Report of the 2023 excavation at the Longgupo site, Wushan, Chongqing

doi:10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2025.0057

Abstract

Abstract:

The Longgupo site in Wushan, Chongqing, is one of the early human sites that has received widespread attention both at home and abroad. The site was first discovered in 1984 and has undergone four seasons totaling 12 times of excavations since 1985. The first season (1985-1988) initially aimed at mammalian fossils, while after the discovery of a controversial hominid jawbone fragment that sparked debate over its classification, the focus shifted to excavating it as a cultural site. Consequently, the excavation method was adjusted to dig and record according to horizontal layers, and 120 species of vertebrate fossils including 116 species of mammalian fossils, 14 Gigantopithecus teeth, and 2 stone artifacts were found. The second season of excavation (1997-1998) paid more attention to cultural clues that might be related to human activities, leading to the discovery of over 20 stone artifacts. The third season (2003-2006), a joint excavation by China and France, resulted in the discovery of 845 stone artifacts, one Gigantopithecus tooth, over 1000 vertebrate fossils, and two accumulations of mammalian limb bone fossils with suspected artificial marks over the four years of excavations. The fourth season (2011-2012) was led by the Chongqing China Three Gorges Museum, discovering 206 stone artifacts and 178 mammalian fossils, which focused more on stratigraphic accumulation and stratigraphic division.

After an interval of 11 years, the fifth season was launched in 2023 by the Chongqing China Three Gorges Museum, the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and Wuhan University, etc., resulting in the discovery of 146 pieces of well-characterized stone artifacts and 519 pieces of mammalian fossils.The stone artifacts were mainly made of the Triassic limestones distributed around the site. The types include scrapers, choppers, picks, points, flakes, etc., with the scrapers and choppers being the most remarkable ones. Mammalian fossils are dominated by large and medium-sized mammals, including Carnivora, Proboscidea, Perissodactyla, Artiodactyla, etc., and the extinct species account for 94.44% of the total, indicating that the age is early Early Pleistocene. The preliminary results of speleothem samples in the upper layers of the site yield the age from the late Middle Pleistocene to the early Late Pleistocene, which suggests that there may be younger layers in the upper part of the site that are mixed with early mammalian fossils. This provides new evidence for further clarification of some key issues including the site formation process, stratigraphic sequences and lithological characteristics, anthropic nature of stone artifacts and their technological features, biological evolutionary background, and sedimentary chronological sequences of the Longgupo site.

Key words: Longgupo site, Paleolithic, early hominin, speleothem

CLC Number:

K871.11

LIAO Ruxue, FU Yu, WANG Tengfei, ZHAO Xiongwei, ZHANG Qian, CHEN Yanyi, CHEN Shaokun, HAN Fei, WU Yan, HU Xin, NIU Wenyuan, WEI Xuan, HUANG Xianfeng, HUANG Wanbo, LI Yinghua. Report of the 2023 excavation at the Longgupo site, Wushan, Chongqing[J]. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 2026, 45(02): 345-357.

