吉林省东部地区黑曜岩石器微痕研究
摘要
本文观察分析了以黑曜岩为原料模拟制作的包括22件石片,22件石叶,35件细石叶,22件刮削器,26件尖状器,13件雕刻器的140件石器的142个使用刃口的微痕——这些微痕来自分别对新鲜猪骨或牛骨(坚硬)、干松木(较硬)、新鲜杨木(较软)、干牛皮(软)、新鲜猪肉皮(很软)、新鲜猪肉(极软)、新鲜蔬菜(最软)7种实验对象进行的切、刮、钻、刻4类加工实验——并以此为基础建立了一套以石器分类为主线的较为系统的黑曜岩微痕判定方法。
依照这套方法,本文对吉林省东部地区的抚松新屯子西山旧石器遗址、和龙柳洞旧石器地点、珲春北山旧石器地点、和龙石人沟旧石器遗址、和龙青头旧石器遗址、安图沙金沟旧石器遗址、和龙崇善大洞旧石器遗址这7处以黑曜岩石器为主体的遗址或地点挑选的55件石器的84个使用刃口进行了微痕分析与观察。不但判定了这些刃口的加工方式与加工对象,同时还观察到这批石器上带有的捆绑痕迹及握持痕迹。最后得以窥知旧石器时代晚期生活在吉林省东部地区的古人类的黑曜岩石器的使用情况。
本文通过上述的分析与研究,不但填补了国内黑曜岩石器微痕研究的空白,建立了一套系统的黑曜岩石器微痕研究体系,同时对考古学实证研究进行了新的探索。
In the last few years, several Paleolithic sites, which are mainly composed of obsidian, has been explored in the east of Jilin Province. And a lot of lithic artifacts, mainly composed of obsidian, were obtained. In this paper, I’m going to study the functions of these lithic artifacts by way of‘use-wear analysis’, so as to get more distinct proof about it.
In the first chapter of introduction, it is proved that the study of lithic use-wear is the most effective and practical way in the study of lithic artifacts.“Use-wear”refers to the trace on the prehistoric lithic tools, it is the outcome of some special activities of ancient people. The study of use-wear, which started in 1930s, developed greatly in 1970s and 1980s, it experienced contradiction and negotiation between the two opposing schools of“high-power method”and“low-power method”, and in 1990s the development of the study of use-wear entered a temperate stage. The study of obsidian lithic use-wear started from Semenov. In the past years, the study of obsidian lithic use-wear has been mainly done by foreign scholars. In our country, the study of obsidian in traditional and common way is very few, so not to mention the study of it in the way of use-wear.
Since 1980s, people from Jilin University have been doing some systematic study and research on paleolithic relics, and the obsidian lithic artifacts have been explored very often. Since the year 2000, the research on paleolithic relics which mainly composed of obsidian has become further and more systematic, and consequently the achievement became greater. With the new discoveries and exploration of the Paleolithic sites, the study of obsidian lithic artifacts has become more systematic and intensive. Based on the affluence and improvement of these materials, it becomes possible to carry out a comprehensive study of obsidian lithic artifacts.
The second chapter is about the design and production of the experimental specimens. In this chapter it introduces that the experimental material of obsidian is taken from both Hokkaido Japan and Oregon U.S.A. And the obsidian is made into 140 lithic artifacts, includes: 22 flakes; 22 blades; 35 microblades; 22 scrapers; 26 points; 13 burins.
The third chapter is about the observation and analysis of the experimental specimens. In the experiment, the 140 stone artifacts are used to cut, scratch, drill and grave the worked materials, and the worked materials are bones of swine or cattle (very hard); dry pine (hard); fresh poplar (soft); dry leather of cattle (softer); fresh leather of swine (softer than the former); pork (softer than the former); vegetables (the softest). With the lithic artifacts, the actions on bones and woods are cutting, scratching, drilling and graving; the actions on dry leather are cutting and drilling; the actions on fresh leather are cutting and scratching; the action on pork and vegetables is cutting. Observations and analysis of the use-wear on the lithic artifacts are carried out after the experiments, and the analysis result and data, which are classified according to different worked materials and actions, are recorded.
With these results and data, some other tests are carried out, and finally it proves that the using actions of obsidian lithic artifacts can be identified convincingly through the analysis of the use-wear on the lithic artifacts.
The fourth chapter is about the observation and analysis of the use-wear on the archaeological specimens. To date, there are generally seven Paleolithic sites in the east of Jilin Province, which are mainly composed of obsidian. They are: the West Mountain of Xin Tunzi in Fusong ( in 1999); the Cave of Liu in Helong ( in 2002); the North Mountain in Hunchun ( in 2002); Shi Rengou in Helong ( in 2003); Qingtou in Helong ( in 2005); Jin Shagou in Antu (in 2006); The Cave of Chongshan in Helong ( in 2007). In this chapter, the use-wear of the 84 edges on the 55 lithic artifacts, which are discovered in the seven sites, are observed and analyzed. The working actions and working objects of these edges are concluded, and some binding and holding trace are also found on these lithic artifacts. Summaries about the result and data above are made respectively
The fifth chapter is the conclusion. It discusses thoroughly the researching model of this paper, studies the experimental specimens and archaeological specimens respectively and intensively, and establishes a system of identifying method, which concerns the classification of lithic artifacts, of obsidian lithic use-wear.
