河北阳原马鞍山遗址1997-1998年发掘基本材料与初步认识
收稿日期: 2023-06-15
网络出版日期: 2024-02-06
基金资助
国家社会科学基金青年项目“马鞍山遗址1997-1998年发掘资料整理与综合研究”(22CKG004)
Preliminary Results of the 1997-1998 Excavation of the Ma’anshan Site in Yangyuan, Hebei
Received date: 2023-06-15
Online published: 2024-02-06
马鞍山遗址位于泥河湾盆地桑干河北岸二级阶地,是虎头梁遗址群的重要组成部分。1997-1998年发掘获得多层古人类活动面,石制品和动物化石数以万计,编号标本3549件,遗迹包括十余处火塘和一个可能为储藏坑的遗迹。14C测年的贝叶斯模型显示,遗址校正后的年代大致距今1.7-1.5万年。石制品以火山角砾岩为主要原料,以楔形细石核技法为主要特征,石器类型多样;动物化石数量较少,主要为羊、马、牛等大中型偶蹄动物,还有少量鸵鸟蛋皮串珠和1件骨锥。这些发现为认识泥河湾盆地与东北亚地区在更新世末期的人群交流与文化互动提供了重要线索,也是探讨华北北部地区旧石器-新石器过渡阶段历史过程的关键材料。
冯玥 , 梅惠杰 , 谢飞 , 孙秀丽 , 王幼平 . 河北阳原马鞍山遗址1997-1998年发掘基本材料与初步认识[J]. 人类学学报, 2024 , 43(01) : 67 -80 . DOI: 10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2024.0046
The Ma’anshan site is located on the second terrace of the Sanggan River, Nihewan Basin, and is an important locality of the Hutouliang site group. Excavations in 1997-1998 revealed multiple occupational horizons and tens of thousands of lithics and faunal remains, including 3549 pieces of labeled specimens, together with dozens of fireplaces and a unique structure resembling a storage pit. The original cultural layer (Layer 3) is further divided into 6 sublayers (layers 3A-3F). AMS radiocarbon dates with Bayesian analysis suggest the site was dated approximately 17-15 ka cal BP. The microblade industry at the site mostly exploited Yubetsu technology, with the toolkit containing side- and end- scrapers, notches, denticulates, burins, bifaces, adze-shaped tools and spearheads. Raw materials were dominated by volcanic breccia, while siliceous mudstone, flint and chalcedony were also important components. Faunal remains were relatively limited in number, and most identifiable pieces recognized as medium-to-large sized angulates, such as Bovidae and Equidae. For bone tools and ornaments, there were several ostrich shell beads and one broken bone awl.
Based on its stratigraphy, dates, features and artifacts, cultural development at the Ma’anshan Site can be divided into two stages. The early stage (sublayers 3F-3B, 17.1-16.3 ka cal BP) was dominated by Yubetsu microblade technology, and around 1/3 of the tools were unifacially or bifacially worked. Volcanic breccia made up over 85% of all raw materials, while flint composed less than 5%. The density of artefacts was extremely high, and activities were well-organized, centering around fireplaces. This settlement pattern suggested that the site was a central base camp of the Hutouliang site group during this time. During the late stage (sublayer3A, 15.8-15.0 ka cal BP), there was an obvious rise of non-Yubetsu methods of microblade production, and end scrapers became more important in the tool assemblage. At the Yujiagou site, which was close to and dated to a similar period (16-13.8 ka cal BP), new tool types appeared such as a partly polished spearhead, grinding stone and some pottery. Volcanic breccia declined in percentage, composing around 70% of all raw materials, while small flint cobbles increased significantly. The subsistence strategy clearly became more complicated. In layer 3A, a “storage pit” was discovered, which was possibly related to the exploitation of botanic resources. At Yujiagou, juvenile angulates might have been kept for storage.
The prevalence of Yubetsu microblade technology at Ma’anshan demonstrated intimate connection with findings in Northeast Asia, which were very different from microblade sites in southern parts of North China. Microblade cores at the site also differed from those at another, the Erdaoliang site, an earlier site in the Nihewan Basin with boat-shaped microblade cores. This technological preference exhibited human migration and cultural exchange between North China and Northeast Asia, rather than inheritance of previous regional traditions. Several significant changes took place at the Ma’anshan site after 16 ka cal BP, including diversification in technology, complexity in subsistence and decline in mobility. These innovations provide crucial evidence for understanding the trajectory of Paleolithic-Neolithic transition in North China.
