杨林南山遗址石器工业研究
|
摘要
杨林南山遗址位于黑龙江省海林市西南30千米。北距海浪河约1千米。在遗址的地表及地层中共发现石器97件。这些石器的发现不仅填补了小兴安岭和张广才岭一带旧石器考古的空白,同时也对黑龙江省及东北亚的旧石器时代考古提供了一份全新的资料。
笔者运用类型学、数量统计和操作链等方法对以上的发现进行了初步的整理和研究。
石器原料以角岩为主,其次是板岩,还有少量的黑耀岩、凝灰岩和安山岩。种类包括有石核、剥片、断块和工具等,所见石器类型反映了较为完整的石器加工技术链条和相对完整的工业特征。石器以中小型石器为主,在工具中以大中型为主,石器和工具都以较轻型为主。剥片技术中锤击法是最基本的剥片方法,在这一技术中存在着明显的对石核的预制修理,以剥取石叶为特征,包括扁体石叶石核和圆体石叶石核两种大的类型,前者为对向剥片,显示了勒瓦娄洼技术的剥片风格,后者为单向剥片。工具中不仅见有大型的砾石工具,还见有用软锤修理加工的矛形器,以及正向修理的尖刃器,其中在该遗址上发现的3件矛形器充分显示了从硬锤到软锤的制作过程,是石器制作工艺流程研究中难得的重要资料。
杨林南山遗址是一处见有包含石叶技术、砾石工具和软锤修理技术为其基本特征的遗存,周边其他地区未见到一处同时含有以上三种要素共生的地点,这可能反映了诸遗址彼此之间的时代特征。整体相比较而言,杨林南山遗址与位于黑龙江上游俄罗斯境内的奥西诺夫卡文化稍显接近,主要表现为石叶技术和砾石工具这二者的结合。在通过与周边其他地区相关遗存的比较后,大致初步推测杨林南山遗址的年代在约2.0-5.0万年之间。
In May 2008, the Yanglinnanshan Site was found in the archeological investigations targeted at Paleolithic age along the Hailang River Watershed attached to the Mudan River by the joint archeological excavation team between the Heilongjiang Research Institute of Cultural Heritage and Archeology and the Frontier Archeology Research Center of Jinlin Univeristy. This site is located 30 km southwest to Hailin City, Heilongjiang Province, about 1 km to the Haiang River in the North, 500 m to the Yanglin Village, about 1 km to the Yanglinxishan site in the west, and 500 m to the Zhangming Village in the southeast. The site is at latitude 44°22′41.2″north and longitude 129°05′43.3″east. In total, 97 pieces of stonewares were found from the ground surface and the stratum, 13 of which were found from the stratum with the rest collected from the ground surface. Findings of these stone wares not only filled the gap of the Paleolithic archeology along the Xiaoxingan Mountains and the Zhangguangcai Mountains, but provided new information to the Paleolithic archeology in Heilongjiang Province and Northeast Asia.
The author conducted a preliminary research into the findings by using typology, statistics, and fabrication techniques, and so on, with the conclusions as follows: Hornstone was used as raw materials for stone ware, making up 50.49% of the total, followed by slate, accounting for 21.36%, obsidian, tuff, and andesite, respectively accounting for 6.8%, 5.83%, and 3.88%, rhyoliteporphyry, quartzite, crystal, felsite, etc shared the rest.
The stone wares included cores, flakes, broken stones, and tools. The number of cores accounted for 15.5%, with a length of 19 to 120 mm, a width of 43 to 137 mm, a depth of 27 to 118 mm, an average length of 61 mm, an average width of 87 mm, an average depth of 72 mm and an average weight of 422 g. The core types included single platform core with single working facet, double platform core with single working facet, triple platform core with double working facets, polyhedral platform core with double working facets, and core remnants. Flakes accounted for 20.6% of the total stone wares, with complete flakes and broken ones. The complete flakes had a length of 35 to 119 mm, a width of 17 to 181 mm, a depth of 5 to 28 mm, a weight of 1.1 to 318 g, with an average length of 64mm, an average width of 62 mm, an average depth of 15 mm, and an average weight of 92 g, mainly medium size. The broken flakes had two types: one held partial platform, the other contained no platform. The former one had an average length, width, depth and weight of 38 mm, 25 mm, 13 mm, and 25 g. The later one had an average length, width, depth, and weight of 44 mm, 43 mm, 14 mm, and 28 g. The blades accounted for 8.2% of total stone wares, including near-ended blades, mid-section blades and far-ended blades. The broken stones accounted for 39.2%, in irregular shapes, with an average length, width, depth, and weight of 57.43 mm, 42.71 mm, 19.76 mm and 115.27 g. The stone tools accounted for 17.6%, including stone hammers of the primary category, choppers, spear-shaped wares, and pointed-edge wares of the secondary and tertiary categories. All these stone wares reflected a completed fabrication techniques and a relatively completed industry feature.
