安徽水阳江流域官山遗址古人类的石器技术

doi:10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2025.0086

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

官山旧石器遗址于1987年首次调查发现。1993年和1996年，安徽省文物考古研究所先后两次对官山遗址开展考古发掘，发掘面积200 m²，共获得石制品222件，原料以中津河（水阳江一级支流）二级阶地底部砾石层中产出的石英砂岩砾石为主，少量为脉石英。石制品尺寸普遍较大，类型包括石核、石片、断块、直接使用标本和工具；石器除砍砸器和重型刮削器外，还包括一定数量的大型切割工具。使用硬锤直接剥片或修理是主要的石核剥片与加工方式，此外还存在极少量砸击品，石制品出自中国南方地区常见的网纹红土和均质红土中。根据长江中下游地区第四纪红土风化壳年代的相关研究结果，初步推断官山遗址古人类生存活动的时代为中更新世。官山旧石器遗址存在一定数量的大石核与大石片，以及以手镐等为代表的大型切割工具，对研究阿舍利技术在中国的扩散与变异具有重要的科学意义。

关键词: 水阳江流域, 官山遗址, 大型切割工具, 阿舍利, 中更新世

Abstract:

The Guanshan site is located in the Shuiyangjiang River Basin, Ningguo City, and was confirmed in 1987. Guanshan site is near another famous site, Maozhushan, where a pebble semicircle was recovered and believed by researchers to be an artificial structure. Two further excavations were conducted in 1993 and 1996 by the Institute of Archaeology and Cultural Relics of Anhui Province. A total of two hundred and twenty-two lithics were discovered on the surface and in the red clay deposit from a two-hundred-square-meter digging area. The raw materials of these lithics were mainly nearby quartzite river cobbles and quartz was less common. Most of the stone artifacts were medium to large in size. The assemblages of stone artifacts included cores, flakes, chunks, utilized materials, and stone tools. The majority of core platforms had cortex, and chopper cores were predominant. The situation is similar to the whole flakes, whose natural platforms were also predominant. All of the tools were large size and heavy-duty scrapers, choppers and picks were more common. There were also a few knives manufactured from large flakes. Most of the lithics were produced by stone hammer free-hand percussion, although bipolar products also existed. According to the stone artifacts buried in the homogeneous red clay and vermiculated red clay, it is reasonable to anticipate that early humans occupied the site during the Middle Pleistocene. Although the OSL dating work was also conducted at this site, unfortunately there was still no result because of lacking proper testing specimens. Several large flakes detached from large cores and some Acheulean large cutting tools especially picks were recognized at the site. The situation is somewhat similar to other Middle Pleistocene sites that are also buried in the Shuiyangjiang River Basin. All of these sites exhibited characteristics resembling Acheulean-like technology. The research also bears great significance for studying the diffusion and variation of Acheulean technology in China.

Key words: Shuiyangjiang River Basin, Guanshan site, large cutting tools, Acheulean, Middle Pleistocene

中图分类号:

K871

董哲, 战世佳. 安徽水阳江流域官山遗址古人类的石器技术[J]. 人类学学报, 2026, 45(05): 851-860.

DONG Zhe, ZHAN Shijia. Lithic technology of ancient hominins of the Guanshan site in Shuiyangjiang River Basin, Anhui Province[J]. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 2026, 45(05): 851-860.

图/表 6

图1 官山遗址及水阳江流域旧石器地点群地理位置分布示意图

Fig.1 Geographic location of Guanshan site and other localities in the Shuiyangjiang River Basin

图2 官山遗址地层剖面示意图

Fig.2 Profile of deposit in Guanshan site

表1 官山遗址调查采集和发掘出土石制品类型统计

Tab.1 Stone artifacts classes and frequencies discovered in Guanshan site

来源Sourcing→	调查采集Surface collection		发掘出土Excavation
类型Categories↓	数量Quantity(n)	百分比Percent	数量Quantity(n)	百分比Percent
石核Cores	52	63.4%	63	45.0%
石片Flakes	3	3.7%	45	32.2%
断块Chunks	/	/	15	10.7%
直接使用标本Utilized materials	/	/	1	0.7%
大型石刀Knives	1	1.2%	2	1.4%
手镐Picks	17	20.7%	4	2.9%
刮削器Scrapers	2	2.5%	5	3.6%
砍砸器Choppers	7	8.5%	3	2.1%
砸击品Bipolarproducts	/	/	2	1.4%
总计Total	82	100%	140	100%