[1] | Elston R, Kuhn S. Thinking small: global perspectives on microlithization[M]. Archeological papers of the American Anthropological Association Number 12, 2002 |
[2] | 陈胜前. 史前的现代化:中国农业起源过程的文化生态考察[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2012 |
[3] | 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,977, 4: 287-300 |
[4] | 谢飞, 李珺. 籍箕滩旧石器时代晚期细石器遗址[J]. 文物春秋, 1993, 2: 1-22 |
[5] | 关莹, 周振宇, 王晓敏, 等. 河北阳原泥河湾盆地籍箕滩遗址发现的新材料[J]. 人类学学报, 2021, 40(1): 137-145 |
[6] | 宋艳花, 石金鸣. 尉家小堡遗址石制品的初步研究[J]. 人类学学报, 2008, 3: 200-209 |
[7] | 牛东伟, 薛峰, 李鼎元, 等. 怀来盆地2014年度旧石器考古调查简报[J]. 人类学学报, 2018, 37(1): 79-87 |
[8] | 朱之勇, 高星. 虎头梁遗址楔型细石核研究[J]. 人类学学报, 2006, 2: 129-142 |
[9] | 夏正楷, 陈福友, 陈戈, 等. 我国北方泥河湾盆地新-旧石器文化过渡的环境背景[J]. 中国科学(D辑:地球科学), 2001, 5: 393-400 |
[10] | 長友恒人, 下冈順直, 波冈久惠, 等. 泥河湾盆地几处旧石器时代文化遗址光释光测年[J]. 人类学学报, 2009, 28(3): 276-284 |
[11] | 张晓凌, 沈辰, 高星, 等. 微痕分析确认万年前的复合工具与其功能[J]. 科学通报, 2010, 55(3): 229-236 |
[12] | 王晓敏, 梅惠杰. 于家沟遗址的动物考古学研究[M]. 北京: 文物出版社, 2019 |
[13] | 孙秀丽. 马鞍山遗址石制品初步研究[D]. 北京: 北京大学,1999 |
[14] | 梅惠杰. 泥河湾盆地旧、新石器时代的过渡--阳原于家沟遗址的发现与研究[D]. 北京: 北京大学, 2007 |
[15] | 高磊. 河北阳原马鞍山遗址II区第3、4层石制品分析[D]. 西安: 西北大学, 2016 |
[16] | 杜水生. 泥河湾盆地旧石器中晚期石制品原料初步分析[J]. 人类学学报, 2003, 22(2): 121-130 |
[17] | 岳健平, 李有骞, 杨石霞. 中国东北北部地区旧-新石器时代过渡的文化生态研究[J]. 考古, 2022, 3: 59-68 |
[18] | Keates S. Microblade technology in Siberia and neighbouring regions: an overview [A]. In: Kuzmin Y, Keates S, Shen C (Eds). Origin and spread of microblade technology in Northern Asia and North America[C]. Burnaby, B.C.: Smimon Fraser University Archaeology Press, 2007, 125-146 |
[19] | Bae K. Origin and patterns of the Upper Paleolithic industries in the Korean Peninsula and movement of modern humans in East Asia[J]. Quaternary International, 2010, 211(1): 103-112 |
[20] | Nakazawa Y, Izuho M, Takakura J, et al. Toward an understanding of technological variability in microblade assemblages in Hokkaido, Japan[J]. Asian Perspectives, 2005, 44(2): 276-292 |
[21] | 山西大学历史文化学院, 山西省考古研究所. 山西吉县柿子滩遗址S29地点发掘简报[J]. 考古, 2017, 2: 35-51 |
[22] | 李罡, 任雪岩, 李珺. 泥河湾盆地二道梁旧石器时代晚期遗址发掘简报[J]. 人类学学报, 2016, 35(4): 509-521 |
[23] | 谢飞, 孟昭永, 王子玉. 河北玉田县孟家泉旧石器遗址发掘简报[J]. 文物春秋, 1991, 1: 1-13 |
[24] | 李珺, 王恩林, 颜乐耕. 河北昌黎渟泗涧细石器地点[J]. 文物春秋, 1992, (S1): 121-127 |
[25] | 谢飞. 燕山南麓发现细石器遗址[J]. 考古, 1989, 11: 967-970 |
[26] | 加藤真二. 试论华北细石器工业的出现[J]. 华夏考古, 2015, 2: 56-67 |
[27] | 王幼平. 华北细石器技术的出现与发展[J]. 人类学学报, 2018, 37(4): 565-576 |
[28] | 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 |
/
〈 | 〉 |