Stone wares were mainly in small and medium size, with an average length, width, and depth of 55 mm, 46 mm, and 52 mm. One stone ware was in micro size, 42 in small size, 30 in medium size, 22 in large size and 2 in huge size. Among the secondary and the tertiary categories, 6 large and medium size tools, and 2 small size tools were founded, which reflected that the large and medium size tools were the majority. Most stone wares and tools were light, with an average weight of 168 g, of which 19 was light, 58 relatively light, 17 relatively heavy .
Percussion was a basic technique during decrotification in this site. It showed distinct preparation recondition toward cores to get blades, including flat flack cores and round flack cores. The former one carried the Levallois style, and the later used single direction flaking techniques. Not only large gravel tools, but spear-shaped tools trimmed by“soft”hammer, pointed-edge wares were also found in the large tools, of which, the 3 spear-shaped tools found in this site showed the technique development from“hard”hammer to“soft”hammer, which provided critical data to research stone ware fabrication techniques.
The sites yielding either blade techniques, gravel tools, or“soft”hammer conditioning techniques were found in the neighboring areas of the Yangnanshan Site, but no sites like the Yanglinnanshan Site yielded all the three techniques, it may reflect some age linkages among sites. Therefore, findings of the Yanglinnanshan site and the archeological investigations in the Hailang River Watershed proved regional characteristics compared to the historical findings in the Northeast China and Northeast Asia. However, more data and followed-up research are required to find out the linkage between the stone ware context in the Yanglinnanshan site and the other Paleolithic industries. The Yanglinnanshan site shared slight similarities with the Oxinovka culture in Russia (located in the upper stream of Heilongjiang River), reflecting the combination of the blade techniques and the gravel tools. Comparing with the related sites in nearby areas, it was initially presumed that the age of the Yanglinnanshan site was between 50,000– 20,000 B.C.
笔者运用类型学、数量统计和操作链等方法对以上的发现进行了初步的整理和研究。
石器原料以角岩为主,其次是板岩,还有少量的黑耀岩、凝灰岩和安山岩。种类包括有石核、剥片、断块和工具等,所见石器类型反映了较为完整的石器加工技术链条和相对完整的工业特征。石器以中小型石器为主,在工具中以大中型为主,石器和工具都以较轻型为主。剥片技术中锤击法是最基本的剥片方法,在这一技术中存在着明显的对石核的预制修理,以剥取石叶为特征,包括扁体石叶石核和圆体石叶石核两种大的类型,前者为对向剥片,显示了勒瓦娄洼技术的剥片风格,后者为单向剥片。工具中不仅见有大型的砾石工具,还见有用软锤修理加工的矛形器,以及正向修理的尖刃器,其中在该遗址上发现的3件矛形器充分显示了从硬锤到软锤的制作过程,是石器制作工艺流程研究中难得的重要资料。
杨林南山遗址是一处见有包含石叶技术、砾石工具和软锤修理技术为其基本特征的遗存,周边其他地区未见到一处同时含有以上三种要素共生的地点,这可能反映了诸遗址彼此之间的时代特征。整体相比较而言,杨林南山遗址与位于黑龙江上游俄罗斯境内的奥西诺夫卡文化稍显接近,主要表现为石叶技术和砾石工具这二者的结合。在通过与周边其他地区相关遗存的比较后,大致初步推测杨林南山遗址的年代在约2.0-5.0万年之间。
In May 2008, the Yanglinnanshan Site was found in the archeological investigations targeted at Paleolithic age along the Hailang River Watershed attached to the Mudan River by the joint archeological excavation team between the Heilongjiang Research Institute of Cultural Heritage and Archeology and the Frontier Archeology Research Center of Jinlin Univeristy. This site is located 30 km southwest to Hailin City, Heilongjiang Province, about 1 km to the Haiang River in the North, 500 m to the Yanglin Village, about 1 km to the Yanglinxishan site in the west, and 500 m to the Zhangming Village in the southeast. The site is at latitude 44°22′41.2″north and longitude 129°05′43.3″east. In total, 97 pieces of stonewares were found from the ground surface and the stratum, 13 of which were found from the stratum with the rest collected from the ground surface. Findings of these stone wares not only filled the gap of the Paleolithic archeology along the Xiaoxingan Mountains and the Zhangguangcai Mountains, but provided new information to the Paleolithic archeology in Heilongjiang Province and Northeast Asia.
The author conducted a preliminary research into the findings by using typology, statistics, and fabrication techniques, and so on, with the conclusions as follows: Hornstone was used as raw materials for stone ware, making up 50.49% of the total, followed by slate, accounting for 21.36%, obsidian, tuff, and andesite, respectively accounting for 6.8%, 5.83%, and 3.88%, rhyoliteporphyry, quartzite, crystal, felsite, etc shared the rest.
