CHẶT HAY ĐẬP?

CHẶT HAY ĐẬP?

(Ý kiến của riêng Em).

            Ồ. Hai thuật ngữ này không giản đơn một tý nào! Ở đây chưa bàn về công cụ được làm từ tre, gỗ vì không có bằng chứng nào về chúng.

Như chúng ta đã biết, nghiên cứu công năng của các sưu tập công cụ đá thời tiền sử là một việc làm cực kỳ khó khăn. Nó đòi hỏi sự tinh tế trong quan sát khi khai quật cũng như những cách thu thâp thông tin từ cuộc sống hiện tồn.

Con người muốn tồn tại thì phải thích nghi với tự nhiên. Mặt khác, muốn sống tốt, sống khỏe thì họ phải “ĂN”. Vậy thì, họ ăn gì? Ăn như thế nào? Họ đã dùng các công cụ nào để có thể chế biến các món ăn từ động vật, nhuyễn thể???

Một lô câu hỏi chẳng phải dễ trả lời!

Vâng, tôi đang khai quật Dr. Ben tại di chỉ Kao Tok Chong, tỉnh Krabi, Thái Lan. Sau đây xin phép mạn bàn vài điểm mà thấy vui vui, hay hay!

CHẶT!

            Vậy, “Chặt” là gì?

Khi chúng ta đề cập tới thuật ngữ này, có nghĩa là chúng ta đã định tính về mặt công năng của công cụ. Các công cụ dùng để chặt thường có góc lưỡi tương đối nhỏ thì năng suất tạo ra mới cao…

Hiện nay, nghiên cứu các công cụ thời kỳ tiền sử mà đặc biệt với các công cụ ghè đẽo chúng ta thường gặp rất nhiều vấn đề khi nói về công năng của chúng. Các công cụ đó dùng để chặt hay đập. Tất nhiên, mức độ chuyên hóa của nhóm công cụ trong thời kỳ tiền sử sẽ không cao. Tuy nhiên, không vì thế mà họ không thể không quan tâm tới mức độ chuyên hóa công những công cụ có vai trò quan trọng đối với cuộc sống thường ngày của họ. Ví dụ, công cụ dùng để nạo, cắt thịt hay xương động vật chắc chắn sẽ có một cấu tạo rìa lưỡi tương đối đặc biệt để có thể thuận tiện cho quá trình “chế biến”. Còn, với các loại nhuyễn thể có kích thước nhỏ thì sao?

Trong sưu tập ốc mà tôi chỉnh lý hôm nay tại di chỉ này, tôi thấy rằng. Có một sự khác biệt đáng kể về kích thước và hiện trạng đuôi của mỗi cá thể. Có rất nhiều cá thể đuôi bi chặt bằng, thường để lại kích thước gần bằng với kích thước ban đầu. Ngược lại, có khoảng 20% trong tổng số các cá thể phần đuôi bị vỡ rất nhiều, đa số là chỉ còn lại ½ chiều dài ban đầu (còn lại 2 vòng xoáy). Như vậy, trong một sưu tập ốc đó, rõ ràng nó cũng thể hiện phần nào mức độ chuyên hóa của công cụ. Tức là, các cá thể ốc còn lại gần như hoàn toàn (quite complete), đuôi đã được chặt mất bằng một hệ công cụ có góc lưỡi rất nhỏ. Tuy nhiên, nếu các công cụ chỉ có góc lưỡi nhỏ thôi thì chưa đủ. Với cấu tạo hiện tại của toàn bộ những tiêu bản bị chặt đít như vậy, chúng ta có thể suy luận (inferences) rằng, kích thước của các công cụ đó cũng sẽ không lớn. Đây là một mối quan hệ mang tính chất tỷ lệ thuận. Hãy thử làm phép so sánh, nếu các công cụ kích thước lớn, góc lưỡi rất nhỏ…. đồng thời nặng tới vài kg đa số có tiệt diện ngang và dọc rất dày. Như vậy, khi đít của các cá thể ốc bị chặt thì chúng sẽ bị vỡ rất nhiều, có thể là bị dập hoàn toàn do bề mặt tiếp xúc là rất lớn. Điều đó cho thấy, các cá thể ốc ở đây đã bị chặt đít bằng một phương pháp mang tính hệ thống và ở một góc độ nào đó nó đã được chuyên hóa. Thế thì, ngoài những cá thể có cấu tạo về hiện trạng đít như vậy cũng còn những cá thể bị vỡ từ ½ tỷ lệ theo chiều dọc thì sao?

