite airfall and forest burning.

Li H, Li CR, Kuman K, et al.

The Middle Pleistocene handaxe site of Shuangshu in the Danjiangkou Reservoir Region, central China

[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2014, 52: 391-409

DOI:10.1016/j.jas.2014.08.033      URL     [本文引用: 2]

Wang SJ. Perspectives on Hominid Behaviour and Settlement Patterns: A Study of the Lower Palaeolithic Sites in the Luonan Basin, China[M]. Oxford:BAR International Series 1406, 2005

[本文引用: 2]

四川省文物考古研究院, 北京大学考古文博学院.

四川稻城县皮洛旧石器时代遗址

[J]. 考古, 2022, 7: 3-14

[本文引用: 3]

Peng F, Lin SC, Patania I, et al.

A chronological model for the Late Paleolithic at Shuidonggou Locality 2, North China

[J]. PLoS ONE, 2020, 15(5): e0232682

DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0232682      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Li F, Kuhn SL, Chen F, et al.

The easternmost Middle Paleolithic (Mousterian) from Jinsitai Cave, North China

[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2018, 114: 76-84

DOI:S0047-2484(17)30303-2      PMID:29447762      [本文引用: 1]

The dispersal of Neanderthals and their genetic and cultural interactions with anatomically modern humans and other hominin populations in Eurasia are critical issues in human evolution research. Neither Neanderthal fossils nor typical Mousterian assemblages have been reported in East Asia to date. Here we report on artifact assemblages comparable to western Eurasian Middle Paleolithic (Mousterian) at Jinsitai, a cave site in North China. The lithic industry at Jinsitai appeared at least 47-42 ka and persisted until around 40-37 ka. These findings expand the geographic range of the Mousterian-like industries at least 2000 km further to the east than what has been previously recognized. This discovery supplies a missing part of the picture of Middle Paleolithic distribution in Eurasia and also demonstrates the makers' capacity to adapt to diverse geographic regions and habitats of Eurasia.Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Zwyns N, Lbova LV.

The Initial Upper Paleolithic of Kamenka site, Zabaikal region (Siberia): A closer look at the blade technology

[J]. Archaeological Research in Asia, 2019, 17: 24-49

DOI:10.1016/j.ara.2018.02.004      [本文引用: 1]

In Asia, the Initial Upper Paleolithic refers to blade-based lithic assemblages that display a specific suite of features and date back to the beginning of the MIS3. Previously we reported strong similarities between examples from the Siberian Altai and North Mongolia, but little is known about what generates the variability observed at the assemblage level. The site of Kamenka is particularly relevant to address these issues for several reasons. First, it documents some of the earliest occurrences of the Upper Paleolithic in the Zabaikal region. Second, the fast burial of the archaeological layer and the bone preservation provide groundwork to discuss human subsistence strategies. Third, the dominant raw material sources could be distant and fall outside of the daily foraging radius. Here we give a closer look at the Kamenka A blade assemblage to model the reduction sequences. Our analyses confirm that the blade technology fits a conservative definition of the Initial Upper Paleolithic in Asia. Considering other lines of evidence (such as spatial distribution, or fauna analyses), we discuss the impact of mobility, site function and raw material procurement strategies on the assemblage composition. We conclude that while some of these parameters may affect the tool types and reduction stages represented within the assemblage, the blade reduction method does not show substantial differences between neighboring regions.

Li F, Vanwezer N, Boivin N, et al.

Heading north: Late Pleistocene environments and human dispersals in central and eastern Asia

[J]. PLOS ONE, 2019, 14: e0216433

DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0216433      URL     [本文引用: 1]

James HVA, Petraglia MD.

Modern human origins and the evolution of behavior in the later Pleistocene record of South Asia

[J]. Current Anthropology, 2005, 46: 3-27

DOI:10.1086/425660      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Field JS, Petraglia MD, Mirazón Lahr M.