The stone wares included cores, flakes, broken stones, and tools. The number of cores accounted for 15.5%, with a length of 19 to 120 mm, a width of 43 to 137 mm, a depth of 27 to 118 mm, an average length of 61 mm, an average width of 87 mm, an average depth of 72 mm and an average weight of 422 g. The core types included single platform core with single working facet, double platform core with single working facet, triple platform core with double working facets, polyhedral platform core with double working facets, and core remnants. Flakes accounted for 20.6% of the total stone wares, with complete flakes and broken ones. The complete flakes had a length of 35 to 119 mm, a width of 17 to 181 mm, a depth of 5 to 28 mm, a weight of 1.1 to 318 g, with an average length of 64mm, an average width of 62 mm, an average depth of 15 mm, and an average weight of 92 g, mainly medium size. The broken flakes had two types: one held partial platform, the other contained no platform. The former one had an average length, width, depth and weight of 38 mm, 25 mm, 13 mm, and 25 g. The later one had an average length, width, depth, and weight of 44 mm, 43 mm, 14 mm, and 28 g. The blades accounted for 8.2% of total stone wares, including near-ended blades, mid-section blades and far-ended blades. The broken stones accounted for 39.2%, in irregular shapes, with an average length, width, depth, and weight of 57.43 mm, 42.71 mm, 19.76 mm and 115.27 g. The stone tools accounted for 17.6%, including stone hammers of the primary category, choppers, spear-shaped wares, and pointed-edge wares of the secondary and tertiary categories. All these stone wares reflected a completed fabrication techniques and a relatively completed industry feature.
Stone wares were mainly in small and medium size, with an average length, width, and depth of 55 mm, 46 mm, and 52 mm. One stone ware was in micro size, 42 in small size, 30 in medium size, 22 in large size and 2 in huge size. Among the secondary and the tertiary categories, 6 large and medium size tools, and 2 small size tools were founded, which reflected that the large and medium size tools were the majority. Most stone wares and tools were light, with an average weight of 168 g, of which 19 was light, 58 relatively light, 17 relatively heavy .
Percussion was a basic technique during decrotification in this site. It showed distinct preparation recondition toward cores to get blades, including flat flack cores and round flack cores. The former one carried the Levallois style, and the later used single direction flaking techniques. Not only large gravel tools, but spear-shaped tools trimmed by“soft”hammer, pointed-edge wares were also found in the large tools, of which, the 3 spear-shaped tools found in this site showed the technique development from“hard”hammer to“soft”hammer, which provided critical data to research stone ware fabrication techniques.
The sites yielding either blade techniques, gravel tools, or“soft”hammer conditioning techniques were found in the neighboring areas of the Yangnanshan Site, but no sites like the Yanglinnanshan Site yielded all the three techniques, it may reflect some age linkages among sites. Therefore, findings of the Yanglinnanshan site and the archeological investigations in the Hailang River Watershed proved regional characteristics compared to the historical findings in the Northeast China and Northeast Asia. However, more data and followed-up research are required to find out the linkage between the stone ware context in the Yanglinnanshan site and the other Paleolithic industries. The Yanglinnanshan site shared slight similarities with the Oxinovka culture in Russia (located in the upper stream of Heilongjiang River), reflecting the combination of the blade techniques and the gravel tools. Comparing with the related sites in nearby areas, it was initially presumed that the age of the Yanglinnanshan site was between 50,000– 20,000 B.C.
引文
[1]陈全家.吉林镇赉丹岱大坎子发现的旧石器[J].北方文物, 2001(2): 1-7.
[2]张森水.中国旧石器文化[M].天津:天津科技出版社,1987:76.
[3]张森水.中国旧石器文化[M].天津:天津科技出版社,1987: 73.
[4]卫奇.石制品观察格式探讨.第八届中国古脊椎动物学学术年会论文集[C].北京:海洋出版社,2001,209-218.
[5]裴树文.泥河湾盆地大长梁旧石器地点.人类学学报.2002,21(2):116-125.
[6]高星.解析周口店第15地点古人类的技术与行为.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.
[7]陈全家,王春雪,方启,赵海龙.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.
[8]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.
[9]董祝安.大布苏的细石器[J].人类学学报,1989,8(1):49-57.
[10]陈全家.吉林镇赉丹岱大坎子发现的旧石器[J].北方文物, 2001(2): 1-7.
[11]于汇历,邹向前.黑龙江省龙江县缸窑地点的旧石器遗存[J].北方文物, 1992(3): 8-15.
[12]于汇历,田禾.黑龙江神泉旧石器时代晚期遗址石制品初步研究[C].考古学研究:七.北京:科学出版社,2008: 167-182.
