吉林省抚松县枫林遗址第2地点发掘简报
收稿日期: 2024-03-17
录用日期: 2024-07-10
网络出版日期: 2026-02-13
基金资助
国家社会科学基金(23AKG001);全国考古人才振兴计划资助(2024-278)
Excavation report on the Fenglin Loc.2 in Fusong County, Jilin Province
Received date: 2024-03-17
Accepted date: 2024-07-10
Online published: 2026-02-13
枫林遗址位于吉林省白山市抚松县漫江镇枫林村东约500 m头道松花江左岸的山梁之上,东距长白山主峰约43 km,分布面积超过30000 m2,可划分为第1地点、第2地点(东山坡地点)和第3地点(观景台地点)三部分,其中第2地点位于遗址所在山梁中部偏南,地理坐标41°57′58″N,127°31′57″E。该遗址发现于2014年,2016年分别在第1地点和第2地点发掘面积150 m2和80 m2,其中第2地点出土石制品983件,包含1个文化层。石制品以黑曜岩为主要原料,类型包括石片石核、石叶石核、细石叶石核、石叶、细石叶、石片、石器、断块、碎片和砾石等。剥片技术以石叶、细石叶技术为特点,其中石叶石核均为棱柱状石核,细石叶石核则包括楔形、船形等多种类型。经过14C与OSL年代测定,文化层的形成年代不晚于距今1.7万年,处在旧石器时代晚期偏晚阶段。
徐廷 , 黄抡月 , 任进成 , 葛俊逸 , 高星 . 吉林省抚松县枫林遗址第2地点发掘简报[J]. 人类学学报, 2026 , 45(01) : 174 -186 . DOI: 10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2025.0018
The Fenglin site (41°57′58″N, 127°31′57″E), a Late Paleolithic site, lies in Fusong County, Jilin Province, northeastern China. This open-air site is perched on a mountain ridge along the left bank of the Toudao Songhua River, at an elevation of around 900 meters above sea level. Discovered in 2014, during subsequent surveys, thousands of lithic artifacts were gathered from an approximately 30,000 m² surface area. Based on the distribution of these lithic artifacts, the Fenglin site can be partitioned into three localities: Locality(Loc.) 1, Loc.2 (Dongshanpo site), and Loc.3 (Guanjingtai site). Loc.1 features relatively thick stratigraphic deposits but has sustained substantial damage over the years due to road-widening and construction activities. Conversely, Loc.2 and Loc.3 have shallower and less-developed stratigraphic deposits, yet with relatively better preservation conditions.
In 2016, a joint team from the Institute of Archaeology of Jilin Province and the Institute of Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, carried out a systematic 80 m² excavation at Loc.2. The aim was to obtain lithic artifacts from reliable stratigraphic sequences and conduct chronometric research. This excavation unearthed a total of 983 lithic artifacts. Employing AMS 14C and optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating methods, the sediments in which these artifacts were embedded were dated to at least 17 kaBP.
This article presents the outcomes of raw-material and fundamental techno-typological analyses of the lithic assemblages from Fenglin Loc.2. Given its close proximity (~43 km) to the Changbai Mountain to the west, obsidian is the predominant raw material, succeeded by tuff, chert, limestone, vein quartz, sandstone, diorite porphyrite, quartzite, and basalt. The artifact types include debitage products from blade, microblade, and flake production, along with elaborately retouched tools such as sidescrapers, endscrapers, burins, points, notches, choppers, and adzes. The blade-production technique is identified as the prismatic blade reduction method. The main methods for microblade production involve wedge-shaped, boat-shaped, burin-like, and irregular-shaped microblade cores.
Our findings fill a crucial gap in the archaeological record regarding the Last Glacial Maximum in the Changbai Mountain region and the evolution of microblade technology from its primitive to mature phases. The excavation at Fenglin Loc.2 further refines the cultural sequence of the Late Paleolithic era in the Changbai Mountain area. Moreover, it is of great significance for comprehending the adaptation strategies of ancient humans to extreme environments in high-latitude regions and the interactions among prehistoric populations in Northeast Asia.
Key words: Fenglin site; Upper Paleolithicc; blade; microblade
| [1] | 李万博, 陈全家, 张福有. 吉林枫林旧石器遗址发现的石制品[J]. 人类学学报, 2019, 38(2): 191-199 |
| [2] | 徐廷. 吉林抚松发现枫林旧石器遗址[N]. 中国文物报,2016-10-21(08) |
| [3] | 王非, 陈文寄, 彭子成, 等. 长白山天池火山晚更新世以来的喷发活动:高精度铀系TIMS年代学制约[J]. 地球化学, 2001, 30(1): 88-94 |
| [4] | 卫奇.石制品观察格式探讨[A].见:邓涛,王原(主编).《第八届古脊椎动物学术年会文集》[C]. 北京: 海洋出版社, 2001, 209-218 |
| [5] | 田川, 徐廷, 关莹, 等. 吉林抚松枫林遗址细石核研究[J]. 人类学学报, 2019, 38(1): 19-32 |
| [6] | 崔哲慜, 侯哲, 高星. 朝鲜半岛旧石器时代晚期的有柄尖刃器[J]. 人类学学报, 2017, 36(4): 465-477 |
| [7] | Kuzmin YV, Keates SG, Shen C. Origin and spread of microblade technology in Northern Asia and North America[M]. Burnaby, BC, Simon Fraser University, Archaeology Press, 2007 |
| [8] | 陈胜前. 细石叶工艺的起源:一个理论与生态的视角[J]. 考古学研究(七). 2008, 244-264 |
| [9] | Yi MJ, Gao X, Li F, et al. Rethinking the origin of microblade technology: A chronological and ecological perspective[J]. Quaternary International, 2016, 400: 130-139 |
| [10] | Zhang M. Rethinking microblade technology research in Northeastern Asia[J]. Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology, 2021, 4(3): 1-40 |
| [11] | Kuzmin YV.Recent studies of obsidian exchange networks in prehistoric Northeast Asia[A].In: Dumond DE, Bland RL (Eds). Archaeology in Northeast Asia: On the pathway to Bering Strait[C]. Museum of Natural History, Oregon, 2006, 61-72 |
| [12] | Kato S. The use of lithic raw materials during the Upper Paleolithic in eastern China: A focus on microblade industries[J]. Quaternary International, 2017, 442: 66-77 |
| [13] | Kim JC, Chang Y. Evidence of human movements and exchange seen from curated obsidian artifacts on the Korean Peninsula[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 2021, 39: 103184 |
| [14] | Yue JP, Yang SX, Li YQ, et al. Human adaptations during MIS 2: Evidence from microblade industries of Northeast China[J]. Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology, 2021, 567(2): 1-14 |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |