A preliminary study of the stone artifacts unearthed from the Ma’anshan site of Guizhou province in 1986

doi:10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2021.0080

Abstract

Abstract:

The Ma’anshan site, located in Tongzi county, Zunyi city, Guizhou province, was discovered in 1980 and excavated in 1981, 1986 and 1990. The Ma’anshan site is a Late Pleistocene cave site in Yun-Gui plateau, which is famous for yielding the oldest formal bone tools in South China. However, lithic materials from the Ma’anshan site have yet been fully analyzed after the excavation. This paper preliminarily reports 1292 pieces of stone artifacts unearthed in situ and numbered by layers in the 1986 excavation. The excavation area in 1986 reaches nearly 25 m², and uncovers 9 depositional layers which is divided into two cultural units separated by a depositional hiatus. The lower unit consists of depositional depositional layer 7 and layer 8, and the upper unit consists of layer 2 to layer 6. ¹⁴C and AMS¹⁴C dating on bone samples and U-series dating on cervid tooth indicate that the age of the lower unit dates back to 53 kaBP and the upper unit is around 36-15 kaBP.

The stone artifacts excavated from upper and lower units display differences in the aspects of raw material, size, core debitage reduction and tool retouch technology. First, the main raw materials of lower unit are siliceous limestone pebbles, however, chert nodules or blocks are the main raw materials of upper unit. Second, partly affected by size of raw materials, the stone artifact of lower unit are mainly small type in length (20≤L<50 mm) and medium type(50≤L<100 mm), but those of upper unit are mainly micro type (L<20 mm) and small type. Third, direct percussion is the dominate debitage technique adopted by ancient human at the Ma’anshan site. Nevertheless, apart from direct percussion, we identified a small number of vertical hammer bipolar flaking and ridged hammer bipolar flaking products from the upper unit, but not in the lower unit. The various debitage methods identified from the upper unit probably indicate ancient human can employ a diversity of debitage methods to process different raw materials. Fourth, blanks of tools from the lower unit are mainly flakes, while chunks are the common blanks of tools from the upper units.

Although, to some degree, stone artifacts between lower and upper cultural units does differ, however, these two units still belong to the same technological system overall. First, the raw materials are both local. Second, ancient humans mainly use chunks or flakes to manufacture tools, rarely directly producing pebble tools. Third, as for the core debitage technology, predetermined technology has not been found at the Ma’anshan site, but discoid core of the upper unit and some double platforms cores of the lower unit both indicate certain organization of the core debitage surfaces. Stone tools are dominated by various types of scrapers in these two units, and they have commonalities in retouch position, retouch length index, edge angle, etc.

Combining the research results of zooarchaeology, paleoclimate and paleoenvironment, we suppose that the technological variation between lower and upper unit could manifest the changes in subsistence patterns and mobility strategies of local population in response to climate change. However, due to space limitations, detailed studies on technological analysis of lithic artifacts and specific relationship between human behavior and environmental changes will be reported in the future.

The study of the Ma’anshan site is of great significance to understand the lithic technology in Guizhou and further to discuss the diversified adaptation of ancient humans on the Yun-Gui Plateau in the Late Pleistocene.

Keywords Ma’anshan site; Guizhou province; Late Pleistocene; Stone artifacts

CLC Number:

K876.2

HU Xiaochun, GAO Xing. A preliminary study of the stone artifacts unearthed from the Ma’anshan site of Guizhou province in 1986[J]. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 2022, 41(05): 788-803.