The southern dispersal hypothesis and the South Asian archaeological record: Examination of dispersal routes through GIS analysis

[J]. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 2007, 26: 88-103

DOI:10.1016/j.jaa.2006.06.001      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Zhang XL, Ha BB, Wang S, et al.

The earliest human occupation of the high-altitude Tibetan Plateau 40 thousand to 30 thousand years ago

[J]. Science, 2018, 362(6418): 1049-1051

DOI:10.1126/science.aat8824      PMID:30498126      [本文引用: 1]

The Tibetan Plateau is the highest and one of the most demanding environments ever inhabited by humans. We investigated the timing and mechanisms of its initial colonization at the Nwya Devu site, located nearly 4600 meters above sea level. This site, dating from 40,000 to 30,000 years ago, is the highest Paleolithic archaeological site yet identified globally. Nwya Devu has yielded an abundant blade tool assemblage, indicating hitherto-unknown capacities for the survival of modern humans who camped in this environment. This site deepens the history of the peopling of the "roof of the world" and the antiquity of human high-altitude occupations more generally.Copyright © 2018 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Chen F, Welker F, Shen CC, et al.

A late Middle Pleistocene Denisovan mandible from the Tibetan Plateau

[J]. Nature, 2019, 569: 409-412

DOI:10.1038/s41586-019-1139-x      [本文引用: 1]

Zhang DD, Bennett MR, Cheng H, et al.

Earliest parietal art: hominin hand and foot traces from the middle Pleistocene of Tibet

[J]. Science Bulletin, 2021, 66(24): 2506-2515

DOI:10.1016/j.scib.2021.09.001      PMID:36654210      [本文引用: 1]

At Quesang on the Tibetan Plateau we report a series of hand and foot impressions that appear to have been intentionally placed on the surface of a unit of soft travertine. The travertine was deposited by water from a hot spring which is now inactive and as the travertine lithified it preserved the traces. On the basis of the sizes of the hand and foot traces, we suggest that two track-makers were involved and were likely children. We interpret this event as a deliberate artistic act that created a work of parietal art. The travertine unit on which the traces were imprinted dates to between ∼169 and 226 ka BP. This would make the site the earliest currently known example of parietal art in the world and would also provide the earliest evidence discovered to date for hominins on the High Tibetan Plateau (above 4000 m a.s.l.). This remarkable discovery adds to the body of research that identifies children as some of the earliest artists within the genus Homo.Copyright © 2021 Science China Press. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

霍巍.

论青藏高原古代各族人民共同开创了“高原丝绸之路”

[J]. 中央民族大学学报:哲学社会科学版, 2021, 2: 5-15

[本文引用: 1]

Hazarika M.

Tracing post-Pleistocene human movements and cultural connections of the eastern Himalayan region with the Tibetan plateau

[J]. Archaeological Research in Asia, 2016, 5: 44-53

DOI:10.1016/j.ara.2016.03.003      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Chakrabarti DK. India: An Archaeological History-Paleolithic Beginnings to Early Historic Foundations[M]. Oxford University Press. 2010

[本文引用: 1]

Bordes F.

Typologie du Paldolithique Ancienet Moyen

[m]. Delmas, Bordeaux, 1961

[本文引用: 2]

Subbarao B. The Personality of India[M]. Baroda: Maharaja Sayajirao University, 1958

[本文引用: 1]

Sankalia HD. Prehistory and Protohistory of India and Pakistan[M]. Poona: Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute, 1974

[本文引用: 1]

Kenndy K. God-Apes and Fossil Men: Paleoanthropology of South Asia[M]. Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 2000, 137-171

[本文引用: 4]

Korisettar R.

Antiquity of Modern Humans and Behavioral Modernity in the Indian Subcontinen: Implications of the Jwalapuram Evidence[A].Tokyo Conference 2011 Volume: Emergence and Diversity of Modern Human Behavior in Paleolithic Asia

[C]. Texas A&M University Press, 2015, 80-93

[本文引用: 3]

Chauhan PR.

