RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      임실 하가 후기구석기유적의 돌날제작기법 연구 = A Study on Blade Production Technique of Haga Upper Paleolithic Site, in Korea

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=T14038562

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

      The blade is a representative artifact of the upper Paleolithic of Korea. Factually observing from these artifacts excavated from the sites of the upper Paleolithic, we can find that people in the upper Paleolithic must have produced a blade with raw materials such as rhyolite, hornfels, shale etc., and must have utilized it as a basic blank of the tool. Moreover, they must have used the blade in itself as a tool as well. The study of the manufacturing techniques of the blade and restoration of it play an important role in understanding of survival skills of upper Paleolithic human.
      This paper researches into the technology and process of the blade production through the blade production technology we learned from ‘refitting artifact’ of Imsil Haga site, and analogizes the kind of the hammer which they used for the blade production in comparison with the existing research result of experimental archaeology on the blade production.
      Imsil Haga site safely stores the upper Paleolithic cultural layers, where numerous blades, blade cores and tools were excavated five times in total from 2006 to 2011. Their dating measurements are 19,700±300 BP and 19,500±200 BP (AMS Charcoal).
      Blades and Blade cores excavated from their sites were restored to the original state of the raw material by refitting around the area, where blades were excavated concentrically.
      Consequently, we preceeded to analyze the state, width and thickness of butts, the state of trimming, flaking angle, angle de chasse, bulb etc. of 68 pieces ‘refitting artifacts’ in 5 groups.
      We observed the production process of blade via the trace analysis of these remains on the artifacts and we analogized the knapping technique on the basis of this property analysis set up previously; according to the production process of blade, we can analyze: 1) the shaping, 2) the preparation for the production process of blade, 3) the production process of blade, 4) the arrangement for new striking platform, 5) the throwing away.
      In the case of ‘refitting artifact No. 1’ composed of the greatest number of artifacts, they must have produced a blade with rhyolite pebbles; removed cortical face and superfluous parts they must have prepared to produce it; at first on striking platform, secondly on the surface of striking platform and on the front of the production face alternatively, at last on that surface they must have produced and then thrown it away.
      In the case of ‘refitting artifact No. 3’ they must have produced a blade turning around striking platforms in succession for a knapping accident; having produced the blade on the existing striking platform, they must have produced it no more because of stab or hinge appearance, and so continued to work on the opposite side. In the case of ‘refitting artifact No. 2 & No. 5’ we can notice the remaking and the changing of striking platforms.
      When manufacturers produced blades they must have tended to hold the cortical face on the back of blade core without using to the end to produce it grasping its blank firmly; we can notice this in ‘refitting artifact No. 1, No. 4 & No. 5’ too.
      Via property analysis, observation of artifact and in comparison with the material of experimental archaeology, we analogize the hammer used in used in Haga site.: the features of its butts are sorted into three kinds. As the result of the comparison with the study of experimental archaeology, they must have produced the antler hammer in the way of the direct percussion.
      번역하기

      The blade is a representative artifact of the upper Paleolithic of Korea. Factually observing from these artifacts excavated from the sites of the upper Paleolithic, we can find that people in the upper Paleolithic must have produced a blade with raw ...

      The blade is a representative artifact of the upper Paleolithic of Korea. Factually observing from these artifacts excavated from the sites of the upper Paleolithic, we can find that people in the upper Paleolithic must have produced a blade with raw materials such as rhyolite, hornfels, shale etc., and must have utilized it as a basic blank of the tool. Moreover, they must have used the blade in itself as a tool as well. The study of the manufacturing techniques of the blade and restoration of it play an important role in understanding of survival skills of upper Paleolithic human.
      This paper researches into the technology and process of the blade production through the blade production technology we learned from ‘refitting artifact’ of Imsil Haga site, and analogizes the kind of the hammer which they used for the blade production in comparison with the existing research result of experimental archaeology on the blade production.
      Imsil Haga site safely stores the upper Paleolithic cultural layers, where numerous blades, blade cores and tools were excavated five times in total from 2006 to 2011. Their dating measurements are 19,700±300 BP and 19,500±200 BP (AMS Charcoal).
      Blades and Blade cores excavated from their sites were restored to the original state of the raw material by refitting around the area, where blades were excavated concentrically.
      Consequently, we preceeded to analyze the state, width and thickness of butts, the state of trimming, flaking angle, angle de chasse, bulb etc. of 68 pieces ‘refitting artifacts’ in 5 groups.
      We observed the production process of blade via the trace analysis of these remains on the artifacts and we analogized the knapping technique on the basis of this property analysis set up previously; according to the production process of blade, we can analyze: 1) the shaping, 2) the preparation for the production process of blade, 3) the production process of blade, 4) the arrangement for new striking platform, 5) the throwing away.
      In the case of ‘refitting artifact No. 1’ composed of the greatest number of artifacts, they must have produced a blade with rhyolite pebbles; removed cortical face and superfluous parts they must have prepared to produce it; at first on striking platform, secondly on the surface of striking platform and on the front of the production face alternatively, at last on that surface they must have produced and then thrown it away.
      In the case of ‘refitting artifact No. 3’ they must have produced a blade turning around striking platforms in succession for a knapping accident; having produced the blade on the existing striking platform, they must have produced it no more because of stab or hinge appearance, and so continued to work on the opposite side. In the case of ‘refitting artifact No. 2 & No. 5’ we can notice the remaking and the changing of striking platforms.
      When manufacturers produced blades they must have tended to hold the cortical face on the back of blade core without using to the end to produce it grasping its blank firmly; we can notice this in ‘refitting artifact No. 1, No. 4 & No. 5’ too.
      Via property analysis, observation of artifact and in comparison with the material of experimental archaeology, we analogize the hammer used in used in Haga site.: the features of its butts are sorted into three kinds. As the result of the comparison with the study of experimental archaeology, they must have produced the antler hammer in the way of the direct percussion.

      더보기

      목차 (Table of Contents)

      • ABSTRACT
      • Ⅰ. 머리말 1
      • 1. 연구사 2
      • 2. 연구목적 9
      • 3. 용어정리 10
      • ABSTRACT
      • Ⅰ. 머리말 1
      • 1. 연구사 2
      • 2. 연구목적 9
      • 3. 용어정리 10
      • Ⅱ. 연구대상 17
      • 1. 임실 하가유적의 개요 17
      • 2. 분석 대상 유물 20
      • Ⅲ. 분석 방법과 내용 22
      • 1. 분석 방법 22
      • 2. 분석 내용 27
      • Ⅳ. 고찰 95
      • 1. 돌날제작과정의 복원 95
      • 2. 돌날제작기법의 해석 97
      • Ⅴ. 맺음말 105
      • 【참고문헌】
      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