Figures/Tables 14

References 27

[1]	张森水. 马鞍山旧石器遗址试掘报告[J]. 人类学学报, 1988, 7(1): 64-74
[2]	龙凤骧. 马鞍山遗址出土碎骨表面痕迹的分析[J]. 人类学学报, 1992, 11(3): 216-229
[3]	张乐, Christopher JN, 张双权, 等. 量化单元在马鞍山遗址动物骨骼研究中的运用[J]. 人类学学报, 2008, 27(1): 79-90
[4]	张乐, 王春雪, 张双权, 等. 切割痕迹揭示马鞍山遗址晚更新世末人类肉食行为[J]. 科学通报, 2009, 54(19): 2871-2878
[5]	张乐, 王春雪, 张双权, 等. 马鞍山旧石器时代遗址古人类行为的动物考古学研究[J]. 中国科学(D辑):地球科学, 2009, 39(9): 1256-1265
[6]	张乐, 王春雪, 张双权, 等. 马鞍山遗址动物群的死亡年龄研究[J]. 人类学学报, 2009, 28(3): 306-318
[7]	Zhang Y, Stiner MC, Dennell R, et al. Zooarchaeological perspectives on the Chinese Early and Late Paleolithic from the Ma’anshan site (Guizhou, South China)[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2010, 37: 2066-2077 doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2010.03.012 URL
[8]	张乐. 旧石器时代古人类敲骨取髓行为的确认——以马鞍山遗址为例[J]. 第四纪研究, 2014, 34(1): 141-148
[9]	Zhang SQ, d’Errico F, Backwell LR, et al. Ma’anshan cave and the origin of bone tool technology in China[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2016, 65: 57-69 doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2015.11.004 URL
[10]	张森水. 桐梓县马鞍山旧石器文化遗址[A]. 见:中国考古学会(编).中国考古学年鉴·1987[C]. 北京: 文物出版社, 1987: 242-243
[11]	原思训, 陈铁梅, 高世君. 华南若干旧石器时代地点的铀系年代[J]. 人类学学报, 1986, 5(2): 179-190
[12]	张乐. 马鞍山遗址古人类行为的动物考古学研究[D]. 北京: 中国科学院古脊椎动物与古人类研究所, 2008: 144
[13]	张森水. 中国西南地区旧石器考古的主要成果与文化类型的探讨[A]. 见:宿白(主编).苏秉琦与当代中国考古学[C]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2001: 386-413
[14]	Bronk Ramsey C. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates[J]. Radiocarbon, 2009, 51(1): 337-360 doi: 10.1017/S0033822200033865 URL
[15]	Reimer PJ, Austin WEN, Bard E, et al. The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere radiocarbon age calibration curve (0-55 kcal BP)[J]. Radiocarbon, 2020, 62(4): 725-757 doi: 10.1017/RDC.2020.41 URL
[16]	卫奇. 《西侯度》石制品之浅见[J]. 人类学学报, 2000, 19(2): 85-96
[17]	Toth N. The Oldowan reassessed: a close look at early stone artifacts[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 1985, 12(2): 101-120 doi: 10.1016/0305-4403(85)90056-1 URL
[18]	张森水. 我国南方旧石器时代晚期文化的若干问题[J]. 人类学学报, 1983, 2(3): 218-230
[19]	王幼平. 更新世环境与中国南方旧石器文化发展[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 1997: 95-115
[20]	王幼平. 西南若干旧石器时代考古发现与问题[A]. 见:吕遵谔(主编).中国考古学研究的世纪回顾:旧石器时代考古卷[C]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2004: 292-310
[21]	李炎贤. 中国旧石器时代晚期文化的划分[J]. 人类学学报, 1993, 12(3): 214-223
[22]	张兴龙, 王新金, 毕忠荣, 等. 贵州省中部和西南部新发现的洞穴遗址调查简报[J]. 人类学学报, 2015, 34(4): 503-515
[23]	覃嘉铭, 林玉石, 张美良, 等. 末次冰期东亚季风气候的变迁: 贵州都匀七星洞石笋的δ¹⁸O记录[J]. 中国岩溶, 2003, 22(3): 167-173
[24]	覃嘉铭, 袁道先, 程海, 等. 贵州都匀七星洞石笋剖面晚更新世高分辨率的气候地层学[J]. 第四纪研究, 2004, 24(3): 318-324
[25]	彭子成, 张兆峰, 蔡演军, 等. 贵州七星洞晚更新世晚期石笋的古气候环境记录[J]. 第四纪研究, 2002, 22(3): 273-282
[26]	赵增友, 袁道先, 石胜强, 等. 孢粉、炭屑揭示的黔西高原MIS3b期间古植被、古气候演变[J]. 生态学报, 2012, 32(15): 4811-4818
[27]	赵增友, 石胜强, 袁智郴, 等. 黔西高原末次冰期晚期古植被及西南季风演变[J]. 古地理学报, 2019, 21(6): 1013-1024

实验室编号 Lab No.	层位Layer	样品Sample	方法Method	结果Result (BP)	¹⁴C校正年代Calibrated date (BP cal,95.4%)	参考文献 Reference
BK-82062	3	碎骨Broken bone	¹⁴C	15100±1500	23010-14521	[11]
BKY-82037	3	鹿牙Deer tooth	铀系法	18000±1000		[11]
BA-07624	3	碎骨Broken bone	AMS¹⁴C	19295±65	23705-23005	[12]
BA-07625	4	碎骨Broken bone	AMS¹⁴C	29170±110	34130-33315	[12]
BA-07626	5	碎骨Broken bone	AMS¹⁴C	29480±135	34371-33739	[12]
BA-07627	6	碎骨Broken bone	AMS¹⁴C	31155±140	35995-35231	[12]
BA-07628	7	碎骨Broken bone	AMS¹⁴C	19260±90	23709-22966	[12]
BA-07629	8	碎骨Broken bone	AMS¹⁴C	25310±125	29928-29232	[12]
不详Unknow	?(下文化层)	不详Unknow	不详	53000		[13]