Human evolution in the center of the old world: An updated review of the South Asian Paleolithic[A]. In: Pleistocene Archaeology-Migration, Technology, and Adaptation

[C]. London: Intechopen, 2020, 35-59

[本文引用: 7]

Chauhan PR, Ozarkar S, Kulkarni S.

Genes, Stone Tools, and Modern Human Dispersals in the Center of the Old World[A]. Emergence and Diversity of Modern Human Behavior in Paleolithic Asia

[C]. Texas: A&M University Press, 2014

[本文引用: 2]

Blinkhorn J, Achyuthan H, Petraglia M, et al.

Middle Palaeolithic occupation in the Thar Desert during the Upper Pleistocene: the signature of a modern human exit out of Africa?

[J]. Quaternary Science Reviews, 2017, 77: 233-238

DOI:10.1016/j.quascirev.2013.06.012      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Akhilesh K, Pappu S, Rajapara HM, et al.

Early Middle Palaeolithic culture in India around 385-172 ka reframes out of Africa models

[J]. Nature, 2018(54):97-101

[本文引用: 3]

Dennell R. The Paleolithic Settlement of Aisa[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2012

[本文引用: 4]

Clark G. World Prehistory:In New Perspective (3rd Edtion)[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977

[本文引用: 3]

Jayaswal V.

Early Iron Age in Middle Ganga Plain:Some observations & inquiries[A]. In: Early Iron Age in South Asia

[C]. Beau Bassin:Lap LAMBERT Academic Publishing, 2009, 10-35

[本文引用: 1]

James HVA. Becoming Human: The Emergence of Modern Human Behaviour in South Asia[D]. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge, 2009

[本文引用: 1]

Mishra S.

The Indian Lower Palaeolithic

[J]. Bulletin of Deccan College Post Graduate and Research Institute, 2007, (66-67): 47-94

[本文引用: 1]

Johansen L, D Stapert.

Handaxes from Denmark: Neandertal tools or ‘vicious flints’?

[J]. Palaeohistoria, 1996, 37: 1-22

[本文引用: 1]

Shea JJ.

Lithic archaeology, or, what stone tools can (and can’t) tell us about early hominin diet[A]. In: Evolution of the Human Diet: The Known, the Unknown and the Unknowable

[C]. Cary: Oxford University Press, 2006, 212-229

[本文引用: 2]

Dennell RW, Rendell HM, Hailwood E.

Early tool making in Asia: two million year old artefacts in Pakistan

[J]. Antiquity, 1988, 62: 98-106

DOI:10.1017/S0003598X00073555      URL     [本文引用: 1]

For the last half-century, the story of very early hominids, and their stone industries, has been almost exclusively ‘in Africa’. This first report of a very early industry takes the story ‘out of Africa’ and into the Indian sub-continent – that is, in a geographical direction towards the early industries of eastern Asia.

Chauhan PR.

Core-and-flake assemblages of Central and Penisular India[A]. In: Asian Paleoanthropology: from Africa to China and beyond

[C]. New York: Springer, 2010, 113-128

[本文引用: 1]

Bain WK, Bezbaruah D.

Understanding Soanian occurrences at Bam locality of Siwalik frontal range, north-western India

[J]. Anthropological Science, 2021, 1: 1-16

[本文引用: 1]

Chauhan PR.

Soanian lithic occurrences and raw material exploitation in the Siwalik Frontal Zone, northern India: a geoarchaeological perspective

[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2008, 5: 591-614

[本文引用: 2]

Stiles D, Hay R, Neil J’O.

The MNK Chert factory site, Olduvai gorge, Tanzania

[J]. World Archaeology, 1974, 5: 285-308

DOI:10.1080/00438243.1974.9979575      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Lycett SJ.