The system of identifying method is briefly as follow: flake, blade and microblade are all second-rank tools, and their use-wear are generally similar. The use-wear caused by cutting is like this: there has trace on both sides of the edge, and the trace changes from big size to small size, from more spots to less spots and from fracture-mode to wing-mode corresponding to the changes of working materials from hard object to soft object. The use-wear caused by scratching is like this: the trace can be found on one side of the edge while has nearly no trace on the other side, and the trace changes from big size to small size, from more spots to less spots and from layer-mode to fracture-mode then to wing-mode corresponding to the changes of working materials from hard object to soft object. In the two working actions, the use-wear on the microblade is greater than the use-wear on the flake and the blade. The flake and the blade are apparently not fit to drill. And in the experiment, microblades are all broken when drilling, so it is also considered not fit to drill. Only the microblade is used to grave, and the use-wear is quite similar to the use-wear on points. The use-wear caused by cutting and scratching on the scraper is very similar to the use-wear on the flake, the blade and the microblade near it, but the trace is lighter. In the experiment of cutting, the sharpness of the points becomes varied according to different working objects. The difference between the results of cutting and grarving of the point is whether the sharp point of the lithic move or not. There has a“sharpen”progress in the action of drilling. Burins behave very bad in the action of drilling, so to conclude that they would only be used on very soft materials if they are used to drill. In the action of grarving, trace is made on one side of the edge, and the side edge becomes obtuse. The harder the working object is, the bigger and more the trace is, and the“arc”of the side edge also becomes bigger.
And in the fifth chapter, the statistical analysis is made to the group of all specimens discovered in the archaeological sites, and the conclusion is made as follow: among the archaeological specimens, flakes are usually used to cut hard materials such as dry wood, but not used to drill or grarve; blades are usually used to cut soft materials such as fresh wood, but not used to drill or grave; microblades are usually used to cut very soft materials such as fresh meat, but not used to drill or grave; scrapers are usually used to scratch soft materials such as fresh wood; points are usually used to grave soft materials such as fresh wood, but not used to drill or scratch; burins are equally used to grave very hard materials such as bones, hard materials such as dry wood and soft materials such as fresh wood.
At the end, the papers provide some vision and prospect about the future research of use-wear.
The innovation of this paper is that the final conclusion is made through the following steps: production of obsidian lithic artifacts, experiment of the worked specimens, observation of the use-wear on the worked specimens, observation of the archaeological specimens, comparision of the results. Such a systematic research model is very rare in domestic use-wear research. And finally, based on the use-wear data, a set of identification criterion about the types and functions of obsidian lithic artifacts is established convincingly. This is the first attempt in this field in our country.
依照这套方法,本文对吉林省东部地区的抚松新屯子西山旧石器遗址、和龙柳洞旧石器地点、珲春北山旧石器地点、和龙石人沟旧石器遗址、和龙青头旧石器遗址、安图沙金沟旧石器遗址、和龙崇善大洞旧石器遗址这7处以黑曜岩石器为主体的遗址或地点挑选的55件石器的84个使用刃口进行了微痕分析与观察。不但判定了这些刃口的加工方式与加工对象,同时还观察到这批石器上带有的捆绑痕迹及握持痕迹。最后得以窥知旧石器时代晚期生活在吉林省东部地区的古人类的黑曜岩石器的使用情况。
本文通过上述的分析与研究,不但填补了国内黑曜岩石器微痕研究的空白,建立了一套系统的黑曜岩石器微痕研究体系,同时对考古学实证研究进行了新的探索。
In the last few years, several Paleolithic sites, which are mainly composed of obsidian, has been explored in the east of Jilin Province. And a lot of lithic artifacts, mainly composed of obsidian, were obtained. In this paper, I’m going to study the functions of these lithic artifacts by way of‘use-wear analysis’, so as to get more distinct proof about it.
In the first chapter of introduction, it is proved that the study of lithic use-wear is the most effective and practical way in the study of lithic artifacts.“Use-wear”refers to the trace on the prehistoric lithic tools, it is the outcome of some special activities of ancient people. The study of use-wear, which started in 1930s, developed greatly in 1970s and 1980s, it experienced contradiction and negotiation between the two opposing schools of“high-power method”and“low-power method”, and in 1990s the development of the study of use-wear entered a temperate stage. The study of obsidian lithic use-wear started from Semenov. In the past years, the study of obsidian lithic use-wear has been mainly done by foreign scholars. In our country, the study of obsidian in traditional and common way is very few, so not to mention the study of it in the way of use-wear.
Since 1980s, people from Jilin University have been doing some systematic study and research on paleolithic relics, and the obsidian lithic artifacts have been explored very often. Since the year 2000, the research on paleolithic relics which mainly composed of obsidian has become further and more systematic, and consequently the achievement became greater. With the new discoveries and exploration of the Paleolithic sites, the study of obsidian lithic artifacts has become more systematic and intensive. Based on the affluence and improvement of these materials, it becomes possible to carry out a comprehensive study of obsidian lithic artifacts.
The second chapter is about the design and production of the experimental specimens. In this chapter it introduces that the experimental material of obsidian is taken from both Hokkaido Japan and Oregon U.S.A. And the obsidian is made into 140 lithic artifacts, includes: 22 flakes; 22 blades; 35 microblades; 22 scrapers; 26 points; 13 burins.
The third chapter is about the observation and analysis of the experimental specimens. In the experiment, the 140 stone artifacts are used to cut, scratch, drill and grave the worked materials, and the worked materials are bones of swine or cattle (very hard); dry pine (hard); fresh poplar (soft); dry leather of cattle (softer); fresh leather of swine (softer than the former); pork (softer than the former); vegetables (the softest). With the lithic artifacts, the actions on bones and woods are cutting, scratching, drilling and graving; the actions on dry leather are cutting and drilling; the actions on fresh leather are cutting and scratching; the action on pork and vegetables is cutting. Observations and analysis of the use-wear on the lithic artifacts are carried out after the experiments, and the analysis result and data, which are classified according to different worked materials and actions, are recorded.
With these results and data, some other tests are carried out, and finally it proves that the using actions of obsidian lithic artifacts can be identified convincingly through the analysis of the use-wear on the lithic artifacts.