实验室编号 Lab No.	层位Layer	样品Sample	方法Method	结果Result (BP)	¹⁴C校正年代Calibrated date (BP cal,95.4%)	参考文献 Reference
BK-82062	3	碎骨Broken bone	¹⁴C	15100±1500	23010-14521	[11]
BKY-82037	3	鹿牙Deer tooth	铀系法	18000±1000		[11]
BA-07624	3	碎骨Broken bone	AMS¹⁴C	19295±65	23705-23005	[12]
BA-07625	4	碎骨Broken bone	AMS¹⁴C	29170±110	34130-33315	[12]
BA-07626	5	碎骨Broken bone	AMS¹⁴C	29480±135	34371-33739	[12]
BA-07627	6	碎骨Broken bone	AMS¹⁴C	31155±140	35995-35231	[12]
BA-07628	7	碎骨Broken bone	AMS¹⁴C	19260±90	23709-22966	[12]
BA-07629	8	碎骨Broken bone	AMS¹⁴C	25310±125	29928-29232	[12]
不详Unknow	?(下文化层)	不详Unknow	不详	53000		[13]

类型Class → 层位 Unit & Layer ↓		石核 Core	石片 Flake	断块 Chunk	碎屑Debris	石器Tool	石锤 Hammer	人工痕迹不明显石料Unmodified material	合计 Total	百分比 Percent(%)
上文化层 Upper unit	L2	2	7	8	4	2	0	0	23	1.8%
	L3	12	73	94	26	11	1	8	225	17.4%
	L4	0	9	2	2	0	0	0	13	1.0%
	L5	14	151	150	56	19	0	16	406	31.4%
	L6	4	68	52	32	9	0	7	172	13.3%
下文化层 Lower unit	L7	33	166	125	2	71	0	42	439	34.0%
下文化层 Lower unit	L8	0	10	2	0	2	0	0	14	1.1%
合计Total		65	484	433	122	114	1	73	1292	100%
百分比Percent(%)		5.0%	37.5%	33.5%	9.4%	8.9%	0.1%	5.7%	1292	100%

类型Class → 层位 Unit & Layer ↓		石核 Core	石片 Flake	断块 Chunk	碎屑Debris	石器Tool	石锤 Hammer	人工痕迹不明显石料Unmodified material	合计 Total	百分比 Percent(%)
上文化层 Upper unit	L2	2	7	8	4	2	0	0	23	1.8%
	L3	12	73	94	26	11	1	8	225	17.4%
	L4	0	9	2	2	0	0	0	13	1.0%
	L5	14	151	150	56	19	0	16	406	31.4%
	L6	4	68	52	32	9	0	7	172	13.3%
下文化层 Lower unit	L7	33	166	125	2	71	0	42	439	34.0%
下文化层 Lower unit	L8	0	10	2	0	2	0	0	14	1.1%
合计Total		65	484	433	122	114	1	73	1292	100%
百分比Percent(%)		5.0%	37.5%	33.5%	9.4%	8.9%	0.1%	5.7%	1292	100%

原料Raw material → 类型Class ↓	燧石 Chert		硅质灰岩 Siliceous limestone		灰岩 Limestone		砂岩 Sandstone		粉砂岩 Siltstone		石英岩 Quartzite		玄武岩 Basalt		其他 Other
原料Raw material → 类型Class ↓	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
石核Core(n=33)	13	2.9%	17	3.8%	1	0.2%	1	0.2%	1	0.2%	0	0	0	0	0	0
石片Flake(n=176)	46	10.2%	103	22.7%	8	1.8%	8	1.8%	6	1.3%	3	0.7%	2	0.4%	0	0
断块Chunk(n=127)	56	12.4%	70	15.5%	0	0	1	0.2%	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
碎屑Debris(n=2)	2	0.4%	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
石器Tool (n=73)	31	6.8%	40	8.8%	0	0	0	0	2	0.4%	0	0	0	0	0	0
人工痕迹不明显石料Unmodified material(n=42)	11	2.4%	18	4.0%	12	2.7%	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0.2%
合计Total	159	35.1%	248	54.8%	21	4.6%	10	2.2%	9	2.0%	3	0.7%	2	0.4%	1	0.2%