Is the Soanian techno-complex a Mode 1 or Mode 3 phenomenon? A morphometric assessment

[J]. Journal of Journal of Archaeological Science, 2007, 34: 1434-1440

[本文引用: 2]

Fairservis WA. The roots of ancient India[M]. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1975

[本文引用: 1]

Mohapatra GC.

Soanian-Acheulian relationship

[J]. Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, 1990, 49: 1-26

[本文引用: 2]

Gaillard C, Dambricourt Malasse.

The main human occupation phases in western Himalayas borderland

[J]. L’anthropologie, 2008, 112: 404-422

[本文引用: 1]

Khatri AP.

‘Mahadevian’: An Oldowan Pebble Culture of India

[J]. Asian Perspectives, 1963, 6(1-2): 186-197

[本文引用: 1]

Clark JD, Kleindienst MR.

The Stone Age cultural sequence: Terminology, typology and raw material[A]. In: Kalambo Falls Prehistoric Site III: The Earlier Cultures: Middle and Earlier Stone Age

[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001, 34-65

[本文引用: 1]

Sharon G.

Large flake Acheulian

[J]. Quaternary International, 2010, 223(23): 226-233

[本文引用: 1]

Misra VN.

Stone age research in Rajasthan[A]. In: Studies in prehistory-Robert Foote memoir

[C]. Calcutta: Firma KL Mukhopadhyay. 1966:122-130

[本文引用: 1]

Pappu S.

The Lower Paleolithic culture of India[A]. In: Recent Studies in Indian Archaeology

[C]. Delhi: Munshiram Manharlal Publishers, 2002, 17-59

[本文引用: 1]

Pappu S.

Acheulian Culture in Peninsular India: An Ecological Perspective

[M]. New Delhi: D.K. Printwood. 2001

[本文引用: 3]

Shipton C.

Empirical Differences between the Earlier and Later Acheulian in India[A]. In: Recent Advances in Acheulian Culture Studies in India

[C]. Pune: Indian Society for Prehistory and Quaternary Studies, 2014, 23-36

[本文引用: 1]

Mishra S.

The Lower Palaeolithic in South Asia[A]. In: Origin of Settlements and Chronology of the Palaeolithic Cultures in Southeast Asia

[C]. 1998, 73-91

[本文引用: 1]

Pappu S, Gunnell Y, Akhilesh K, et al.

Early Pleistocene presence of Acheulian hominins in South India

[J]. Science, 2011

[本文引用: 1]

Mishra S, Venkatesan TR, Rajaguru SN, et al.

Earliest Acheulian industry from Peninsular India

[J]. Current Anthropology, 1995, 36(5): 847-851

DOI:10.1086/204442      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Jangra B, Deo SG, Rajaguru SN, et al.

Analyzing and contextualizing the lithic assemblage from the Acheulian site at Bori, Pune District, Maharashtra

[J]. Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology, 2018, 6: 109-128

[本文引用: 1]

Haslam M, Roberts RG, Shipton C, et al.

Late Acheulean hominins at the Marine Isotope Stage 6/5e transition in north-central India

[J]. Quaternary Research, 2011, 3: 670-682

[本文引用: 1]

Wymer J. The Paleolithic Age[M]. London: Croom Helm, 1982

[本文引用: 1]

Richter D, R Grün, Joannes-Boyau R, et al.

The age of the hominin fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, and the origins of the Middle Stone Age

[J]. Nature, 2017, 546(7657): 293

DOI:10.1038/nature22335      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Todd KRU.

Prehistoric man round Bombay

[J]. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia, 1932, 7: 35-42

DOI:10.1017/S0958841800026351      URL     [本文引用: 1]

The purpose of this paper is to put on record the discovery of various sites, containing traces of prehistoric man, in the neighbourhood of Bombay.

Ranere AJ.