表2 官山遗址发现的石制品尺寸统计

Tab.2 Size of stone artifacts discovered in Guanshan site

尺寸Size→	2~5 cm		5~10 cm		≥10 cm
技术组合Assemblages↓	数量n	百分比Percent	数量n	百分比Percent	数量n	百分比Percent
石核Cores	/	/	24	10.8%	91	41.0%
石片Flakes	14	6.3%	26	11.7%	8	3.6%
断块Chunks	1	0.45%	11	5.0%	3	1.35%
直接使用标本Utilized materials	/	/	/	/	1	0.45%
大型石刀Knives	/	/	/	/	3	1.35%
手镐Picks	/	/	/	/	21	9.45%
刮削器Scrapers	1	0.45%	4	1.8%	2	0.9%
砍砸器Choppers	/	/	/	/	10	4.5%
砸击品Bipolar products	2	0.9%	/	/	/	/
合计Total	18	8.1%	65	29.3%	139	62.6%

图3 官山遗址发现的石核、石片 1. 93NLXT611-54，大石片large flake；2. 88NLX526，单台面锐角部分剥片石核unifacial simple partial exploitation core；3. 93NLXT209-98，大石片large flake；4. 93NLXT309-71，双台面边缘剥片石核bifacial peripheral exploitation core；5. 93NLXT611-102，石片flake；6. 93NLXT611：80，石片flake；7. 93NLXT611-72，石片flake；8. 93NLXT611(2)-5，单台面单向钝角部分剥片石核unidirectional abrupt unifacial exploitation on one knapping surface core

Fig.3 Cores and flakes discovered in the Guanshan site

图4 官山遗址发现的重型工具 1. 93NLXT209105/296，大型石刀 Knife；2. 88NLX547，手镐 Pick；3. 88NLX537，手镐 Pick；4. 88NLX52，三棱手镐 Trihedral；5. 93NLXT109-232，手镐 Pick；6. 93NLXT209-184，手镐 Pick

