Lithic technology models and human adaptation behaviors of the Yumidong site in Chongqing
Received date: 2022-09-25
Accepted date: 2022-12-07
Online published: 2025-04-15
Paleolithic archaeological research has predominantly centered on the evolution of lithic technology and the transformation of ancient human subsistence patterns. Scholars worldwide have deliberately correlated the stages of lithic technology evolution with those of human evolution.
The formation and evolution of lithic technology models are influenced by multiple factors. For an extended period, the prehistoric archaeology community has inclined to employ the perspective of Evolutionary Archaeology to account for the regional variation of culture or lithic industries. However, the role of the Behavioral Ecology perspective in Paleolithic archaeology, particularly in explaining the lithic industries in southern China, has been overlooked. In this paper, under two distinct theoretical frameworks, and by integrating subjective and objective factor analyses, the lithic technology model at the Yumidong Site and the causes of human behavior are systematically elucidated.
From the perspective of Evolutionary Archaeology, the lithic industry at the Yumidong site, as a regional variant of the main gravel lithic industrial system in southern China, can still be tentatively classified as Lithic Technical Model 1. From a behavioral ecology perspective, the technological landscape of stone products at the Yumidong site is regionally distinctive, differing from the conventional technological patterns hitherto observed. It represents a unique indigenous lithic technological pattern in the Three Gorges region and can be regarded as a new lithic industry or culture.
We examine and quantify the objective and subjective variables that contributed to the development of the lithic technology type based on a variety of ideas and viewpoints. In terms of raw materials, functional requirements, and passive adaptation, it is posited that the causes of the specificity of the stone tool industry at the Yumidong site are more objective. The role of subjective factors is limited and contingent upon objective factors, and ecological adaptation is the primary determinant of regional cultural characteristics. Nevertheless, subjective technological choices and cultural inheritance are also significant co-factors in the formation and stability of stone tool industrial characteristics. Stone tool technology was highly compatible with the available resources in the environment, and both influenced and converged to facilitate adaptation. This technology and culture system is deeply rooted in the lithic culture of the Three Gorges region. It is a successful instance of ancient humans adapting to the unique environment of the Yangtze River Three Gorges Region and a technological reflection of their distinct survival adaptation behaviors. In southern China, the lithic industry of the Yumidong site is an embodiment of regional technological diversification.
Key words: Yumidong site; lithic technology; evolution; human behavior
HE Cunding , LYU Lanxi . Lithic technology models and human adaptation behaviors of the Yumidong site in Chongqing[J]. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 2025 , 44(02) : 210 -219 . DOI: 10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2023.0033
[1] | 高星, 裴树文. 中国古人类石器技术与生存模式的考古学解释[J]. 第四纪研究, 2006, 26(4): 504-513 |
[2] | 王幼平. 中国早期原始文化的相对独立性及成因[A]. 见:北京大学传统文化研究中心.国学研究[C]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 1995, 525-540 |
[3] | Schick KD. The Movius line reconsidered: Perspectives on the earlier Paleolithic of Eastern Asia[J]. In: Corruccini RS, Ciochon RL (eds). Integrative Paths to the Past[C]. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1994, 569-596 |
[4] | 林圣龙. 中西方旧石器文化中的技术模式的比较[J]. 人类学学报, 1996, 15(1): 1-20 |
