小议石片石器加工程度的测量方法

doi:10.16359/j.cnki.cn11-1963/q.2017.0058

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

旧石器考古学中石片石器的研究涉及诸多方面,石片石器加工程度的测量则是其中十分重要的组成部分,目前,已有诸多西方学者提出了不同的测量方法。本文试图在介绍这些方法的同时,对其进行对比和归类分析,提出石片石器加工程度的测量方法目前可分为以“减核率”为核心的测量方法和不以“减核率”为核心的测量方法两大类。针对石器加工程度测量方法目前存在的问题,提出应该在统一的测量标准下,以石器的类型、生产过程和使用过程为基础对石片石器加工程度进行定量测量。

关键词: 旧石器时代, 石片石器, 减核率, 加工程度, 测量方法

Abstract:

Research on flake tools in Paleolithic archeology involves many aspects, and the measurement of the degree of retouch is one of the most important. At present, many Western scholars have proposed different measurement methods. This paper attempts not only to introduce these methods but also to compare and classify them. According to the utility of the “reduction rate of the raw-material”, these measurement methods can be divided into two different groups, the methods using the reduction rate and the methods do not. According to the existing problems in the measurement of degree of retouch on flake tools, it is proposed that this attribute should be measured quantitatively on the basis of the type of retouch, its production process, and the intended use of the tool.

Key words: Paleolithic, flake tools, core reduction rate, raw materials, retouch, measurement

中图分类号:

K871.11

李昱龙. 小议石片石器加工程度的测量方法[J]. 人类学学报, 2019, 38(01): 50-59.

LI Yulong. Discussion on the measuring methods of retouched degree on flake tools[J]. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 2019, 38(01): 50-59.

图/表 6

图1 Kuhn加工深度指数测量方法示意图

Fig.1 Measurement required for calculating Kuhn’s index of reduction

图2 ERP测量石器加工程度测量项目选取示意图[27]

Fig.2 The area of each triangle and the length of retouched edge

图3 ERP估计加工比率测量方法示意图[27]

Fig.3 Measurement required for calculating ERP

图4 IE测量方法示意图(修改自Colin PQ, 2008)[29]

Fig.4 Estimation of blade length based upon thickness values

图5 厄尔- 卡伊姆尖状器石叶毛坯长度与厚度指数线性关系图[29]

Fig.5 Schematic illustration showing method of calculating the el-Khiam index

图6 克拉克森指数测量方法示意图(修改自 Clarkson C[30])

Fig.6 Invasiveness of retouch pattern on the dorsal and ventral sides of flake tool