Human occupation in northwest Pakistan during the Late Pleistocene[A]. In: Anthropology in Pakistan. Recent Socio-Cultural and archaeological perspectives

[C]. New York: Cornell University Press, 1982, 124-144

[本文引用: 1]

Anil D, Chauhan N, Ajithprasad P, et al.

An early presence of Modern human or convergent evolution? A 247 ka Middle Paleolithic assemblage from Andhra Pradesh, India

[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 2022, 45(2): 103565

DOI:10.1016/j.jasrep.2022.103565      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Blinkhorn J, Petraglia MD.

Environments and cultural change in the Indian subcontinent: implications for the dispersal of Homo sapiens in the Late Pleistocene

[J]. Current Anthropology, 2017, S17: 463-479

[本文引用: 2]

Blinkhorn J, Ajithprasad P, Mukherjee A, et al.

The first directly dated evidence for Palaeolithic occupation on the Indian coast at Sandhav, Kachchh

[J]. Quaternary Science Reviews, 2019, 224: 105975

DOI:10.1016/j.quascirev.2019.105975      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Mishra S, Chauhan N, Singhvi A.

Continuity of microblade technology in the Indian subcontinent since 45 ka: Implications for the dispersal of Modern Humans

[J]. PloS One, 2013, 7: 1-14

[本文引用: 3]

Clarkson C, Petraglia M, Korisettar R, et al.

The oldest and longest enduring microlithic sequence in India: 35,000 years of Modern Human occupation and change at the Jwalapuram locality 9 rockshelter

[J]. Antiquity, 2009, 2: 1-23

DOI:10.1017/S0003598X00001265      URL     [本文引用: 3]

Corvinus Gudrun. Prehistoric Cultures in Nepal: From the Early Palaeolithic to the Neolithic and the Quaternary Geology of the Dang-deokhuri Dun Valleys[M]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verla, 2007

[本文引用: 1]

李锋.

石叶概念探讨

[J]. 人类学学报, 2012, 31(1): 41-50

[本文引用: 1]

Clarkson C, Harris C, Li B, et al.

Human occupation of northern India spans the Toba super-eruption -74,000 years ago

[J]. Nature Communication, 2020, 11: 1-10

DOI:10.1038/s41467-019-13993-7      [本文引用: 3]

Stimulated cells and cancer cells have widespread shortening of mRNA 3’-untranslated regions (3’UTRs) and switches to shorter mRNA isoforms due to usage of more proximal polyadenylation signals (PASs) in introns and last exons. U1 snRNP (U1), vertebrates’ most abundant non-coding (spliceosomal) small nuclear RNA, silences proximal PASs and its inhibition with antisense morpholino oligonucleotides (U1 AMO) triggers widespread premature transcription termination and mRNA shortening. Here we show that low U1 AMO doses increase cancer cells’ migration and invasion in vitro by up to 500%, whereas U1 over-expression has the opposite effect. In addition to 3’UTR length, numerous transcriptome changes that could contribute to this phenotype are observed, including alternative splicing, and mRNA expression levels of proto-oncogenes and tumor suppressors. These findings reveal an unexpected role for U1 homeostasis (available U1 relative to transcription) in oncogenic and activated cell states, and suggest U1 as a potential target for their modulation.

Murty M.

Recent research on the Upper Palaeolithic phase in India

[J]. Journal of Field Archaeology, 1979, 6(3): 301-320

[本文引用: 1]

Bar-Yosef O.

The Big deal about blades: Laminar technologies and human evolution

[J]. American Anthropologist, 1999, 322-338

[本文引用: 1]

Agrawal DP, Kusumgar S.

Tata Institute Radiocarbon Date List 11

[J]. Radiocarbon, 1975, 17(2): 219-225

DOI:10.1017/S003382220000206X      URL     [本文引用: 1]

This is the last installment of 14C dates done at the Tata Institute; the lab has now shifted to the Physical Research Laboratory, Navarangpura, Ahmedabad-380 009, India.

Dennell R, Rendell H, Halim M, et al.

