广西娅怀洞遗址出土的蚌器

doi:10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2025.0041

人类学学报 ›› 2025, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (03): 477-487.doi: 10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2025.0041cstr: 32091.14.j.1000-3193/AAS.2025.0041

广西娅怀洞遗址出土的蚌器

胡章华¹(), 陈洪波², 谢莉³, 王雨晴⁴^,⁵, 谢光茂²^,⁶()

1.南宁市文物考古研究所（南宁市博物馆），南宁 530219
2.广西师范大学历史文化与旅游学院，桂林 541001
3.柳州市博物馆，柳州 545000
4.中国科学院青藏高原研究所古生态与人类适应团队，北京 100101
5.中国科学院大学，北京 100049
6.广西文物保护与考古研究所，南宁 530022

收稿日期:2024-10-18 修回日期:2025-04-28 出版日期:2025-06-15 发布日期:2025-06-15
通讯作者: 谢光茂，研究员，主要从事史前考古研究。E-mail: gmxie92@sina.com
作者简介:胡章华，副研究馆员，主要从事史前考古研究。E-mail: 104569366@qq.com
基金资助:
国家社会科学基金重大项目(22&ZD246)

Shell tools excavated from the Yahuai Cave site in Guangxi

HU Zhanghua¹(), CHEN Hongbo², XIE Li³, WANG Yuqing⁴^,⁵, XIE Guangmao²^,⁶()

1. Nanning Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology (Nanning Museum), Nanning 530219
2. School of History, Culture and Tourism, Guangxi Normal University, Guilin 541001
3. Liuzhou Museum, Liuzhou 545000
4. Alpine Paleoecology and Human Adaptation Group (ALPHA), Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101
5. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049
6. Guangxi Institute of Cultural Relics Protection and Archaeology, Nanning 530022

Received:2024-10-18 Revised:2025-04-28 Online:2025-06-15 Published:2025-06-15

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

广西南宁市隆安县娅怀洞遗址是一处跨越旧、新石器时代的洞穴遗址，以旧石器时代文化堆积为主，年代为距今43000~4000年。本文对该遗址出土的蚌器进行初步研究。娅怀洞遗址的蚌器类型包括蚌刀、蚌铲、穿孔蚌器等，以蚌刀最具特色。蚌器加工主要采用锤击法，两面打制为主，加工部位主要在蚌壳的顶部及背部，以蚌壳自然薄缘为刃。根据蚌器的形态、加工技术特征，娅怀洞遗址蚌器可分为早、中、晚三期，贯穿了遗址整个文化发展序列。与周边地区出土蚌器的比较分析显示，娅怀洞遗址蚌器可能主要用于锯切和砍割食物等。娅怀洞遗址是我国目前发现蚌器延续时间最长的史前遗址，为研究我国乃至东南亚地区蚌器起源与发展演变提供了珍贵实物资料。

关键词: 娅怀洞遗址, 蚌器, 旧石器时代晚期, 新石器时代晚期

Abstract:

Yahuai Cave site is located near the Bolang village, Longan county, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region in South China. The site has been dated to between 43000 and 4000 years ago, with both Paleolithic and Neolithic cultural remains. This study presents a preliminary technological and typological analysis of shell tools found from Yahuai Cave. The type of shell tools from Yahuai Cave includes shell knives, shell shovels and perforated shells, with shell knives being the most representative. The type of shells was dominated by Lamprotula mansuyi. Technologically, shell tools at Yahuai Cave were mainly made by direct bifacial percussion. Bifacial knapping and battering of the hinge portion indicate the deliberate shaping of the handling edge to improve its ergonomic properties. Simple retouching is also recorded from the dorsal to ventral aspects along the lip margin, suggesting an attempt to sharpen the functional edge.

Based on the morphological and technological characteristics, shell tools at Yahuai Cave can be categorized into four phases, covering the whole cultural sequences of the site. Comparative analysis with shell artifact assemblages from surrounding sites reveals both shared and distinctive traits. These edged knives bear a close resemblance in form and production technology, suggesting that they were optimized for cutting softer organic materials and may also have functioned in the cutting and sawing food resources. And comparative analysis with other sites also reveals the distinctive features, notably the presence or absence of perforation. These similarities and divergences might reflect the transmission and evolution of prehistoric shell-working traditions across successive cultural phases.