The fourth chapter is about the observation and analysis of the use-wear on the archaeological specimens. To date, there are generally seven Paleolithic sites in the east of Jilin Province, which are mainly composed of obsidian. They are: the West Mountain of Xin Tunzi in Fusong ( in 1999); the Cave of Liu in Helong ( in 2002); the North Mountain in Hunchun ( in 2002); Shi Rengou in Helong ( in 2003); Qingtou in Helong ( in 2005); Jin Shagou in Antu (in 2006); The Cave of Chongshan in Helong ( in 2007). In this chapter, the use-wear of the 84 edges on the 55 lithic artifacts, which are discovered in the seven sites, are observed and analyzed. The working actions and working objects of these edges are concluded, and some binding and holding trace are also found on these lithic artifacts. Summaries about the result and data above are made respectively
The fifth chapter is the conclusion. It discusses thoroughly the researching model of this paper, studies the experimental specimens and archaeological specimens respectively and intensively, and establishes a system of identifying method, which concerns the classification of lithic artifacts, of obsidian lithic use-wear.
The system of identifying method is briefly as follow: flake, blade and microblade are all second-rank tools, and their use-wear are generally similar. The use-wear caused by cutting is like this: there has trace on both sides of the edge, and the trace changes from big size to small size, from more spots to less spots and from fracture-mode to wing-mode corresponding to the changes of working materials from hard object to soft object. The use-wear caused by scratching is like this: the trace can be found on one side of the edge while has nearly no trace on the other side, and the trace changes from big size to small size, from more spots to less spots and from layer-mode to fracture-mode then to wing-mode corresponding to the changes of working materials from hard object to soft object. In the two working actions, the use-wear on the microblade is greater than the use-wear on the flake and the blade. The flake and the blade are apparently not fit to drill. And in the experiment, microblades are all broken when drilling, so it is also considered not fit to drill. Only the microblade is used to grave, and the use-wear is quite similar to the use-wear on points. The use-wear caused by cutting and scratching on the scraper is very similar to the use-wear on the flake, the blade and the microblade near it, but the trace is lighter. In the experiment of cutting, the sharpness of the points becomes varied according to different working objects. The difference between the results of cutting and grarving of the point is whether the sharp point of the lithic move or not. There has a“sharpen”progress in the action of drilling. Burins behave very bad in the action of drilling, so to conclude that they would only be used on very soft materials if they are used to drill. In the action of grarving, trace is made on one side of the edge, and the side edge becomes obtuse. The harder the working object is, the bigger and more the trace is, and the“arc”of the side edge also becomes bigger.
And in the fifth chapter, the statistical analysis is made to the group of all specimens discovered in the archaeological sites, and the conclusion is made as follow: among the archaeological specimens, flakes are usually used to cut hard materials such as dry wood, but not used to drill or grarve; blades are usually used to cut soft materials such as fresh wood, but not used to drill or grave; microblades are usually used to cut very soft materials such as fresh meat, but not used to drill or grave; scrapers are usually used to scratch soft materials such as fresh wood; points are usually used to grave soft materials such as fresh wood, but not used to drill or scratch; burins are equally used to grave very hard materials such as bones, hard materials such as dry wood and soft materials such as fresh wood.
At the end, the papers provide some vision and prospect about the future research of use-wear.
The innovation of this paper is that the final conclusion is made through the following steps: production of obsidian lithic artifacts, experiment of the worked specimens, observation of the use-wear on the worked specimens, observation of the archaeological specimens, comparision of the results. Such a systematic research model is very rare in domestic use-wear research. And finally, based on the use-wear data, a set of identification criterion about the types and functions of obsidian lithic artifacts is established convincingly. This is the first attempt in this field in our country.
引文
[1]宋兆麟.投石器和流星索[J].史前研究,1984(2):98-108.
[2] 2006年、2007年先生两次勉励笔者。
[1]高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析在中国考古学中的应用与发展前景[M]//高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析的考古学实验研究.北京:科学出版社,2008:1.
[2] Semenov S A.Prehistoric technology:an experimental study of the oldest tools and artefacts from traces of manufacture and wear[M].Bath:Adams & Dart,1964.
[3]高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析在我国的应用:沉思与前瞻[N].中国文物报,2007-12-21(7),2008-01-18(7).
[4]高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析在中国考古学中的应用与发展前景[M]//高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析的考古学实验研究.北京:科学出版社,2008:6.
[1] Semenov S A.Prehistoric technology:an experimental study of the oldest tools and artefacts from traces of manufacture and wear[M].Bath:Adams & Dart,1964.
[2] Keeley L H.Technique and methodology in microwear studies:a critical review [J]. World Archaeology, 1974 (5):323-326.
[3]埃塞俄比亚的制革工人用黑曜岩制作的刮刀对皮革进行加工。
[1] Hurcombe L M.Use wear analysis and obsidian:theory,experiments and results[M].Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 4.J.R.Collis Publications Department of Archaeology and Prehistory University of Sheffield,1992:22-23.
[2]张晓凌.石器功能与人类适应行为:虎头梁遗址石制品微痕分析[D].北京:中国社会科学院古脊椎动物与古人类研究所,2009:22.
[3] Hurcombe L M.Use wear analysis and obsidian:theory,experiments and results[M].Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 4.J.R.Collis Publications Department of Archaeology and Prehistory University of Sheffield,1992.
[4] Mandujano C et al. Provenance and use wear of pre-Hispanic obsidian scrapers[J].Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 2002(Vol. 252), No. 1:81-85.
[5]童恩正.石器的微痕研究[J].史前研究,1983(2):151-158.张森水.述评《石器使用的试验鉴定——微磨损分析》一书[J].人类学学报,1986 5(4):392-395.