A 45,000-Year-Old Open-Air Paleolithic Site at Riwat, Northern Pakistan

[J]. Journal of Field Archaeology, 1992, 19: 17-33

DOI:10.1179/009346992791548996      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Pargeter J, Shea JJ.

Going big versus going small: Lithic miniaturization in hominin lithic technology

[J]. News, and Reviews, 2019, 28(2): 72-85

[本文引用: 1]

Wedage O, Amano N, Langley MC, et al.

Specialized rainforest hunting by Homo sapiens -45,000 years ago

[J]. Nature Communications, 2019, 10: 1-8

DOI:10.1038/s41467-018-07882-8      [本文引用: 4]

Wave-particle duality is an inherent peculiarity of the quantum world. The double-slit experiment has been frequently used for understanding different aspects of this fundamental concept. The occurrence of interference rests on the lack of which-way information and on the absence of decoherence mechanisms, which could scramble the wave fronts. Here, we report on the observation of two-center interference in the molecular-frame photoelectron momentum distribution upon ionization of the neon dimer by a strong laser field. Postselection of ions, which are measured in coincidence with electrons, allows choosing the symmetry of the residual ion, leading to observation of both, gerade and ungerade, types of interference.

仪明洁.

细石器研究中几个关键概念的厘定

[J]. 考古与文物, 2014, 5: 37-41

[本文引用: 1]

安志敏.

中国细石器发现100年

[J]. 考古, 2000, 5: 45-56

[本文引用: 1]

Roberts P, Boivin N, Petraglia M.

The Sri Lankan ‘Microlithic’ tradition c. 38,000 to 3,000 Years Ago: Tropical technologies and adaptations of Homo sapiens at the southern edge of Asia

[J]. Journal of World Prehistory, 2015, 28(2): 69-112

DOI:10.1007/s10963-015-9085-5      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Kaifu Y, Izuho M, Goebel T.

Modern Human dispersal and behavior in Paleolithic Asia[A]. In: Emergence and diversity of modern human behavior in Paleolithic Asia

[C]. Texas: A&M University Press, 2014, 535-566

[本文引用: 1]

Perera N, Kourampas N, Simpson I, et al.

People of the ancient rainforest: The South Asian Microlithic: Homo sapiens dispersal or adaptive response?

[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2018, 61: 254-269

DOI:10.1016/j.jhevol.2011.04.001      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Clarkson C, Jones S, Harris C.

Continuity and change in the lithic industries of the Jurreru Valley, India, before and after the Toba eruption

[J]. Quaternary International, 2012, 258: 165-179

DOI:10.1016/j.quaint.2011.11.007      URL     [本文引用: 2]

Basak B, Pradeep S.

Earliest dates of Microlithic industries (42-25 ka) from West Bengal, Eastern India: New light on Modern Human occupation in the Indian Subcontinent

[J]. Asian Perspectives, 2017, 56(2): 237-259

DOI:10.1353/asi.2017.0009      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Mendaly S, Hussain S.

Microlithic industry of Odisha with particular reference to Bhalugarh, District-Jharsuguda, Odisha: A preliminary report

[J]. Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology, 2015, 3: 346-369

[本文引用: 1]

Sosnowaska H.

Outline of Mesolithic and Beginnings of Neolithic in India

[J]. Analecta Archaeologica Ressoviensia, 2011, 5: 95-139

[本文引用: 1]

Mellars P, Gori K C, Carr M, et al.

