Excavation / Investigation Reports

A report of the 2010 excavation of the Helongdadong site, Jilin Province

  • Ting XU ,
  • Hailong ZHAO ,
  • Lingbo GU
Expand
  • 1. Liaoning Uniersity, Shenyang 110136
    2. College of History and Culture, Hebei Normal University, Shijiazhuang 050024
    3. Jilin Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Changchun 130000

Received date: 2022-06-06

  Revised date: 2022-08-17

  Online published: 2023-10-16

Abstract

Here we report archaeological findings from the 2010 excavation of Helongdadong, an open-air site in the hinterland of the Changbaishan Mountains around 75 km east of the Changbaishan Tianchi volcano. Abundant lithic artefacts featured by blade and microblade technology were uncovered. Theses finding make Helongdadong one of the earliest evidence for microblade technology in Northeast China, and provides important insights into the emergence and spread of microblade technology in northeastern Asia.

Situated at the crossroads of Northeast China, the Korean Peninsula, and the Russian Far East, the Changbai Mountains show large quantities of lithic assemblages characterized by blade and microblade technology that plays a critical role in exploring emergence and spread of microblade technology and its relationship with climatic and environmental changes. Extensive utilization of obsidian and the toolkits themselves indicate a connection with other areas in northwest Asia. In the heart of the Changbai Mountains, the Helongdadong site (43°5′20.4″N, 128°57′20.9″E) is located on the third terrace of the left bank of the Tumen River, about 500 m north of Dadong village, Chongshan Town, Helong City, Jilin Province. It was discovered in 2007 and excavated in 2010. The deposits consist of seven layers with cultural remains from layers 1, 3, 4 and 5. From an area of 50 m2, a total of 1253 lithic artifacts, 47 unmodified gravels, and 3 animal bones were unearthed. Obsidian is the predominant raw material. The technology is characterized by blade and microblade reduction. Toolkits mainly include burins, endscrapers, scrapers, and bifacial points etc. of which burins and endscrapers are primary tool types and are highly standardized in shape. Partially polished stone tools discovered in Layer 4 constitute one of the earliest dated edge-polished stone tools in China. From Layer 4, the main cultural layer of Helongdadong, lithic artifacts are spatially concentrated, suggestive of an in-situ burial. The spatial distribution of the lithics also indicate human activity such as procurement, blank production, modification and tool manufacture. A radiocarbon date of 21350±120 (25900~25340 BP cal) was obtained for Layer 4, corresponding to the initial stage of the Last Glacial Maximum. Preliminary results of Optically Stimulated Luminescence dating further suggests that the dates of layers 5 and 4 were not earlier than 28 kaBP, and Layer 3 around 15 kaBP. The well-preserved, stratified and dated contexts of the site provide essential information for building a chronostratigraphic framework in the Changbai Mountains and make it possible to perform a comparative analysis of lithic technology in northwest Asia during the Upper Paleolithic.

Cite this article

Ting XU , Hailong ZHAO , Lingbo GU . A report of the 2010 excavation of the Helongdadong site, Jilin Province[J]. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 2023 , 42(05) : 651 -666 . DOI: 10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2023.0051

References

[1] 李霞. 和龙崇善大洞旧石器遗址(07年)发掘的石器研究[D]. 长春: 吉林大学, 2009, 1-3
[2] 李万博, 陈全家, 方启, 等. 延边和龙大洞旧石器遗址(2007)试掘简报[J]. 边疆考古研究, 2016, 2: 11
[3] 万晨晨, 陈全家, 方启, 等. 吉林和龙大洞遗址的调查与研究[J]. 考古学报, 2017, 1: 24
[4] 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: 88-94
[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: 14
[6] 李有骞, 陈全家. 长白山地黑曜岩旧石器的技术模式研究[J]. 东北史地, 2014, 5: 3-6
[7] 赵海龙. 谈吉林省旧石器时代考古调查[J]. 东北史地, 2008, 6: 75-79
[8] Kuzmin YV. Geoarchaeological aspects of the origin and spread of microblade technology in northern and central Asia[A]. In: Kuzmin YV, Keates SG, Shen C(Eds). Origin and Spread of Microblade Technology in Northern Asia and North America[C]. Archaeology Press of Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, 2007: 115-124.
[9] Christopher NJ, Kidong Bae, Lee HY, et al. A review of Korean microlithic industries[A]. In: Kuzmin YV, Keates SG, Shen C(Eds). Origin and Spread of Microblade Technology in Northern Asia and North America[C]. Burnaby: Archaeology Press of Simon Fraser University, 2007: 91-102
[10] Jia PW, Doelman T, Chen CJ, et al. Moving sources: A preliminary study of volcanic glass artifact distributions in Northeast China using PXRF[J]. J Archaeol Sci, 2010, 37 (7): 1670-1677
[11] Graf KE. Modern human colonization of the Siberian Mammoth Steppe: A view from South-Central Siberia[A]. In: Camps M, Chauhan PR(ed). Sourcebook of Paleolithic Transitions[C]. New York: Springer. 2009: 479-501
[12] 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
[13] Zhang M. Rethinking Microblade Technology Research in Northeastern Asia[J]. Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology, 2021, 4(3): 1-40
Outlines

/