Importantly, the temporal span of shell tool production at Yahuai Cave represents the longest documented record of shell artifact utilization in any prehistoric Chinese site to date. This continuous sequence supplies invaluable data for charting the beginning and development of shell-based technologies in southern China and facilitates further studies with contemporaneous Southeast Asian shell artifact traditions. These organic tools provide a crucial insight into the complex cultural adaptations of Homo sapiens groups. By integrating technological analysis with stratigraphic context, the shell tool assemblage from Yahuai Cave significantly advances our understanding of human-environment interactions, freshwater resources exploitation strategies, and the broader evolutionary trajectory of non-lithic tool manufacture in Pleistocene-Holocene prehistoric societies.

Key words: Yahuai Cave site, Shell tools, Upper Paleolithic, Late Neolithic

中图分类号:

K871

胡章华, 陈洪波, 谢莉, 王雨晴, 谢光茂. 广西娅怀洞遗址出土的蚌器[J]. 人类学学报, 2025, 44(03): 477-487.

HU Zhanghua, CHEN Hongbo, XIE Li, WANG Yuqing, XIE Guangmao. Shell tools excavated from the Yahuai Cave site in Guangxi[J]. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 2025, 44(03): 477-487.

图/表 5

图1 娅怀洞遗址蚌器测量指标及描述性部位示意图

Fig.1 Illustration of measurement attributes and descriptive features of shell tools from the Yahuai Cave site

图2 娅怀洞遗址地层内出土的蚌刀

Fig.2 Shell knives found from the cultural layers of Yahuai Cave site 1.2016LYT1006(18):14；2.2016LYT0906(17):1；3.2016LYT1006(17):59；4.2016LYT1206(7):10；5.2018LYT0813(10):7；6.2018LYT0813(10):5；7.2016LYT1010(3):51

图3 娅怀洞遗址的蚌刀及磨制痕迹微痕观察

Fig.3 Shell knives and microphotographs of grinding marks from the Yahuai Cave site 1.2016LYT1106(17):58；2.2016LYT1106(8):8

图4 娅怀洞遗址扰土层出土的蚌刀

Fig.4 Shell knives found from the disturbed layer of the Yahuai Cave site 1.2015LY(1):4945；2.2015LY(1):4953；3.2015LY(1):4954；4.2015LY(1):4950；5.2015LY(1):4929

图5 娅怀洞遗址扰土层发现的蚌铲、穿孔蚌器

Fig.5 Shell shovels and perforated shell found from the disturbed layer of the Yahuai Cave site 1.2015LY(1):4904；2.2015LY(1):4892；3.2015LY(1):4890；4.2015LY(1):4911；5.2015LY(1):4900