Genetic and archaeological perspectives on the initial modern human colonization of southern Asia

[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2013, 110(26): 10699-10704

DOI:10.1073/pnas.1306043110      URL     [本文引用: 2]

It has been argued recently that the initial dispersal of anatomically modern humans from Africa to southern Asia occurred before the volcanic “supereruption” of the Mount Toba volcano (Sumatra) at ∼74,000 y before present (B.P.)—possibly as early as 120,000 y B.P. We show here that this “pre-Toba” dispersal model is in serious conflict with both the most recent genetic evidence from both Africa and Asia and the archaeological evidence from South Asian sites. We present an alternative model based on a combination of genetic analyses and recent archaeological evidence from South Asia and Africa. These data support a coastally oriented dispersal of modern humans from eastern Africa to southern Asia ∼60–50 thousand years ago (ka). This was associated with distinctively African microlithic and “backed-segment” technologies analogous to the African “Howiesons Poort” and related technologies, together with a range of distinctively “modern” cultural and symbolic features (highly shaped bone tools, personal ornaments, abstract artistic motifs, microblade technology, etc.), similar to those that accompanied the replacement of “archaic” Neanderthal by anatomically modern human populations in other regions of western Eurasia at a broadly similar date.

Clarkson C, Petraglia MD, Harris C, et al.

The south Asian microlithic: Homo sapiens dispersal or adaptive response? [A]. In: Lithic Technological Organization and Paleoenvironmental Change: Global and Diachronic Perspectives

[C]. New York: Springer international publishing, 2018, 37-62

[本文引用: 1]

Lewis L, Perera N, Petraglia M.

First technological comparison of Southern African Howiesons Poort and South Asian microlithic industries: An exploration of inter-regional variability in microlithic assemblages

[J]. Quaternary International, 2014, 350: 7-25

DOI:10.1016/j.quaint.2014.09.013      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Bailey G.

Time perspectives, palimpsests and the archaeology of time

[J]. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 2007, 26: 198-223

DOI:10.1016/j.jaa.2006.08.002      URL     [本文引用: 1]

王幼平.

石器技术与早期人类的迁徙扩散[A].见:北京大学考古文博学院、北京大学中国考古学研究中心(编).考古学研究(十一)

[C]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2020, 9-20

[本文引用: 1]

索朗旺堆, 李永宪, 等编. 阿里地区文物志[M]. 拉萨: 西藏人民出版社, 1993, 11-44

[本文引用: 2]

李锋, 陈福友, 汪英华, 等.

晚更新世晚期中国北方石叶技术所反映的技术扩散与人群迁移

[J]. 中国科学:地球科学, 2016, 46(7): 891-905

[本文引用: 1]

Yi MJ, Gao X, Li F, et al.

Rethinking the origin of microblade technology: A chronological and ecological perspective

[J]. Quaternary International, 2016, 400(2): 130-139

DOI:10.1016/j.quaint.2015.07.009      URL     [本文引用: 1]

Paddayya K.

Stone technology in India

[J]. Journal of science communication, 2011, 2: 120-127

[本文引用: 2]

Allchin B, Goudie A.

Dunes, aridity and early man in Gujarat, Western India

[J]. Man, 1971, 6(2): 248-265

DOI:10.2307/2798265      URL     [本文引用: 2]

韩芳, 蔡林海, 杜玮, 等.

青南高原登额曲流域的细石叶技术工艺

[J]. 人类学学报, 2018, 37(1): 53-69

[本文引用: 3]

Zhang XL, Jin YS, He W, et al.

A consideration of the spatiotemporal distribution of microblade industries on the Tibetan Plateau

[J]. Quaternary International, 2020, 559: 165-173

DOI:10.1016/j.quaint.2020.04.039      URL     [本文引用: 3]

盖培, 王国道.

黄河上游拉乙亥中石器时代遗址发掘报告

[J]. 人类学学报, 1983, 1: 49-59+116

[本文引用: 3]

王幼平.

华北细石器技术的出现与发展

[J]. 人类学学报, 2018, 37(4): 565-576

[本文引用: 1]

/

〈 〉

京ICP证05002819号-3
版权所有 © 《人类学学报》编辑部
地址：北京市西直门外大街142号　邮编：100044
电话：010-88369241　 Email：acta@ivpp.ac.cn
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发　技术支持：support@magtech.com.cn