[1]侯亚梅.石制品微痕分析的实验研究[J].人类学学报,1992 11(3):202-215.
[2]黄蕴平.沂源上崖洞石制品的研究[J].人类学学报,1994 13(1):1-11.
[3]夏竞峰.燧石刮削器的微痕观察[J].中国历史博物馆馆刊,1995(1):22-42.
[4]王幼平.雕刻器实验研究[J].考古学研究,文物出版社,1992:65-90.
[5]李卫东.燧石尖状器实验研究[J].考古学研究,文物出版社,1992:91-123.
[6]顾玉才.海城仙人洞出土钻器的实验研究[J].人类学学报,1995 14(3):219-226.
[7]高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析的考古学实验研究.北京:科学出版社,2008.
[8]谢礼晔.微痕分析在磨制石器功能研究中的初步尝试——二里头遗址石斧和石刀的微痕分析[D].北京:中国社会科学院研究生院,2005.张晓凌.石器功能与人类适应行为:虎头梁遗址石制品微痕分析[D].北京:中国社会科学院古脊椎动物与古人类研究所,2009.
[1]黑曜岩百度百科http://baike.baidu.com/view/139747.htm?fr=ala0
[2]陈全家,赵海龙,王春雪.抚松新屯子西山旧石器遗址试掘报告[J].人类学学报,2009 28(2):147-153.
[3]陈全家,赵海龙,霍东峰.和龙市柳洞旧石器地点发现的石制品研究[J].华夏考古,2005(3):51-59.
[4]陈全家,王春雪,方启,等.吉林和龙柳洞2004年发现的旧石器[J].人类学学报,2006 25(3):208-219.
[1]陈全家,张乐.吉林延边珲春北山发现的旧石器[J].人类学学报,2004 23(2):138-145.
[2]陈全家,王春雪,方启,等.延边地区和龙石人沟发现的旧石器[J].人类学学报,2006 25(2):106-114.
[3]陈全家,方启,李霞,等.吉林和龙青头旧石器遗址的新发现及初步研究[J].考古与文物,2008(2):3-9.
[4]陈全家,赵海龙,方启,等.安图沙金沟旧石器遗址发现的石器研究[J].华夏考古,2008(4):51-58.
[5]李霞.和龙崇善大洞旧石器遗址(07年)发掘的石器研究[D].长春:吉林大学,2008.
[1]Adams J L.Ground stone analysis:a technological approach[M].The University of Utah Press,2002.
[2]Hayden B.Lithic use-wear analysis[M].Academic Press.Inc.,1979.
[3]Hurcombe L M.Use wear analysis and obsidian:theory,experiments and results [M].Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 4.J.R.Collis Publications Department of Archaeology and Prehistory University of Sheffield,1992.
[4]Keeley L H.Experimental determination of stone tool uses: a microwear analysis[M].Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1980.
[5]Keeley L H.Technique and methodology in microwear studies:a critical review [J]. World Archaeology 1974 (5):323-336.
[6]Mandujano C et al. Provenance and use wear of pre-Hispanic obsidian scrapers[J].Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 2002(Vol. 252), No. 1:81-85.
[7]Odell G H.La Harpe’s post:a tale of Frech-Wichita contact on the Easterm plains[M].The University of Alabama Press,2002.
[8]Odell G H.Lithic analysis[M].New York:Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2004.
[9]Odell G H.Micro-wear in perspective: a sympathetic response to Lawrence H. Keeley[J]. World Archaeology, 1975 (7):226-240.
[10]Odell G H.Stone tool research at the end of the millennium: classification, function,and behavior[J].Journal of Archaeological Research, 2001(9):45-100.
[11]Odell G H.Stone tools and mobility in the Illinois valley:from hunter- gatherer camps to agricultural villages[M].International Monographs in Prehistory, 1996.
[12]Odell G H.Stone tools: theoretical insights into human prehistory[M].New York:Plenum Press,1996.
[13]Odell G H.The mechanics of use-breakage of stone tools: some testablehypotheses[J].Journal of Field Archaeology,1981(8):197-209.
[14]Schick K D and Toth N.Making silent stones speak:human evolution and the dawn of technology[M].New York:Simon and Schuster,1993.
[15]Semenov S A.Prehistoric technology:an experimental study of the oldest tools and artefacts from traces of manufacture and wear[M].Bath:Adams & Dart,1964.
[16]Shen C,Keates S G.Current research in Chinese Pleistocene archaeology[M]. BAR International Series 1179,2003.
[17]Shen C.The lithic production system of the princess point complex during the transition to agriculture in Southwestern Ontario,Canada[M].BAR International Series 991,2001.
[18]The interpretative possibilities of microwear studies[C].Proceedings of the International Conference on Lithic Use-wear Analysis, 15th-17th February 1989 in Uppsala, Sweden. Societas Archaeologica Uppsala,1990.
[19]Vaughan P C.Use-wear analysis of flaked stone tools [M].Tucson, Arizona:The University of Arizona Press,1985.
[1]G.H.Odell.微痕分析发展的历程[M]//高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析的考古学实验研究.北京:科学出版社,2008:ⅶ.
[2]陈淳,沈辰,陈万勇,等.小长梁石工业研究[J].人类学学报,2002 21(1):23-40.
[3]陈淳.东亚与北美细石叶遗存古环境[J].第四纪研究,1994 14(4):369-376.
[4]陈淳.旧石器时代考古学的昨天与今天[J].第四纪研究,1999 19(2):148-154.
[5]陈淳.考古学的理论与研究[M].上海:学林出版社,2003.
[6]陈淳.谈旧石器打制实验[J].人类学学报,1993 12(4):398-403.
[7]陈福友,曹明明,关莹,等.木质加工对象实验与微痕分析报告[M]//高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析的考古学实验研究.北京:科学出版社,2008:41-60.