参考文献 38

[1]	黄万波, 计宏祥, 蔺永茂. 旧石器时代的蚌制品[J]. 人类学学报, 1986, 3: 267-270
[2]	秦建明. 蚌勺与蜃器[J]. 中原文物, 1983, 2: 27-28
[3]	徐良高. 略论中国古代骨牙角蚌器[J]. 文博, 1994, 1: 7-16
[4]	胡章华, 谢莉. 广西史前蚌器研究[J]. 南方文物, 2025, 1: 143-157
[5]	李岚. 中国史前蚌器研究[D]. 硕士研究生毕业论文, 太原: 山西大学, 2015, 1-63
[6]	Choi K, Driwantoro D. Shell tool use by early members of Homo erectus in Sangiran, central Java, Indonesia: cut mark evidence[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2007, 34: 48-58
[7]	Douka K, Spinapolice EE. Neanderthal Shell Tool Production: Evidence from Middle Palaeolithic Italy and Greece[J]. Journal of World Prehistory, 2012, 25: 45-79
[8]	Bar-Yosef O. Eat what is there: hunting and gathering in the world of Neanderthals and their neighbours[J]. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 2004, 14: 333-342
[9]	Rabett RJ, Appleby J, Blyth AJ, et al. Inland shell midden site-formation: Investigation into a late Pleistocene to early Holocene midden from Tràng An, Northern Vietnam[J]. Quaternary International, 2011, 239: 153-169
[10]	Simanjuntak T, Asiki IN. Early Holocene human settlement in Eastern Java[J]. Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association Bulletin, Taipei papers, 2004, 2(24): 13-19
[11]	Szabo K, Brumm A, Bellwood P. Shell Artefact Production at 32,000-8,000 BP in Island Southeast Asia: Thinking across Media?[J]. Current Anthropology, 2007, 48: 701-723
[12]	O’Connor S, Mahirta Samper Carro SC, Hawkins S, et al. Fishing in life and death: Pleistocene fish-hooks from a burial context on Alor Island, Indonesia[J]. Antiquity, 2017, 91: 1451-1468
[13]	Wedage O, Roberts P, Faulkner P, et al. Late Pleistocene to early-Holocene rainforest foraging in Sri Lanka: Multidisciplinary analysis at Kitulgala Beli-lena[J]. Quaternary Science Reviews, 2020, 231: 106200
[14]	Morse K, Shell beads from Mandu Mandu Creek rock-shelter, Cape Range peninsula, Western Australia, dated before 30,000 b.p.[J]. Antiquity 1993, 67: 877-883
[15]	Brumm A, Langley MC, Moore MW, et al. Early human symbolic behavior in the Late Pleistocene of Wallacea[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2017, 114: 4105-4110
[16]	Hook F, Ulm S, Akerman K, et al. A comparative study of early shell knife production using archaeological, experimental and ethnographic datasets: 46,000 years of Melo (Gastropoda: Volutidae) shell knife manufacture in northern Australia[J]. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 2024, 101614
[17]	解希恭, 阎金铸, 陶富海. 山西吉县柿子滩中石器文化遗址[J]. 考古学报, 1989, 3: 305-323
[18]	石金鸣, 宋艳花. 山西吉县柿子滩遗址第九地点发掘简报[J]. 考古, 2010, 10: 7-17
[19]	赵静芳. 柿子滩遗址S12地点发现综述[A]. 见:北京大学考古文博学院(编). 考古学研究(七):庆祝吕遵谔先生八十寿辰暨从事考古教学与研究五十五年论文集[C]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2008, 223-231
[20]	宋艳花, 石金鸣. 山西吉县柿子滩遗址S29地点发掘简报[J]. 考古, 2017, 2: 35-51
[21]	尹申平, 王小庆. 陕西宜川县龙王辿旧石器时代遗址[J]. 考古, 2007, 7: 3-8
[22]	刘锁强, 邓婉文, 何嘉宁, 等. 广东英德市青塘遗址[J]. 考古, 2019, 7: 3-15
[23]	郭远谓, 李家和. 江西万年大源仙人洞洞穴遗址试掘[J]. 考古学报, 1963, 1: 1-16
[24]	彭适凡, 周广明. 江西万年仙人洞与吊桶环遗址:旧石器时代向新石器时代过渡模式的个案研究[J]. 农业考古, 2004, 3: 29-39
[25]	刘琦, 谌世龙. 桂林市庙岩洞穴遗址的骨器及蚌器研究[A]. 见:英德市博物馆,中山大学人类学系,广东省博物馆(编). 中石器文化及有关问题研讨会论文集[C]. 广州: 广东人民出版社, 1999, 166-184
[26]	谢光茂, 林强, 余明辉, 等. 广西隆安娅怀洞遗址发掘报告[J]. 人类学学报, 2025, 44(3):365-388
[27]	广西文物保护与考古研究所. 广西左江花山考古(2013-2016)[M]. 北京: 文物出版社, 2021, 844-846
[28]	宋艳波, 谢光茂, 赵文丫. 广西隆安娅怀洞遗址出土动物遗存初步研究[J]. 第四纪研究, 2020, 40(2): 344-353
[29]	宋艳花, 石金鸣, 沈辰. 山西柿子滩旧石器遗址蚌饰品制作工艺研究[J]. 人类学学报, 2011, 30(2): 115-123
[30]	宋艳花, 石金鸣. 山西吉县柿子滩旧石器时代遗址出土装饰品研究[J]. 考古, 2013, 8: 46-57
[31]	万智巍, 马志坤, 杨晓燕, 等. 江西万年仙人洞和吊桶环遗址蚌器表面残留物中的淀粉粒及其环境指示[J]. 第四纪研究, 2012, 32(2): 256-263
[32]	陈远琲. 甑皮岩遗址原始农业的新探讨:兼谈广西新石器时代遗址的稻作农业[A].见:西安半坡博物馆,三星堆博物馆(编). 史前研究[C]. 西安: 陕西师范大学出版社, 2006, 157-165
[33]	中国社会科学院考古研究所, 广西壮族自治区文物工作队, 桂林甑皮岩遗址博物馆, 等. 桂林甑皮岩[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2003, 89-404
[34]	周广明, 刘诗中. 骨角蚌器及仙人洞的生产生活[N]. 中国文物报, 2000-07-05(003)
[35]	蒋廷瑜. 广西考古通论[M]. 南宁: 广西科学技术出版社, 2012, 103-104
[36]	莫稚, 陈智亮. 广东东兴新石器时代贝丘遗址[J]. 考古, 1961, 12: 644-649
[37]	中国社会科学院考古研究所广西工作队,广西壮族自治区文物工作队,南宁市博物馆. 广西邕宁县顶蛳山遗址的发掘[J]. 考古, 1998, 11: 11-33
[38]	中国社会科学院考古研究所广西工作队,广西壮族自治区文物工作队,南宁市博物馆. 广西南宁市豹子头贝丘遗址的发掘[J]. 考古, 2003, 10: 886-898