Figures/Tables 10

References 38

[1]	刘连强, 蒲昱晓, 侯佳岐, 等. 泥河湾盆地马圈沟遗址鱼咀沟1号地点2017-2018年发掘出土的石制品[J]. 人类学学报, 2024, 1: 40-54
[2]	Zhu RX, Potts R, Pan YX, et al. Early evidence of the genus Homo in East Asia[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2008, 55(6): 1075-1085
[3]	Zhu ZY, Dennell R, Huang WW, et al. New dating of the Homo erectus cranium from Lantian (Gongwangling), China[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2015, 78144-157
[4]	Cappellini E, Welker F, Pandolfi L, et al. Early Pleistocene enamel proteome from Dmanisi resolves Stephanorhinus phylogeny[J]. Nature, 2019, 574(7776): 103-107
[5]	Larick R, Ciochon RL, Zaim Y, et al. Early Pleistocene ⁴⁰Ar/³⁹Ar ages for Bapang Formation hominins, Central Jawa, Indonesia[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2001, 98(9): 4866-4871
[6]	Harmand S, Lewis JE, Feibel CS, et al. 3.3-million-year-old stone tools from Lomekwi 3, West Turkana, Kenya[J]. Nature, 2015, 521(7552): 310-315
[7]	Braun DR, Aldeias V, Archer W, et al. Earliest Known Oldowan Artifacts at >2.58 Ma From Ledi-Geraru, Ethiopia, Highlight Early Technological Diversity[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2019, 116(24): 11712-11717
[8]	Stout D, Semaw S, Rogers MJ, et al. Technological Variation in the Earliest Oldowan From Gona, Afar, Ethiopia[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2010, 58(6): 474-491
[9]	Campisano CJ. Geological summary of the Busidima Formation (Plio-Pleistocene) at the Hadar paleoanthropological site, Afar Depression, Ethiopia[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2012, 62(3): 338-352
[10]	Delagnes A, Galland A, Gravina B, et al. Long-term behavioral adaptation of Oldowan toolmakers to resource-constrained environments at 2.3 Ma in the lower Omo Valley (Ethiopia)[J]. Scientific Reports, 2023, 13: 14350
[11]	Delagnes A, Roche H. Late Pliocene hominid knapping skills: the case of Lokalalei 2C, West Turkana, Kenya[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2005, 48(5): 435-472
[12]	Granger DE, Gibbon RJ, Kuman K, et al. New cosmogenic burial ages for Sterkfontein Member 2 Australopithecus and Member 5 Oldowan[J]. Nature, 2015, 522(7554): 85-88
[13]	Shen G, Wang Y, Tu H, et al. Isochron ²⁶Al/¹⁰Be burial dating of Xihoudu: Evidence for the earliest human settlement in northern China[J]. L'anthropologie, 2020, 124(5): 102790
[14]	Cauche D, Malassé AD, Singh M, et al. Pre-Quaternary Hominin Settlements in Asia: Archaeology, Bio-Lithostratigraphy and Magnetostratigraphy Evidences at Masol, Siwaliks, Northwestern India[J]. L'anthropologie, 2021, 125(1): 102846
[15]	Shchelinsky VE, Gurova M, Tesakov AS, et al. The Early Pleistocene site of Kermek in western Ciscaucasia (southern Russia): Stratigraphy, biotic record and lithic industry (preliminary results)[J]. Quaternary International, 2016, 393(30): 51-69
[16]	Rendell H, Dennell RW. Dated Lower Palaeolithic Artefacts From Northern Pakistan[J]. Current Anthropology, 1985, 26(3): 393
[17]	黄万波, 方其仁. 巫山猿人遗址[M]. 北京: 海洋出版社, 1991, 1-15
[18]	Wanpo H, Ciochon R, Yumin G, et al. Early Homo and associated artefacts from Asia[J]. Nature, 1995, 378(6554): 275-278
[19]	金昌柱, 刘金毅. 安徽繁昌人字洞——早期人类活动遗址[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2009, 1-21
[20]	张森水, 韩立刚, 金昌柱, 等. 繁昌人字洞旧石器遗址 1998 年发现的人工制品[J]. 人类学学报, 2000, 19(3): 169-183
[21]	金昌柱, 郑龙亭, 董为, 等. 安徽繁昌早更新世人字洞古人类活动遗址及其哺乳动物群[J]. 人类学学报, 2000, 19(3): 184-198
[22]	Li H, Li CR, Kuman K. Longgudong, an Early Pleistocene site in Jianshi, South China, with stratigraphic association of human teeth and lithics[J]. Science China Earth Sciences, 2017, 60(3): 452-462
[23]	Han F, Bahain J, Shao Q, et al. Coupled Esr and U-Series Dating of the Northernmost Evidence of Gigantopithecus From Jianshi Longgudong Site, China[J]. Quaternary Geochronology, 2024, 83(101573)
[24]	Zhu Z, Dennell R, Huang W, et al. Hominin occupation of the Chinese Loess Plateau since about 2.1 million years ago[J]. Nature, 2018, 559(7715): 608-612
[25]	Wang W, Potts R, Hou Y, et al. Early Pleistocene hominid teeth recovered in Mohui cave in Bubing Basin, Guangxi, South China[J]. Chinese Science Bulletin, 2005, 50: 2777-2782
[26]	Key A, Proffitt T. Revising the oldest Oldowan: Updated optimal linear estimation models and the impact of Nyayanga (Kenya)[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2024, 186(103468)
[27]	Boëda E, Hou Y. Étude Du Site De Longgupo-Synthèse[J]. L'anthropologie, 2011, 115(1): 176-196
[28]	侯亚梅, 徐自强, 黄万波. 龙骨坡遗址 1998 年第 8 水平层若干石制品新研究[J]. 龙骨坡史前文化志,2002, 4: 1-10
[29]	侯亚梅, 徐自强, 黄万波. 龙骨坡遗址 1997 年新发现的石制品[J]. 龙骨坡史前文化志, 1999, 1: 69-80
[30]	刘椿, 金增信, 朱日祥, 等. 中国最早人类化石地层年龄的测定—巫山下更新统磁性地层学研究[J]. 第四纪研究, 1991, 3: 221-228
[31]	王谦. 巫山龙骨坡人类门齿的归属问题[J]. 人类学学报, 1996, 15(4): 320-323
[32]	陈铁梅, 杨全, 陈琪, 等. 巫山县龙骨坡地层的电子自旋共振测年[J]. 人类学学报, 2000, 19(1): 17-20
[33]	吴新智. 巫山龙骨坡似人下颌属于猿类[J]. 人类学学报, 2000, 19(1):1-10
[34]	侯亚梅, 李英华, 黄万波, 等. 龙骨坡遗址第 7 水平层石制品新材料[J]. 第四纪研究, 2006, 26(4): 555-561
[35]	武仙竹. 论龙骨坡遗址[J]. 华夏考古, 2018, 3: 38-44
[36]	Wei G, Huang W, Chen S, et al. Paleolithic culture of Longgupo and its creators[J]. Quaternary International, 2014, 354(15): 154-161
[37]	Rasse M, Huang W, Boëda É. Le Site De Longgupo Dans Son Environnement Géologique Et Géomorphologique[J]. L'anthropologie, 2011, 115(1): 23-39
[38]	Han F, Bahain JJ, Deng C, et al. The earliest evidence of hominid settlement in China: Combined electron spin resonance and uranium series (ESR/U-series) dating of mammalian fossil teeth from Longgupo cave[J]. Quaternary International, 2017, 434: 75-83