[8]陈虹,沈辰.石器研究中“操作链”的概念、内涵及应用[J].人类学学报,2009 28(2):331-341.
[9]陈全家,方启,李霞,等.吉林和龙青头旧石器遗址的新发现及初步研究[J].考古与文物,2008(2):3-9.
[10]陈全家,李有骞,赵海龙,等.吉林辉南邵家店发现的旧石器[J].北方文物,2006(1):1-7.
[11]陈全家,王春雪,方启,等.吉林和龙柳洞2004年发现的旧石器[J].人类学学报,2006 25(3):208-219.
[12]陈全家,王春雪,方启,等.延边地区和龙石人沟发现的旧石器[J].人类学学报,2006 25(2):106-114.
[13]陈全家,张乐.吉林延边珲春北山发现的旧石器[J].人类学学报,2004 23(2):138-145.
[14]陈全家,赵海龙,方启,等.安图沙金沟旧石器遗址发现的石器研究[J].华夏考古,2008(4):51-58.
[15]陈全家,赵海龙,霍东峰.和龙市柳洞旧石器地点发现的石制品研究[J].华夏考古,2005(3):51-59.
[16]陈全家,赵海龙,王春雪.抚松新屯子西山旧石器遗址试掘报告[J].人类学学报,2009 28(2):147-153.
[17]冯恩学.俄国东西伯利亚与远东考古[M].长春:吉林大学出版社,2002.
[18]盖培,卫奇.虎头梁旧石器时代晚期遗址的发现[J].古脊椎动物与古人类,1977 15(4):287-300.
[19]高星,裴树文.中国古人类石器技术与生存模式的考古学阐释[J].第四纪研究,2006 26(4):504-513.
[20]高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析在我国的应用:沉思与前瞻[N].中国文物报,2007-12-21(7),2008-01-18(7).
[21]高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析在中国考古学中的应用与发展前景[M]//高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析的考古学实验研究.北京:科学出版社,2008:1-22.
[22]高星.解析周口店第15地点古人类的技术与行为[C]//邓涛,王原.第八届中国古脊椎动物学学术年会论文集.北京:海洋出版社,2001:183-196.
[23]高星.旧石器时代考古学[J].化石,2002(4):2-7.
[24]高星.中国旧石器时代考古学的昨天、今天与明天[M]//高星,侯亚梅.中国科学院古脊椎动物与古人类研究所20世纪旧石器时代考古学研究.北京:文物出版社,2002:3-9.
[25]顾玉才.海城仙人洞出土钻器的实验研究[J].人类学学报,1995 14(3):219-226.
[26]侯亚梅.考古标本微磨痕初步研究[J].人类学学报,1992 11(4):354-361.
[27]侯亚梅.石制品微痕分析的实验研究[J].人类学学报,1992 11(3):202-215.
[28]黄蕴平.沂源上崖洞石制品的研究[J].人类学学报,1994 13(1):1-11.
[29]李卫东.燧石尖状器实验研究[J].考古学研究,文物出版社,1992:91-123.
[30]李霞.和龙崇善大洞旧石器遗址(07年)发掘的石器研究[D].长春:吉林大学,2008.
[31]曲彤丽,梅惠杰,张双权.骨质加工对象与微痕分析报告[M]//高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析的考古学实验研究.北京:科学出版社,2008:61-81.
[32]沈辰,陈淳.微痕研究(低倍法)的探索与实践——兼谈小长梁遗址石制品的微痕观察[J].考古,2001(7):62-73.
[33]沈辰.山东旧石器晚期石器工业传统的多样性和复杂性——类型学分析[J].东方考古,2004第一集:1-22.
[34]沈辰.石器微痕分析的考古学实验:理论、方法与运用[M]//高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析的考古学实验研究.北京:科学出版社,2008:23-40.
[35]沈辰.细石器工艺、细石器传统及山东细石器研究的初步认识[C]//邓聪,陈星灿.桃李成蹊集——庆祝安志敏先生八十寿辰.香港:香港中文大学中国考古艺术中心,2004:45-56.
[36]宋兆麟.投石器和流星索[J].史前研究,1984(2):98-108.
[37]童恩正.石器的微痕研究[J].史前研究,1983(2):151-158.
[38]王健,王向前,陈哲英.下川文化——山西下川遗址调查报告[J].考古学报,1978(3):259-288.
[39]王向前,丁建平,陶富海.山西蒲县薛关细石器[J].人类学学报,1983 2(2):162-171.
[40]王小庆.石器使用痕迹显微观察的研究[C]//中国社会科学院考古研究所.21世纪中国考古学与世界考古学:纪念中国社会科学院考古研究所成立50周年大会暨21世纪中国考古学与世界考古学国际学术研讨会论文集.北京:中国社会科学出版社,2002:552-568.
[41]王小庆.石器使用痕迹显微观察的研究[M].北京:文物出版社,2008.
[42]王小庆.赵宝沟遗址出土细石叶的微痕研究——兼论赵宝沟文化的生业形态[C]//邓聪,陈星灿.桃李成蹊集——庆祝安志敏先生八十寿辰.香港:香港中文大学中国考古艺术中心,2004:112-120.
[43]王幼平.雕刻器实验研究[J].考古学研究,文物出版社,1992:65-90.
[44]王幼平.石器研究——旧石器时代考古方法初探[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[45]王幼平.试论环境与华北晚期旧石器文化[C]//北京大学中国传统文化研究中心.北京大学百年国学文粹(考古卷).北京:北京大学出版社,1998:650-658.
[46]王幼平.中国远古人类文化的源流[M].北京:科学出版社,2005.