[13]黄慰文,张镇洪,谬振棣,等.黑龙江昂昂溪的旧石器[J].人类学学报, 1984, 3(3): 234-243;高星.昂昂溪新发现的旧石器[J].人类学学报, 1988,7(1): 84-88.
[14]ДеревянкоА.П.ПалеолитДальнегоВостокаиКореи[M].Новосибирск:наука, 1983:33-38.
[15]张晓凌,于汇历,高星.黑龙江十八站遗址的新材料与年代[J].人类学学报, 2006,25(2): 115-128.
[16]КононенкоН.А.,КадзивараХ.,ГарковикА.В.,КороткийА.М. ,КононенкоА.В.,ЕкоямаЮ.,ТакахараЕ.Охотники-СобирательБассейнаЯпонскогоМорянарубежеплейстоцена-голоцена[M].Новосибирск:ИздательствоИнститутаархеологиииэтнографииСОРАН, 2003.
[17]黑龙江省文物管理委员会,哈尔滨市文化局,中国科学院古脊椎动物与古人类研究所东北考察队.阎家岗:旧石器时代晚期古营地遗址[M].北京:文物出版社,1987.
[18]陈全家,程新民.吉林市地区首次发现的旧石器[C]//东北亚旧石器文化.首尔:白山文化,1996年:247-257.
[19]陈全家,赵海龙,方启等,延边安图立新遗址发现的砾石石器[J],人类学学报,2008,27(1): 45-50.
[20]傅仁义.辽宁海城小孤山遗址的发掘和研究简史:深切缅怀贾老对小孤山遗址的关注[C]//天道酬勤桃李香:贾兰坡院士百年诞辰纪念文集.北京:科学技术出版社,2008:128-135.
[21]孙建中,王雨灼,姜鹏.吉林榆树周家油坊旧石器文化遗址[J].古脊椎动物与古人类,1981(3):281-291.
[2]张森水.中国旧石器文化[M].天津:天津科技出版社,1987:76.
[3]张森水.中国旧石器文化[M].天津:天津科技出版社,1987: 73.
[4]卫奇.石制品观察格式探讨.第八届中国古脊椎动物学学术年会论文集[C].北京:海洋出版社,2001,209-218.
[5]裴树文.泥河湾盆地大长梁旧石器地点.人类学学报.2002,21(2):116-125.
[6]高星.解析周口店第15地点古人类的技术与行为.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.
[7]陈全家,王春雪,方启,赵海龙.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.
[8]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.
[9]董祝安.大布苏的细石器[J].人类学学报,1989,8(1):49-57.
[10]陈全家.吉林镇赉丹岱大坎子发现的旧石器[J].北方文物, 2001(2): 1-7.
[11]于汇历,邹向前.黑龙江省龙江县缸窑地点的旧石器遗存[J].北方文物, 1992(3): 8-15.
[12]于汇历,田禾.黑龙江神泉旧石器时代晚期遗址石制品初步研究[C].考古学研究:七.北京:科学出版社,2008: 167-182.
[13]黄慰文,张镇洪,谬振棣,等.黑龙江昂昂溪的旧石器[J].人类学学报, 1984, 3(3): 234-243;高星.昂昂溪新发现的旧石器[J].人类学学报, 1988,7(1): 84-88.
[14]ДеревянкоА.П.ПалеолитДальнегоВостокаиКореи[M].Новосибирск:наука, 1983:33-38.
[15]张晓凌,于汇历,高星.黑龙江十八站遗址的新材料与年代[J].人类学学报, 2006,25(2): 115-128.
[16]КононенкоН.А.,КадзивараХ.,ГарковикА.В.,КороткийА.М. ,КононенкоА.В.,ЕкоямаЮ.,ТакахараЕ.Охотники-СобирательБассейнаЯпонскогоМорянарубежеплейстоцена-голоцена[M].Новосибирск:ИздательствоИнститутаархеологиииэтнографииСОРАН, 2003.
[17]黑龙江省文物管理委员会,哈尔滨市文化局,中国科学院古脊椎动物与古人类研究所东北考察队.阎家岗:旧石器时代晚期古营地遗址[M].北京:文物出版社,1987.
[18]陈全家,程新民.吉林市地区首次发现的旧石器[C]//东北亚旧石器文化.首尔:白山文化,1996年:247-257.
[19]陈全家,赵海龙,方启等,延边安图立新遗址发现的砾石石器[J],人类学学报,2008,27(1): 45-50.
[20]傅仁义.辽宁海城小孤山遗址的发掘和研究简史:深切缅怀贾老对小孤山遗址的关注[C]//天道酬勤桃李香:贾兰坡院士百年诞辰纪念文集.北京:科学技术出版社,2008:128-135.
[21]孙建中,王雨灼,姜鹏.吉林榆树周家油坊旧石器文化遗址[J].古脊椎动物与古人类,1981(3):281-291.