摘要
自1931年裴文中教授在中国猿人化石产地发现石器和用火的遗迹之後,又一次惹起了学术界的注意。首先为此事来我国的是法国步日教授(Prof.H.Breuil),他在周口店作了几天观察,不仅承认了石器和用火的遗迹而且认为所发现的碎骨中有许多是加过工的骨器。於同年的冬季他在北京举行的中国地质学会会议上,对石器和用火的遗迹以及骨器的意义作了一次简单报告。後来他再次来我国时。
The problem of the bone implements of the Sinanthropus has long been a focus of discus-sions among Chinese archaeologists. Some are convinced that many fragments of bones andantlers show traces of being man-made, sometimes even discernable as to whether they weremade by a stone hammer or by some other stone implements with a cutting edge. Others,however, point out that the fragments were merely the work of some animals thatbit them or of falling rocks from the ceiling of the cave. They argue that evenif some of the bones were actually broken by the Sinanthropus himself, it was only becausehe wanted to get the marrows for food. In fact, to this date this divergence of opinion hasnot been resolved among the scientists of the Institute of Paleontology, Academia Sinica. The author is of the opinion that instead of being the work of any single agent, the frag-ments of bones and antlers discovered at Choukoutien were made by a variety of complicatedfactors. Undoubtedly, as he himself concedes, some of the fragments were the result of polishingby water while others were broken by the teeth of animals or by failing rocks, besidesthose broken by the Sinanthropus himself when he wanted to get the marrows out for food.But there are still many other fragments which show that their formation can not be explained by any of the above factors. As he points out, even though many antlers of Euryceros did come off naturally, those ofPseudaxis were clearly chopped off from the base up. Both types of antlers were often cut toseveral sections, with some retaining their base and others the tines. Usually, only about12--20 cm. of the base of Euryceros' antler was preserved, with its upper end showing un-mistakable traces of having ,been chopped. On the other hand, the ,base of the Pseudaxis was keptto a greater length, sometimes also showing traces of having, been chopped at both ends andoften with the first tine chopped off. The majority of the tines discovered at Choukoutienbelong to the Pseudaxis and many of them also appeared to have been chopped off. Moreoften than not, there are transversal deep marks on the tines of Pseudaxis while the antler basesof Eurvceros also bear scars. The author thinks that both are probably scars of use. The astragalus of both Equus and Bubalus and the humerus of Rhinoceros are often chippedto a point at one end. Some limb bones are first split lengthwise and then sharpened at oneend to a point or made into a knife. Moreover, the edges of many bone flakes also show tracesof having been chipped. According to the author, ,broken bones like these can be explained only if they were intendedas implements of some kind. For if marrows were what the Sinanthropus was after, all he hadto do was to crack the, bones in any manner. Certainly there was no reason whatsoever for himto sharpen them into pointed or knife-like implements. Likewise, this explanation about themarrows can not be applied to the chipping or striking of the bone flakes either because thelatter were already broken to begin with. Nor does it make any sense with the chopping of theantlers which contained no marrows at all. The author agrees with Prof. H. Breuil that the chopped-off antler base of the Euryceroswith its hard and sturdy end, was probably used as a stone hammer. On the other hand,he is of the opinion that ,both the tined antlers and the sharpened limb bones were used for digging.As can be imagined, digging must have played a very important part in the life of the Sinan-thropus who subsisted on gathering, especially when both fishing and hunting were not quitedeveloped yet. The specimens published by Prof. H. Breuil in 1939 were entirely destroyed during the waragainst Japan. Fortunately, many other specimens of such fragments have been preserved inquantity. In recent years new finds of the same material have also been made. A careful analysisof all these specimens will indeed add much to our knowledge of the life of the Sinanthropus.
出处
《考古学报》
1959年第3期1-5,共5页
Acta Archaeologica Sinica