[47]卫奇.石制品的观察格式探讨[C]//邓涛,王原.第八届中国古脊椎动物学学术年会论文集.北京:海洋出版社,2001:209-218.
[48]夏竞峰.燧石刮削器的微痕观察[J].中国历史博物馆馆刊,1995(1):22-42.
[49]夏正楷.第四纪环境学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1997.
[50]谢飞,李珺,刘连强.泥河湾旧石器文化[M].石家庄:花山文艺出版社,2006.
[51]谢礼晔,李意愿,王强,等.钻孔运动方式实验与微痕分析报告[M]//高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析的考古学实验研究.北京:科学出版社,2008:107-144.
[52]谢礼晔.微痕分析在磨制石器功能研究中的初步尝试——二里头遗址石斧和石刀的微痕分析[D].北京:中国社会科学院研究生院,2005.
[53]尤玉柱.河北小长梁旧石器遗址的新材料及其时代问题[J].史前研究,1983(1):46-50.
[54]张森水.近20年来中国旧石器考古学的进展与思考[J].第四纪研究,2002 22(1):11-19.
[55]张森水.马鞍山旧石器遗址试掘报告[J].人类学学报,1988 7(1):64-74.
[56]张森水.述评《石器使用的试验鉴定——微磨损分析》一书[J].人类学学报,1986 5(4):392-395.
[57]张晓凌,王春雪,张乐,等.刮削运动方式实验与微痕分析报告[M]//高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析的考古学实验研究.北京:科学出版社,2008:83-106.
[58]张晓凌.丁村77:01地点和下川遗址细石器器型初探[J].文物春秋,2003(1):1-11.
[59]张晓凌.石器功能与人类适应行为:虎头梁遗址石制品微痕分析[D].北京:中国社会科学院古脊椎动物与古人类研究所,2009.
[60]赵静芳,宋艳花,陈虹,等.石器捆绑实验与微痕分析报告[M]//高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析的考古学实验研究.北京:科学出版社,2008:145-176.
[2] 2006年、2007年先生两次勉励笔者。
[1]高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析在中国考古学中的应用与发展前景[M]//高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析的考古学实验研究.北京:科学出版社,2008:1.
[2] Semenov S A.Prehistoric technology:an experimental study of the oldest tools and artefacts from traces of manufacture and wear[M].Bath:Adams & Dart,1964.
[3]高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析在我国的应用:沉思与前瞻[N].中国文物报,2007-12-21(7),2008-01-18(7).
[4]高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析在中国考古学中的应用与发展前景[M]//高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析的考古学实验研究.北京:科学出版社,2008:6.
[1] Semenov S A.Prehistoric technology:an experimental study of the oldest tools and artefacts from traces of manufacture and wear[M].Bath:Adams & Dart,1964.
[2] Keeley L H.Technique and methodology in microwear studies:a critical review [J]. World Archaeology, 1974 (5):323-326.
[3]埃塞俄比亚的制革工人用黑曜岩制作的刮刀对皮革进行加工。
[1] Hurcombe L M.Use wear analysis and obsidian:theory,experiments and results[M].Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 4.J.R.Collis Publications Department of Archaeology and Prehistory University of Sheffield,1992:22-23.
[2]张晓凌.石器功能与人类适应行为:虎头梁遗址石制品微痕分析[D].北京:中国社会科学院古脊椎动物与古人类研究所,2009:22.
[3] Hurcombe L M.Use wear analysis and obsidian:theory,experiments and results[M].Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 4.J.R.Collis Publications Department of Archaeology and Prehistory University of Sheffield,1992.
[4] Mandujano C et al. Provenance and use wear of pre-Hispanic obsidian scrapers[J].Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 2002(Vol. 252), No. 1:81-85.
[5]童恩正.石器的微痕研究[J].史前研究,1983(2):151-158.张森水.述评《石器使用的试验鉴定——微磨损分析》一书[J].人类学学报,1986 5(4):392-395.
[1]侯亚梅.石制品微痕分析的实验研究[J].人类学学报,1992 11(3):202-215.
[2]黄蕴平.沂源上崖洞石制品的研究[J].人类学学报,1994 13(1):1-11.
[3]夏竞峰.燧石刮削器的微痕观察[J].中国历史博物馆馆刊,1995(1):22-42.
[4]王幼平.雕刻器实验研究[J].考古学研究,文物出版社,1992:65-90.
[5]李卫东.燧石尖状器实验研究[J].考古学研究,文物出版社,1992:91-123.
[6]顾玉才.海城仙人洞出土钻器的实验研究[J].人类学学报,1995 14(3):219-226.
[7]高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析的考古学实验研究.北京:科学出版社,2008.
[8]谢礼晔.微痕分析在磨制石器功能研究中的初步尝试——二里头遗址石斧和石刀的微痕分析[D].北京:中国社会科学院研究生院,2005.张晓凌.石器功能与人类适应行为:虎头梁遗址石制品微痕分析[D].北京:中国社会科学院古脊椎动物与古人类研究所,2009.
[1]黑曜岩百度百科http://baike.baidu.com/view/139747.htm?fr=ala0
[2]陈全家,赵海龙,王春雪.抚松新屯子西山旧石器遗址试掘报告[J].人类学学报,2009 28(2):147-153.
[3]陈全家,赵海龙,霍东峰.和龙市柳洞旧石器地点发现的石制品研究[J].华夏考古,2005(3):51-59.
[4]陈全家,王春雪,方启,等.吉林和龙柳洞2004年发现的旧石器[J].人类学学报,2006 25(3):208-219.
[1]陈全家,张乐.吉林延边珲春北山发现的旧石器[J].人类学学报,2004 23(2):138-145.
[2]陈全家,王春雪,方启,等.延边地区和龙石人沟发现的旧石器[J].人类学学报,2006 25(2):106-114.