类型Type	第1层Layer 1	第2层Layer 2	第3层Layer 3	第4层Layer 4	数量Quantity	比例Percentage
石片Flakes				13	13	8.9%
石器Tools					119	81.5%
刮削器Scrapers	1	3	2	59	65	44.5%
砍砸器Choppers	1	1	2	42	46	31.5%
手镐Picks				4	4	2.7%
尖状器Points				4	4	2.7%
断块Chunks				14	14	9.6%
总计Total	2	4	4	136	146	100.0%

类型Type	第1层Layer 1	第2层Layer 2	第3层Layer 3	第4层Layer 4	数量Quantity	比例Percentage
石片Flakes				13	13	8.9%
石器Tools					119	81.5%
刮削器Scrapers	1	3	2	59	65	44.5%
砍砸器Choppers	1	1	2	42	46	31.5%
手镐Picks				4	4	2.7%
尖状器Points				4	4	2.7%
断块Chunks				14	14	9.6%
总计Total	2	4	4	136	146	100.0%

类型Type→ 原料Raw Material↓		刮削器Scarpers		砍砸器Choppers		手镐 Picks	尖状器Points	石片 Flakes	断块 Chunks	总计 Total
类型Type→ 原料Raw Material↓		单刃 Single edge	双刃 Double edges	单刃 Single edges	双刃 Double edges	手镐 Picks	尖状器Points	石片 Flakes	断块 Chunks	总计 Total
深灰色石灰岩Dark grey limesone	数量n	41	4	24	2	3	2	6	10	92
深灰色石灰岩Dark grey limesone	比例Percentage	28.1%	2.7%	16.4%	1.4%	2.1%	1.4%	4.1%	6.9%	63.0%
浅灰色石灰岩Light grey limestone	数量n	17	1	14		1	2	5	2	42
浅灰色石灰岩Light grey limestone	比例Percentage	11.6%	0.7%	9.6%		0.7%	1.4%	3.4%	1.4%	28.8%
硅质灰岩Silica limestone	数量n	2		6				2	2	12
硅质灰岩Silica limestone	比例Percentage	1.4%		4.1%				1.4%	1.4%	8.2%
总计Total		60	5	44	2	4	4	13	14	146

类型Type→ 原料Raw Material↓		刮削器Scarpers		砍砸器Choppers		手镐 Picks	尖状器Points	石片 Flakes	断块 Chunks	总计 Total
类型Type→ 原料Raw Material↓		单刃 Single edge	双刃 Double edges	单刃 Single edges	双刃 Double edges	手镐 Picks	尖状器Points	石片 Flakes	断块 Chunks	总计 Total
深灰色石灰岩Dark grey limesone	数量n	41	4	24	2	3	2	6	10	92
深灰色石灰岩Dark grey limesone	比例Percentage	28.1%	2.7%	16.4%	1.4%	2.1%	1.4%	4.1%	6.9%	63.0%
浅灰色石灰岩Light grey limestone	数量n	17	1	14		1	2	5	2	42
浅灰色石灰岩Light grey limestone	比例Percentage	11.6%	0.7%	9.6%		0.7%	1.4%	3.4%	1.4%	28.8%
硅质灰岩Silica limestone	数量n	2		6				2	2	12
硅质灰岩Silica limestone	比例Percentage	1.4%		4.1%				1.4%	1.4%	8.2%
总计Total		60	5	44	2	4	4	13	14	146