旧石器时代东亚、西亚之间的关系

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EAST AND WEST ASIA IN PALEOLITHIC AGE

通过实地考察和对收藏标本的细致研究 ,以获取第一手资料的方式 ,文章客观地评价了中国古人类学研究者的工作业绩和历史局限 ,认为在中国发现的东亚早期人类的新证据为探讨人类起源的单极和多极理论提供了新的可能 ;东亚人的古老性是目前科研工作的关键问题 ,必须利用各种手段 ,对此予以尽可能准确的界定。与中国学者合作研究人字洞遗址、龙骨坡遗址和东谷坨遗址的结果说明中国的考古遗址具有多样性 ,各遗址的石器相互间差异性很大 ,与同一时期非洲的模式不同 ,在这里可以找到更加有趣的材料来认识早期人类的方方面面 ,因此 ,应以最严谨的态度和最高的注意力对待中国的考古发现。此外 ,结合中国古人类、旧石器遗址和古气候学的研究资料 ,文章从宏观地理学的角度阐述了旧石器时代阿舍利和勒瓦娄哇两个典型的文化现象及其发展脉络 ,探讨了旧石器时代东亚和西亚之间的关系 ,对中国旧石器文化的发展模式及其与西亚乃至全球的关系提出了个人的独到见解 ;着眼于研究早期工业技术的发现地、创新地及其传播地点等问题认为 ,中国同西欧一样 ,在地理环境和人类生存方面都处于孤立无援的境地 ,其技术的发展亲历了在本土发明、从境外引进和向外输出等不同阶段 ,它们不愧是穿越时空来追随技术变革的两大实验场。文章?

Through real surveys on the spots and meticulous study on collected specimens the author presents his unbiased evaluation about the outstanding achievements and historical localization of Chinese palaeoanthropologists on his way of getting first-hand documents. He thinks the new evidence found in China about early man in East Asia provide new possibility for monopole or multipole theory about human origin. A corrperative research work with Chinese scholars on Renzidong, Longgupo and Donggutuo sites indicates that Chinese archaeologial sites including their stone artifacts are full of diversity and otherness between each other. It might be different from any models of contemporary sites in Africa and would be found more interesting materials to understand all different aspects of early man. Therefore it is much more needed of religious attitude and maximal attention on archaeological discovery in China. In a view of macrogeography this article observes two typical phenomena between East and West Asia: the Acheulian and the Levallois. Accordingly a bran-new hypothesis is proposed that the Acheulian in the Far East in not any extraneous renovation but inherent innovation. This also supports an imagine of much earlier age of early man in East Asia. Differing from known Acheulian in Africa, Near East and Europe it was nonexistent of a developed Achulian in Asia. The evolvement was in whole Southeast Asia from India, passing by Indonisia and China, up to Korea staying in a primary stage. The interruption was because of rising of the sea level, obstructing come-and-go of members in different geographical districts and inducing separating development. Flaking concept of Levallois is a representative stage in tool making development of Lower Pleistocene. In Europe Levallois technology was reserved and rapidly diffused into the whole Med-basin, West Africa, Near East, Middle Asia, Mongolia and India. In China only in Panxian Dadong, Guizhou Province Levallois technology appears individually invented trace but not succeeded. Only at Shuidonggou site in Ningxia we found a reappearance of veriest Levallois culture, which is newly dated of 25 000aB.P. and the most eastern location. Some characters show it is indeed Levallois technology and very close to that in the Near East and Middle East many thousands years ago. Such surprisal similarity indicates it certainly existed a migrating route in the north between East and West. An amazing fact is abroad used of the Upper Paleolithic technology in Guizhou Province that reflects the most primordial insulated group in cultural phenomenon. The tool character can be generalized as two types: the dated and the developable. China is such a unique world that is necessary to integrate elements of geography and divided into several cultural districts to study. It is already shown some individual projecting characters in some periods in the north or the south. However, documents so far are in much insufficiency to exceed this simple tendentious cognition. The sensitivity of China is particularly emphasized by the author such as climatic changes between glacial and interglacial periods and their deep influence on migrating route, isolating or flowing of ancient people, even on stagnancy or renovation of technology.