[3]陈全家,方启,李霞,等.吉林和龙青头旧石器遗址的新发现及初步研究[J].考古与文物,2008(2):3-9.
[4]陈全家,赵海龙,方启,等.安图沙金沟旧石器遗址发现的石器研究[J].华夏考古,2008(4):51-58.
[5]李霞.和龙崇善大洞旧石器遗址(07年)发掘的石器研究[D].长春:吉林大学,2008.
[1]Adams J L.Ground stone analysis:a technological approach[M].The University of Utah Press,2002.
[2]Hayden B.Lithic use-wear analysis[M].Academic Press.Inc.,1979.
[3]Hurcombe L M.Use wear analysis and obsidian:theory,experiments and results [M].Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 4.J.R.Collis Publications Department of Archaeology and Prehistory University of Sheffield,1992.
[4]Keeley L H.Experimental determination of stone tool uses: a microwear analysis[M].Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1980.
[5]Keeley L H.Technique and methodology in microwear studies:a critical review [J]. World Archaeology 1974 (5):323-336.
[6]Mandujano C et al. Provenance and use wear of pre-Hispanic obsidian scrapers[J].Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 2002(Vol. 252), No. 1:81-85.
[7]Odell G H.La Harpe’s post:a tale of Frech-Wichita contact on the Easterm plains[M].The University of Alabama Press,2002.
[8]Odell G H.Lithic analysis[M].New York:Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2004.
[9]Odell G H.Micro-wear in perspective: a sympathetic response to Lawrence H. Keeley[J]. World Archaeology, 1975 (7):226-240.
[10]Odell G H.Stone tool research at the end of the millennium: classification, function,and behavior[J].Journal of Archaeological Research, 2001(9):45-100.
[11]Odell G H.Stone tools and mobility in the Illinois valley:from hunter- gatherer camps to agricultural villages[M].International Monographs in Prehistory, 1996.
[12]Odell G H.Stone tools: theoretical insights into human prehistory[M].New York:Plenum Press,1996.
[13]Odell G H.The mechanics of use-breakage of stone tools: some testablehypotheses[J].Journal of Field Archaeology,1981(8):197-209.
[14]Schick K D and Toth N.Making silent stones speak:human evolution and the dawn of technology[M].New York:Simon and Schuster,1993.
[15]Semenov S A.Prehistoric technology:an experimental study of the oldest tools and artefacts from traces of manufacture and wear[M].Bath:Adams & Dart,1964.
[16]Shen C,Keates S G.Current research in Chinese Pleistocene archaeology[M]. BAR International Series 1179,2003.
[17]Shen C.The lithic production system of the princess point complex during the transition to agriculture in Southwestern Ontario,Canada[M].BAR International Series 991,2001.
[18]The interpretative possibilities of microwear studies[C].Proceedings of the International Conference on Lithic Use-wear Analysis, 15th-17th February 1989 in Uppsala, Sweden. Societas Archaeologica Uppsala,1990.
[19]Vaughan P C.Use-wear analysis of flaked stone tools [M].Tucson, Arizona:The University of Arizona Press,1985.
[1]G.H.Odell.微痕分析发展的历程[M]//高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析的考古学实验研究.北京:科学出版社,2008:ⅶ.
[2]陈淳,沈辰,陈万勇,等.小长梁石工业研究[J].人类学学报,2002 21(1):23-40.
[3]陈淳.东亚与北美细石叶遗存古环境[J].第四纪研究,1994 14(4):369-376.
[4]陈淳.旧石器时代考古学的昨天与今天[J].第四纪研究,1999 19(2):148-154.
[5]陈淳.考古学的理论与研究[M].上海:学林出版社,2003.
[6]陈淳.谈旧石器打制实验[J].人类学学报,1993 12(4):398-403.
[7]陈福友,曹明明,关莹,等.木质加工对象实验与微痕分析报告[M]//高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析的考古学实验研究.北京:科学出版社,2008:41-60.
[8]陈虹,沈辰.石器研究中“操作链”的概念、内涵及应用[J].人类学学报,2009 28(2):331-341.
[9]陈全家,方启,李霞,等.吉林和龙青头旧石器遗址的新发现及初步研究[J].考古与文物,2008(2):3-9.
[10]陈全家,李有骞,赵海龙,等.吉林辉南邵家店发现的旧石器[J].北方文物,2006(1):1-7.
[11]陈全家,王春雪,方启,等.吉林和龙柳洞2004年发现的旧石器[J].人类学学报,2006 25(3):208-219.
[12]陈全家,王春雪,方启,等.延边地区和龙石人沟发现的旧石器[J].人类学学报,2006 25(2):106-114.
[13]陈全家,张乐.吉林延边珲春北山发现的旧石器[J].人类学学报,2004 23(2):138-145.
[14]陈全家,赵海龙,方启,等.安图沙金沟旧石器遗址发现的石器研究[J].华夏考古,2008(4):51-58.
[15]陈全家,赵海龙,霍东峰.和龙市柳洞旧石器地点发现的石制品研究[J].华夏考古,2005(3):51-59.
[16]陈全家,赵海龙,王春雪.抚松新屯子西山旧石器遗址试掘报告[J].人类学学报,2009 28(2):147-153.
[17]冯恩学.俄国东西伯利亚与远东考古[M].长春:吉林大学出版社,2002.
[18]盖培,卫奇.虎头梁旧石器时代晚期遗址的发现[J].古脊椎动物与古人类,1977 15(4):287-300.
[19]高星,裴树文.中国古人类石器技术与生存模式的考古学阐释[J].第四纪研究,2006 26(4):504-513.
[20]高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析在我国的应用:沉思与前瞻[N].中国文物报,2007-12-21(7),2008-01-18(7).