[5] | 王幼平. 中国南方旧石器时代考古:进展与问题[J]. 南方文物, 2021, (01):55-61 |
[6] | Hu Y, Marwick B, Zhang JF, et al. Late Middle Pleistocene Levallois stone-tool technology in southwest China[J]. Nature, 2018, 565(7737): 82-85 |
[7] | 阮齐军, 刘建辉, 胡越, 等. 云南鹤庆天华洞旧石器遗址石制品研究[J]. 人类学学报, 2019, 38(2): 166-181 |
[8] | 李锋. 克拉克的“技术模式”与中国旧石器技术演化研究[J]. 考古, 2017, 9: 73-81 |
[9] | 李浩. 中国旧石器时代早:中期石器技术多样性研究的新进展[J]. 人类学学报, 2018, 37(4): 602-612 |
[10] | 战世佳, 董哲. 从技术组织论视角阐释中国古人类石器技术的多样性[J]. 人类学学报, 2021, 40(06): 1096-1107 |
[11] | 苏秉琦, 殷玮璋. 关于考古学文化的区系类型问题[J]. 文物, 1981, 5: 10-17 |
[12] | 贾兰坡, 盖培, 尤玉柱. 山西峙峪旧石器时代遗址发掘报告[J]. 考古学报, 1972, 1: 39-58 |
[13] | 王益人. 贾兰坡与华北两大旧石器传统[J]. 人类学学报, 2002, 21(3): 171-177 |
[14] | 张森水. 管窥新中国旧石器考古学的重大发展[J]. 人类学学报, 1999, 3: 193-214 |
[15] | 张森水. 近20年来中国旧石器考古学的进展与思考[J]. 人类学学报, 2002, 22(1): 11-19 |
[16] | 王幼平. 石器研究:旧石器时代考古方法初探[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2006, 104-105 |
[17] | Lyman RL, O’Brien MJ. The Goals of Evolutionary Archaeology: History and Explanation[J]. Current Anthropology, 1998, 39(5): 616-652 |
[18] | Dunnell RC, Stein JK. Theoretical issues in the interpretation of microartifacts[J]. Geoarchaeology, 1989, 4(1): 31-41 |
[19] | Dunnell RC. Style and function: a fundamental dichotomy[J]. American Antiquity, 1978, 43(2): 192-202 |
[20] | Neiman FD. Stylistic variation in evolutionary perspective: inferences from decorative diversity and interassemblage distance in Illinois Woodland ceramic assemblages[J]. American Antiquity, 1995, 60(1): 7-36 |
[21] | Boone JL, Smith EA. Is it evolution yet? A critique of evolutionary archaeology[J]. Current anthropology, 1998, 39(S1): 141-174 |
[22] | Bird DW, O’Connell JF. Behavioral ecology and archaeology[J]. Journal of Archaeological Research, 2006, 14(2): 143-188 |
[23] | Shennan SJ. Evolution in archaeology[J]. Annual Review of Anthropology, 2008, 37: 75-91 |
[24] | Smith EA. Three styles in the evolutionary study of human behavior[A]. In: Cronk L, Irons W, Chagnon N(eds.). Human Behavior and Adaptation: An Anthropological Perspective[C]. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, Hawthorne, 2000, 27-46 |
[25] | Winterhalder B, Smith EA. Analyzing adaptive strategies:Human behavioral ecology at twenty-five[J]. Evolutionary Anthropology, 2000, 9(2): 51-72 |
[26] | 李锋. “文化传播”与“生态适应”:水洞沟遗址第2地点考古学观察[D]. 北京: 中国科学院大学, 2012, 2-157 |
[27] | Isaac GL. Foundation stones: Early artifacts as indicators of activities and abilities[A]. In: Bailey GN, Callow P. Stone Age Prehistory: Studies in Memory of Charles McBurney[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986, 221-241 |
[28] | 李浩. 中国旧石器时代早-中期石器技术多样性研究的新进展[J]. 人类学学报, 2018, 37(4): 602-612 |
[29] | 陈胜前, 叶灿阳. 细石叶工艺起源研究的理论反思[J]. 人类学学报, 2019, 38(4): 547-562 |
[30] | Hawkes C. Archaeological theory and method: some suggestions from the Old World[J]. American Antiquity, 1954, 56: 155-168 |
[31] | Shao QF, Philippe AN, He CD, et al. Applying a Bayesian approach for refining the chronostratigraphy of the Yumidong site in the Three Gorges region, central China[J]. Quaternary Geochronology, on line, 2022, 70: 2-8 |
[32] | 黄孟杰. 重庆巫山玉米洞考古遗址的地层年代研究[D]. 南京: 南京师范大学, 2020, 55-56 |
[33] | Wei GB, Huang WB, Bo?da E, et al. Recent discovery of a unique Paleolithic industry from the Yumidong Cave site in the Three Gorges region of Yangtze River, southwest China[J]. Quaternary International, 2014, 434: 107-120 |
[34] | 裴树文. 三峡地区晚更新世环境与石器工业[D]. 北京: 中国科学院古脊椎动物与古人类研究所, 2002, 128-131 |
[35] | 重庆中国三峡博物馆. 重庆市巫山县玉米洞旧石器时代遗址发掘简报[J]. 考古, 2018, 1: 3-16+2 |
[36] | 李英华. 旧石器技术:理论与实践[M]. 北京: 社会科学文献出版社, 2017, 351-358 |
[37] | 贺存定. 重庆玉米洞遗址石器工业的剥片技术与策略选择[J]. 江汉考古, 2019, 6: 72-80 |
[38] | 贺存定. 重庆玉米洞遗址发现的骨角牙制品初步研究[J]. 人类学学报, 2019, 38(1): 33-49 |
[39] | Binford LR. Willow smoke and dog's tails: Hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation[J]. American Antiquity, 1980, 45: 2-20 |
[40] | 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, 28-36 |
/
〈 |
|
〉 |