Fig.4 Heavy-duty tools discovered in the Guanshan site

参考文献 38

[1]	郑喆轩, 冯玥, 谭培阳, 等. 四川稻城县皮洛旧石器时代遗址[J]. 考古, 2022, 7: 3-14
[2]	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
[3]	Pei SW, Niu DW, Guan Y, et al. Middle Pleistocene hominin occupation in the Danjiangkou Reservoir Region, Central China: studies of formation processes and stone technology of Maling 2A site[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2015, 53: 391-407 doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2014.10.022 URL
[4]	Li H, Li YY, Yu LP, et al. Continuous technological and behavioral development of late Pleistocene hominins in central South China: Multidisciplinary analysis at Sandinggai[J]. Quaternary Science Reviews, 2022, 298: 107850 doi: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2022.107850 URL
[5]	李超荣, 徐长青. 江西安义潦河发现的旧石器及其意义[J]. 人类学学报, 1991, 10(1): 34-41
[6]	张森水. 管窥新中国旧石器考古学的重大发展[J]. 人类学学报, 1999, 18(3): 193-214
[7]	Guan Y, Xu XM, Kuman K, et al. The absence of Acheulean: Qiliting Mode 1 site and the Mode 1 occupations in southeast China[J]. Quaternary International, 2018, 480: 152-165 doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2016.09.041 URL
[8]	Li H, Wang SJ, Lotter MG, et al. The temporal-spatial evolution of handaxe technology in China: Recent progress and future directions[J]. Science Bulletin, 2024, 69(14): 2161-2165 doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2024.04.047 URL
[9]	赵其国, 杨浩. 中国南方红土与第四纪环境变迁的初步研究[J]. 第四纪研究, 1995, 2: 107-116
[10]	杨浩, 赵其国, 李小平, 等. 安徽宣城风成沉积—红土系列剖面ESR年代学研究[J]. 土壤学报, 1996, 33(3): 293-300
[11]	乔彦松, 郭正堂, 郝青振, 等. 皖南风尘堆积-土壤序列的磁性地层学研究及其古环境意义[J]. 科学通报, 2003, 48(13): 1465-1469
[12]	李徐生, 杨达源, 鹿化煜. 皖南风尘堆积序列氧化物地球化学特征与古气候记录[J]. 海洋地质与第四纪地质, 1999, 19(4): 75-82
[13]	房迎三. 水阳江旧石器地点群的考古发掘与研究[J]. 文物研究, 1998, 11: 2-9
[14]	Leakey MD. Olduvai Gorge, Volume 3: Excavations in Beds I and II, 1960-1963[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971, 5-7
[15]	Toth N. The Stone Technologies of Early Hominids at Koobi Fora: An Experimental Approach[D]. PhD thesis, Berkeley: University of California, 1982, 48-101
[16]	Toth N. The Oldowan reassessed: A close look at early stone artifacts[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 1985, 12(2): 101-120 doi: 10.1016/0305-4403(85)90056-1 URL
[17]	Kuman K, Li H, Li CR. Large Cutting Tools from the Danjiangkou Reservoir Region, central China: Comparisons and contrasts with western and south Asian Acheulean[J]. Quaternary International, 2016, 400: 58-64 doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2015.07.052 URL
[18]	Leakey MD. A review of the Oldowan culture from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania[J]. Nature, 1966, 210(5035): 462-466 doi: 10.1038/210462a0
[19]	陕西省考古研究院, 商洛地区文管会, 洛南县博物馆. 花石浪(I):洛南盆地旷野类型旧石器地点群研究[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2007, 48-49
[20]	房迎三. 皖南水阳江旧石器地点群调查简报[J]. 文物研究, 1988, 3: 74-83
[21]	房迎三. 安徽省宣州市陈山旧石器地点1988年发掘报告[J]. 人类学学报, 1997, 16(2): 96-106
[22]	董哲, 战世佳. 安徽省宣城麻村旧石器遗址调查及发掘简报[J]. 人类学学报, 2020, 39(1): 74-85
[23]	房迎三, 黄蕴平, 梁任又, 等. 安徽宁国毛竹山发现的旧石器早期遗存[J]. 人类学学报, 2001, 20(2): 115-124
[24]	董哲, 战世佳. 安徽省宁国市安友庄旧石器遗址调查及发掘简报[J]. 人类学学报, 2022, 41(2): 334-341
[25]	Bar-Yosef O, Wang YP. Paleolithic archaeology in China[J]. Annual Review of Anthropology, 2012, 41: 319-335 doi: 10.1146/anthro.2012.41.issue-1 URL
[26]	Gao X. Paleolithic cultures in China: Uniqueness and divergence[J]. Current Anthropology, 2013, 54(S8): S358-S370 doi: 10.1086/673502 URL
[27]	董哲, 裴树文, 袁四方. 安徽水阳江流域2017年旧石器考古调查简报[J]. 人类学学报, 2019, 38(2): 223-231
[28]	董哲. 安徽水阳江流域陈山遗址古人类石器技术研究[J]. 东南文化, 2025, 3: 80-89
[29]	谢光茂. 百色手斧与手镐比较研究[J]. 考古学研究, 2008, 7: 86-92
[30]	高星. 中国旧石器时代手斧的特点与意义[J]. 人类学学报, 2012, 31(2): 97-112
[31]	Asfaw B, Beyene Y, Suwa G, et al. The earliest Acheulean from Konso-Gardula[J]. Nature, 1992, 360: 732-735 doi: 10.1038/360732a0
[32]	Lepre CJ, Roche H, Kent DV, et al. An earlier origin for the Acheulian[J]. Nature, 2011, 477(7362): 82-85 doi: 10.1038/nature10372
[33]	de la Torre I, Mora R. Technological Strategies in the Lower Pleistocene at Olduvai Beds Ⅰ&Ⅱ[M]. Liège: Études et Recherches Archéologiques de l’ Université de Liège, 2005
[34]	de la Torre I. The Early Stone Age lithic assemblages of Gadeb (Ethiopia) and the Developed Oldowan / early Acheulean in East Africa[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2011, 60(6): 768-812 doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2011.01.009 URL
[35]	Semaw S, Rogers M, Stout D. The Oldowan-Acheulian transition: is there a “Developed Oldowan” artifact tradition?[A]. In: Camps M, Chauhan P(eds.). Sourcebook of Paleolithic Transitions[M]. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 2009, 173-193
[36]	Beyene Y, Katoh S, WoldeGabriel G, et al. The characteristics and chronology of the earliest Acheulean at Konso, Ethiopia[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2013, 110(5): 1584-1591 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1221285110 URL
[37]	Wang W, Lycett SJ, von Cramon-Taubadel N, et al. Comparison of Handaxes from Bose Basin (China) and the western Acheulean indicates convergence of form, not cognitive differences[J]. PloS One, 2012, 7(4): e35804 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035804 URL
[38]	Kuman K. Acheulean Industrial Complex[A]. In: Smith C(ed.). Encyclopedia of global archaeology[M]. New York: pringer, 2014, 7-18