广西娅怀洞遗址出土的蚌器

Shell tools excavated from the Yahuai Cave site in Guangxi

在线阅读

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 5

参考文献 38

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	谢光茂, 林强, 余明辉, 卢杰英. 广西隆安娅怀洞遗址发掘报告[J]. 人类学学报, 2025, 44(03): 365-388.
[2]	谢颖, 付琳. 广西隆安娅怀洞遗址出土的穿孔石器[J]. 人类学学报, 2025, 44(03): 439-450.
[3]	李大伟, 周广超, 李凡, 崔景怡, 徐秀岚, 谢光茂, 贾真秀, 李浩. 广西娅怀洞遗址新发现赭石的初步研究[J]. 人类学学报, 2025, 44(03): 466-476.
[4]	汪静怡, 赵志军, 谢光茂, 林强, 吴妍. 广西隆安娅怀洞遗址人类对植物的利用[J]. 人类学学报, 2025, 44(03): 488-498.
[5]	王颖, 张乐, 杨石霞, 张双权. 山西峙峪遗址出土动物骨骼的埋藏学[J]. 人类学学报, 2025, 44(02): 255-269.
[6]	梁琪瑶, 岳健平, 张伟, 陈全家. 黑龙江洪河遗址人类对狍的狩猎及利用[J]. 人类学学报, 2025, 44(01): 105-116.
[7]	蔡馨毅, 杜水生. 山西下川遗址水井背地点石核的剥片技术[J]. 人类学学报, 2025, 44(01): 14-26.
[8]	李浩, 肖培源, 彭培洺, 王雨晴, 陈清懿, Ikram QAYUM, 贾真秀, 阮齐军, 陈发虎. 西南丝绸之路上的旧石器文化与人群交流[J]. 人类学学报, 2024, 43(06): 979-992.
[9]	Evgeny P RYBIN, Arina M KHATSENOVICH. 旧石器时代晚期初段色楞格河人类的扩散路线[J]. 人类学学报, 2024, 43(05): 780-796.
[10]	Hiroyuki SATO, Kazuki MORISAKI. 日本旧石器晚期石器技术起源的新考古学与人类学证据[J]. 人类学学报, 2024, 43(03): 470-487.
[11]	周士航, 何湘栋, 徐静玥, 李潇丽, 牛东伟. 蔚县盆地东沟遗址2017年度发掘简报[J]. 人类学学报, 2024, 43(01): 132-142.
[12]	周振宇, 王法岗, 关莹. 河北泥河湾盆地西白马营遗址1985-1986年出土的石制品[J]. 人类学学报, 2024, 43(01): 55-66.
[13]	仝广, 李锋, 赵海龙, 闫晓蒙, 高星. 泥河湾盆地火山角砾岩原料的热处理实验[J]. 人类学学报, 2024, 43(01): 81-90.
[14]	加藤真二. 旧石器时代晚期人类在欧亚东部地区的扩散和文化传播[J]. 人类学学报, 2023, 42(06): 842-856.
[15]	侯佳岐, 王法岗. 泥河湾盆地山兑东旧石器地点初步研究[J]. 人类学学报, 2023, 42(06): 742-750.