[21]高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析在中国考古学中的应用与发展前景[M]//高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析的考古学实验研究.北京:科学出版社,2008:1-22.
[22]高星.解析周口店第15地点古人类的技术与行为[C]//邓涛,王原.第八届中国古脊椎动物学学术年会论文集.北京:海洋出版社,2001:183-196.
[23]高星.旧石器时代考古学[J].化石,2002(4):2-7.
[24]高星.中国旧石器时代考古学的昨天、今天与明天[M]//高星,侯亚梅.中国科学院古脊椎动物与古人类研究所20世纪旧石器时代考古学研究.北京:文物出版社,2002:3-9.
[25]顾玉才.海城仙人洞出土钻器的实验研究[J].人类学学报,1995 14(3):219-226.
[26]侯亚梅.考古标本微磨痕初步研究[J].人类学学报,1992 11(4):354-361.
[27]侯亚梅.石制品微痕分析的实验研究[J].人类学学报,1992 11(3):202-215.
[28]黄蕴平.沂源上崖洞石制品的研究[J].人类学学报,1994 13(1):1-11.
[29]李卫东.燧石尖状器实验研究[J].考古学研究,文物出版社,1992:91-123.
[30]李霞.和龙崇善大洞旧石器遗址(07年)发掘的石器研究[D].长春:吉林大学,2008.
[31]曲彤丽,梅惠杰,张双权.骨质加工对象与微痕分析报告[M]//高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析的考古学实验研究.北京:科学出版社,2008:61-81.
[32]沈辰,陈淳.微痕研究(低倍法)的探索与实践——兼谈小长梁遗址石制品的微痕观察[J].考古,2001(7):62-73.
[33]沈辰.山东旧石器晚期石器工业传统的多样性和复杂性——类型学分析[J].东方考古,2004第一集:1-22.
[34]沈辰.石器微痕分析的考古学实验:理论、方法与运用[M]//高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析的考古学实验研究.北京:科学出版社,2008:23-40.
[35]沈辰.细石器工艺、细石器传统及山东细石器研究的初步认识[C]//邓聪,陈星灿.桃李成蹊集——庆祝安志敏先生八十寿辰.香港:香港中文大学中国考古艺术中心,2004:45-56.
[36]宋兆麟.投石器和流星索[J].史前研究,1984(2):98-108.
[37]童恩正.石器的微痕研究[J].史前研究,1983(2):151-158.
[38]王健,王向前,陈哲英.下川文化——山西下川遗址调查报告[J].考古学报,1978(3):259-288.
[39]王向前,丁建平,陶富海.山西蒲县薛关细石器[J].人类学学报,1983 2(2):162-171.
[40]王小庆.石器使用痕迹显微观察的研究[C]//中国社会科学院考古研究所.21世纪中国考古学与世界考古学:纪念中国社会科学院考古研究所成立50周年大会暨21世纪中国考古学与世界考古学国际学术研讨会论文集.北京:中国社会科学出版社,2002:552-568.
[41]王小庆.石器使用痕迹显微观察的研究[M].北京:文物出版社,2008.
[42]王小庆.赵宝沟遗址出土细石叶的微痕研究——兼论赵宝沟文化的生业形态[C]//邓聪,陈星灿.桃李成蹊集——庆祝安志敏先生八十寿辰.香港:香港中文大学中国考古艺术中心,2004:112-120.
[43]王幼平.雕刻器实验研究[J].考古学研究,文物出版社,1992:65-90.
[44]王幼平.石器研究——旧石器时代考古方法初探[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[45]王幼平.试论环境与华北晚期旧石器文化[C]//北京大学中国传统文化研究中心.北京大学百年国学文粹(考古卷).北京:北京大学出版社,1998:650-658.
[46]王幼平.中国远古人类文化的源流[M].北京:科学出版社,2005.
[47]卫奇.石制品的观察格式探讨[C]//邓涛,王原.第八届中国古脊椎动物学学术年会论文集.北京:海洋出版社,2001:209-218.
[48]夏竞峰.燧石刮削器的微痕观察[J].中国历史博物馆馆刊,1995(1):22-42.
[49]夏正楷.第四纪环境学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1997.
[50]谢飞,李珺,刘连强.泥河湾旧石器文化[M].石家庄:花山文艺出版社,2006.
[51]谢礼晔,李意愿,王强,等.钻孔运动方式实验与微痕分析报告[M]//高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析的考古学实验研究.北京:科学出版社,2008:107-144.
[52]谢礼晔.微痕分析在磨制石器功能研究中的初步尝试——二里头遗址石斧和石刀的微痕分析[D].北京:中国社会科学院研究生院,2005.
[53]尤玉柱.河北小长梁旧石器遗址的新材料及其时代问题[J].史前研究,1983(1):46-50.
[54]张森水.近20年来中国旧石器考古学的进展与思考[J].第四纪研究,2002 22(1):11-19.
[55]张森水.马鞍山旧石器遗址试掘报告[J].人类学学报,1988 7(1):64-74.
[56]张森水.述评《石器使用的试验鉴定——微磨损分析》一书[J].人类学学报,1986 5(4):392-395.
[57]张晓凌,王春雪,张乐,等.刮削运动方式实验与微痕分析报告[M]//高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析的考古学实验研究.北京:科学出版社,2008:83-106.
[58]张晓凌.丁村77:01地点和下川遗址细石器器型初探[J].文物春秋,2003(1):1-11.
[59]张晓凌.石器功能与人类适应行为:虎头梁遗址石制品微痕分析[D].北京:中国社会科学院古脊椎动物与古人类研究所,2009.
[60]赵静芳,宋艳花,陈虹,等.石器捆绑实验与微痕分析报告[M]//高星,沈辰.石器微痕分析的考古学实验研究.北京:科学出版社,2008:145-176.