参考文献 36

[1]	王幼平. 石器研究-旧石器考古方法初探[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2006: 105
[2]	Andrefsky W. Lithics—Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005: 31-32
[3]	George HO. Lithic Analysis(Manuals in Archaeological Method, Theory, and Technique)[M]. New York: Springer Science+Business Media, Inc, 2004: 64-65
[4]	Inizian M-L. Roche H. Tixer J. Technology of Knapped Stone[M]. Meudon: CREP, 1992: 67
[5]	Andrefsky W. An Introduction to Stone Tool Life History and Technological Organization[A]. In: Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use and Curation[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008: 4-5
[6]	Michael JS. An exegesis of the curation concept[J]. Journal of Anthropological Research, 1996,52(259):80
[7]	Binford LR. Organization and formation processes: Looking at curated technologies[J]. Journal of Anthropological Research, 1979,35(3):255-27 doi: 10.1086/jar.35.3.3629902 URL
[8]	Bamforth, Douglas B. Technological efficiency and tool curation[J]. American Antiquity, 1986,51(1):38-50 doi: 10.2307/280392 URL
[9]	Nelson, Margaret C. The study of technology organization[J]. Archaeological Method and Theory, 1991,3:57-100
[10]	Colin PQ, Andrefsky W. Perforation with Stone Tools and Retouch Intensity : A Neolithic Case Study[A]. In: Lithic Technology: measures of production, use and curation[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008: 151
[11]	Hiscock P. Technological responses to risk in Holocene Australia[J]. Journal of World Prehistory, 1994,8:267-292 doi: 10.1007/BF02221051 URL
[12]	Kuhn S. “Unpacking” reduction: Lithic raw material economy in the Mousterian of West-Central Italy[J]. Journal of Anthropological Research, 1991,10:76-106
[13]	Andrefsky W. Experimental and archaeological verification of an index of retouch for hafted bifaces[J]. American Antiquity, 2006,71(4):743-757 doi: 10.2307/40035887 URL
[14]	Robert JK. Hunter-gatherer mobility strategies[J]. Journal of Anthropological Research, 1983,39:277-306 doi: 10.1086/jar.39.3.3629672 URL
[15]	Robert JK. The three sides of a biface[J]. American Antiquity, 1988,53:717-734 doi: 10.2307/281115 URL
[16]	Robert JK. The Life ways of Hunter-Gatherers: the Foraging Spectrum[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013
[17]	Michael JS, Margaret CN. Lithic reduction, its measurement, and implications: comments on the volume[A]. In: Lithic Technology: measures of production, use and curation[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008: 25
[18]	Bordes F. The Old Stone Age[M]. New York: McGraw Hill, 1968: 1-255
[19]	Dibble HL. The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic scraper morphology[J]. American Antiquity, 1987,52:109-117 doi: 10.2307/281062 URL
[20]	Hiscock P, Clarkson. C. The construction of morphological diversity: A study of Mousterian implication retouching at CombeGrenal[A]. In: Lithic Technology: measures of production, use and curation[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008: 106-135
[21]	高星. 周口店第15地点石器原料开发方略与经济形态研究[J]. 人类学学报, 2001,20(3):186-200
[22]	裴树文, 侯亚梅. 东谷陀遗址石制品原料利用浅析[J]. 人类学学报, 2001,20(4):271-281
[23]	王春雪, 陈全家. 试析吉林和龙石人沟旧石器时代晚期遗址古人类的技术与行为[J]. 边疆考古研究, 2007,6:39-55
[24]	Frison GC. A functional analysis of certain chipped stone tools[J]. American Antiquity, 1968,33(2):149-155 doi: 10.2307/278516 URL
[25]	Deetz J. Invitation to Archaeology[M]. New York: Natural History Press, 1967
[26]	Kuhn SL. A geometric index of reduction for unifacial stone tools[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 1990,17:585-593
[27]	Eren M, Dominguez RM, Steven LK. Defining and measuring reduction in unifacial stone tools[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2005,32:1190-1206 doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2005.03.003 URL
[28]	Eren M, Mary E. Comparing and synthesizing unifacial stone tool reduction indices[A]. In: Lithic Technology: Measures of production, use and curation[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008: 49-85
[29]	Colin PQ, Andrefsky W. Perforation with Stone Tools and Retouch Intensity: A Neolithic Case Study[A]. In: Lithic Technology: measures of production, use and curation[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008: 150-174
[30]	Clarkson C. An index of invasiveness for the measurement of unifacial and bifacial retouch: A theoretical, experimental and archaeological verification[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2002,29:65-75 doi: 10.1006/jasc.2001.0702 URL
[31]	Harold LD, Pelcin A. The effect of hammer mass and velocity on flake mass[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 1995,22:429-439 doi: 10.1006/jasc.1995.0042 URL
[32]	Shott MJ, Andrew PB. Flake size from platform attributes: predictive and empirical approaches. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2000,27:877-894 doi: 10.1006/jasc.1999.0499 URL
[33]	Peter H, Clarkson C. Experimental evaluation of Kuhn’s geometric index of reduction and the flat-flake problem. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2005,32:1015-1022 doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2005.02.002 URL
[34]	Peter H, Amy T. Generalization, inference and the quantification of lithic reduction[J]. World Archaeology, 2010,42(4):545-561 doi: 10.1080/00438243.2010.517669 URL
[35]	Clarkson C. An index of invasiveness for the measurement of unifacial and bifacial retouch: a theoretical, experimental and archaeological verification[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2002,29:65-75 doi: 10.1006/jasc.2001.0702 URL
[36]	Michael JS, Margaret CN. Lithic reduction, its measurement, and implications: Comments on the volume[A]. In: Lithic Technology: measures of production, use and curation[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008: 37-40