华南区域考古

西藏拉萨堆龙曲流域2021-2022年旧石器考古调查简报

  • 贾真秀 ,
  • 赤列次仁 ,
  • 李浩 ,
  • 童艳 ,
  • 夏格旺堆 ,
  • 陈发虎
展开
  • 1.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
    2.青藏高原地球系统与资源环境全国重点实验室北京 100101
    3.西藏自治区文物保护研究所拉萨 850000
贾真秀,高级工程师,主要从事旧石器时代考古学研究。E-mail: zxjia@itpcas.ac.cn

收稿日期: 2024-03-17

  录用日期: 2024-07-19

  网络出版日期: 2025-12-15

基金资助

国家自然科学青年基金项目(42201171);全国考古人才振兴计划项目资助(2025-198);第二次青藏高原综合科学考察研究项目(2019QZKK0601)

A preliminary report of the 2021-2022 paleolithic archaeological survey in Duilong River valley, Lhasa, Xizang

  • JIA Zhenxiu ,
  • TINLEY Tsring ,
  • LI Hao ,
  • TONG Yan ,
  • SHARGAN Wangdue ,
  • CHEN Fahu
Expand
  • 1. Group of Alpine Paleoecology and Human Adaptation (ALPHA), Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101
    2. State Key Laboratory of Tibetan Plateau Earth System, Resources and Environment (TPESRE), Beijing 100101
    3. Institute for Conservation and Research of Tibetan Cultural Relics, Lhasa 850000

Received date: 2024-03-17

  Accepted date: 2024-07-19

  Online published: 2025-12-15

摘要

2021-2022年,我们在西藏拉萨堆龙曲流域史前人类活动野外调查时,共发现3处有原生埋藏地层的旧石器遗址以及10处地表采集石器点,海拔分布均在4000 m左右。此次13处地点调查发现的79件石制品均为石核-石片技术组合类型,无手斧、石叶或细石叶等技术产品。对尚嘎岗和邱桑寺两处重要遗址的文化层进行了光释光年代测定,初步结果显示两处遗址的年代均不晚于距今10万年。通过此次野外工作,确认了位于高原腹地的堆龙曲流域存在明确的、有原生埋藏地层的旧石器时代遗址,且遗址分布范围较为广泛。然而目前调查发现的石制品数量有限,难以对遗址的技术属性和文化内涵进行全面而深入的研究和探讨,但当前研究无疑为今后的工作提供了宝贵的线索。

本文引用格式

贾真秀 , 赤列次仁 , 李浩 , 童艳 , 夏格旺堆 , 陈发虎 . 西藏拉萨堆龙曲流域2021-2022年旧石器考古调查简报[J]. 人类学学报, 2025 , 44(06) : 1083 -1093 . DOI: 10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2025.0019

Abstract

From 2021 to 2022, a joint archaeological survey was carried out in the Duilong River valley, Lhasa, Xizang, with the support of the Second Tibetan Plateau Scientific Expedition and Research Program. This collaborative effort involved researchers from the Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the Institute for Conservation and Research of Tibetan Cultural Relics. The main objective was to investigate prehistoric human activities in this high-altitude region, especially to identify Paleolithic sites buried in primary strata.

The survey area, located in the hinterland of the Tibetan Plateau at an average altitude of about 4,000 m, includes the Duilong River valley and its tributary systems. These river valleys have well-developed fluvial terraces, which not only serve as the location for modern villages but also as favorable areas for prehistoric human habitation. A total of 13 Paleolithic localities were discovered, consisting of 3 sites with primary buried deposits (Shanggagang, Qiusangsi, and Jiawu) and 10 surface lithic scatters. The elevation of these sites ranges from 3837 m to 4182 m, reflecting the adaptability of early humans to extremely high-altitude environments.

A systematic analysis of 79 stone artifacts shows a consistent technological pattern dominated by core-flake assemblages. The lithic industry lacks advanced products such as handaxes, blades, or microblades. In terms of the number of stone artifacts and well-preserved buried strata, Shanggagang and Qiusangsi sites are the two most important sites identified in this survey.

For the 54 stone artifacts discovered at the Shanggagang site, the raw materials were mainly igneous rocks (64.8%), followed by chert (16.7%) and quartz (11.1%), sourced locally from river gravels. Among the 7 cores, the classification includes discoid cores (n=4), polyhedral cores (n=2), and a bipolar core (n=1). The 27 flakes include 15 Type VI, 7 Type V, 3 Type III, 1 Type II, and 1 bipolar flake. The tool assemblage (n=12) is mainly composed of scrapers (n=11), with only 1 pointed tool identified. The number of stone artifacts discovered at the Qiusangsi site is relatively small, but all 5 stone artifacts were found in the primary strata. The raw materials of the 5 artifacts are all igneous rocks, and the knapping method used is the percussion method. The only core found is a polyhedral core. Among the two whole flakes, one is a Type V flake and the other is a Type VI flake. Unfortunately, no tools were discovered. Due to the limited number of stone artifacts found in this investigation, it is difficult to conduct comprehensive and in-depth research and analysis on the technological attributes and cultural connotations of the site.

Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating of cultural layers at Shanggagang and Qiusangsi provided preliminary age estimates, indicating human occupation no later than 100 kaBP. However, signal saturation prevented precise chronological resolution.

The discovery of buried sites in the Duilong River valley significantly expands the geographical and temporal scope of known Paleolithic activity on the Tibetan Plateau. This survey confirms that humans inhabited the hinterland of the Tibetan Plateau at least by the Middle Paleolithic.

Future work should focus on formal excavations, refined chronometric methods, and comparative studies with adjacent regions to reveal the dynamics of early human colonization and adaptation on the Tibetan Plateau. This survey lays a crucial foundation for understanding the adaptability and creativity of Pleistocene hominins in the challenging environments of the Tibetan Plateau.

参考文献

[1] Brantingham PJ, Gao X, Olsen JW, et al. A short chronology for the peopling of the Tibetan Plateau[J]. Developments in Quaternary Science, 2007, 9: 129-150
[2] Brantingham PJ, Rhode D, Madsen DB. Archaeology Augments Tibet's Genetic History[J]. Science, 2010, 329(5998): 1467-1467
[3] Chen FH, Dong GH, Zhang DJ, et al. Agriculture facilitated permanent human occupation of the Tibetan Plateau after 3600 B.P[J]. Science, 2015, 347: 248-250
[4] Chen FH, Welker F, Shen CC, et al. A late middle Pleistocene Denisovan mandible from the Tibetan Plateau[J]. Nature, 2019, 569: 409-412
[5] d’Alpoim Guedes J, Lu H, Li Y, et al. Moving agriculture onto the Tibetan plateau: the archaeobotanical evidence[J]. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 2014, 6(3): 255-269
[6] 张东菊, 董广辉, 王辉, 等. 史前人类向青藏高原扩散的历史过程和可能驱动机制[J]. 中国科学:地球科学, 2016, 46(08): 1007-1023
[7] Meyer MC, Aldenderfer MS, Wang Z, et al. Permanent human occupation of the central Tibetan Plateau in the early Holocene[J]. Science, 2017, 355: 64-67
[8] Zhang XL, Ha BB, Wang SJ, et al. The earliest human occupation of the high-altitude Tibetan Plateau 40 thousand to 30 thousand years ago[J]. Science, 2018, 362: 1049-1051
[9] Zhang DJ, Xia H, Chen FH, et al. Denisovan DNA in late Pleistocene sediments from Baishiya Karst Cave on the Tibetan plateau[J]. Science, 2020, 370(6516): 584-587
[10] Zhang DD, Bennett MR, Cheng H, et al. Earliest parietal art: Hominin hand and foot traces from the middle Pleistocene of Tibet[J]. Science Bulletin, 2021, 66(24): 2506-2515
[11] 张森水. 西藏定日新发现旧石器[A].见:珠穆朗玛峰地区科学考察报告?第四纪地质[C].北京: 科学出版社, 1976, 105-109
[12] 刘泽纯, 王富葆, 蒋赞初, 等. 西藏高原多格则与扎布地点的旧石器——兼论高原古环境对石器文化分布的影响[J]. 考古, 1986, 4: 289-299
[13] 胡东生, 王世和. 青藏高原可可西里地区发现的旧石器[J]. 科学通报, 1994, 39(10): 924-927
[14] 袁宝印, 黄慰文, 章典. 藏北高原晚更新世人类活动的新证据[J]. 科学通报, 2007, 13: 1567-1571
[15] Madsen DB, Ma H, Brantingham PJ, et al. The late Upper Paleolithic occupation of the northern Tibetan Plateau margin[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2006, 33(10): 1433-1444
[16] Madsen DB, Perreault C, Rhode D, et al. Early foraging settlement of the Tibetan Plateau highlands[J]. Archaeological Research in Asia, 2017, 11: 15-26
[17] Brantingham P J, Gao X. Peopling of the northern Tibetan Plateau[J]. World Archaeology, 2006, 38(3): 387-414
[18] 高星, 周振宇, 关莹. 青藏高原边缘地区晚更新世人类遗存与生存模式[J]. 第四纪研究, 2008, 28(6): 969-977
[19] Rhode D, Brantingham PJ, Perreault C, et al. Mind the gaps: testing for hiatuses in regional radiocarbon date sequences[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2014, 52: 567-577
[20] 仪明洁, 高星, 张晓凌, 等. 青藏高原边缘地区史前遗址2009年调查试掘报告[J]. 人类学学报, 2011, 30: 124-136
[21] 侯光良, 曹广超, 鄂崇毅, 等. 青藏高原海拔4000m区域人类活动的新证据[J]. 地理学报, 2016, 71(7): 1231-1240
[22] 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.
[23] Zhang DD, Li SH. Optical dating of Tibetan human hand and footprints: An implication for the palaeoenvironment of the last glaciation of the Tibetan Plateau[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 2002, 29: 16-1-16-3.
[24] 汤惠生, 夏格旺堆, 吕红亮. 西藏邱桑手脚印遗迹及相关问题[J]. 河北师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2022, 45(5): 77-85
[25] Tang HS, Xiage WD, Yin J, et al. The hand and footprints at Qiusang in Tibet: Recommendations for dating rock art by U-Th[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2024, 161: 105899
文章导航

/