ĐẬP!

            Đập là gì?   

Đập là một thuật ngữ phản ánh những mức độ mang tính chất tự nhiên nhiều hơn là yếu tố nhân tạo.

Với khoảng hơn 20% cá thể bị chặt đít “vỡ nát” như vậy…. thì chắc chắn có thể suy đoán tới hai khả năng.

+ Thứ nhất: Việc chặt đít đã diễn ra nhưng có thể vị trí đặt “ốc” hơi khác nên phạm vi tiếp xúc lớn sẽ gây ra hiện tượng như vậy. Điều này có thể gọi là “nhầm kỹ thuật”.

+ Thứ hai: Đa số các sản phẩm như vậy đều được ghè bởi những hòn đập có diện tiếp xúc lớn, các chấn động liên quan sẽ tạo ra cấu tạo đuôi dạng đó.

Mặc dù vậy, cho dù các cá thể ốc đều được khai thác phục vụ sự tồn tại nhưng qua hiện trạng của từng cá thể, nó cũng phản ánh phần nào về sự đa dạng trong phương thức chế biến. Ngoài ra, để chặt được phần đít đi thì họ khôn thể cầm trên tay mà phải có hòn kên. Dẫu vậy, một điều rất lạ là, đa số di vật trong văn hóa Hòa Bình hay các di chỉ có chữa tầng nhuyễn thể lại hầu như không phát hiện được các hòn kê có lỗ vũm. Khó nhỉ!!!

Tuy nhiên, khả năng nhuyễn thể (đặc biệt là ốc) sẽ được đặt ở rìa mép của các hòn kê nên chúng ta chưa tìm thấy? Đợi tiếp phần sau!

Chặt và đập đôi khi cũng có thể hiểu gần như nhau về mức độ nào đó. Nhưng, việc phân biệt rành mạch hai khái niệm sẽ giúp chúng ta rất nhiều trong việc nhận diện mức độ tiến bộ của một cộng đồng nhỏ hay sự cải tiến và chuyên hóa về mặt kỹ thuật!

Thanh Sơn.

เปลือกหอยกับเร่ืองราวในอดีต

จากการขุดค้นที่แหล่งโบราณคดีเขาโต๊ะช่องมาเป็นเวลาเกือบสามสัปดาห์ เราได้พบหลักฐานทางโบราณคดี ทั้งโบราณวัตถุและนิเวศวัตถุหลากหลายอย่างด้วยกัน อาทิ เศษภาชนะดินเผา เครื่องมือหิน กระดูกสัตว์ ถ่าน เปลือกหอย เป็นต้น

เปลือกหอย เป็นหลักฐานประเภทนิเวศวัตถุอันหนึ่ง ที่พบมากในแหล่งโบราณคดีแห่งนี้

จากการทำงานที่หลุมขุดค้น A (Trench A) ในวันนี้ ได้พบเปลือกหอยเป็นจำนวนมาก ทั้งหอยฝาเดียว (Gastropod) และหอยสองฝา (Bivalved) โดยมีทั้งที่กองเป็นกลุ่มและกระจายอยู่ทั่วไปในพื้นที่หลุมขุดค้น

เปลือกหอย สามารถบอกเรื่องราวอะไรในอดีตได้บ้าง?

โดยทั่วไปแล้วหลักฐานประเภทนิเวศวัตถุ ได้แก่ กระดูกสัตว์ เปลือกหอย ละอองเรณู เป็นต้น สามารถนำไปวิเคราะห์ถึงสิ่งที่เกิดขึ้นในอดีตได้หลายอย่าง เช่น อาหารการกินของคนในสมัยนั้น พฤติกรรมการหาอาหารของคน หรือกิจกรรมอื่นๆ เช่น การติดต่อกับชุมชนอื่น พิธีกรรม ฯลฯ รวมทั้งยังสามารถนำไปวิเคราะห์เกี่ยวกับสภาพแวดล้อมของพื้นที่นั้นๆ ในอดีตได้อีกด้วย

เช่นเดียวกับเปลือกหอยที่พบในแหล่งโบราณคดีเขาโต๊ะช่อง ที่ทำให้เราสันนิษฐานในระดับเบื้องต้นได้ว่าในสมัยอดีต ณ บริเวณพื้นที่แห่งนี้น่าจะมีสภาพแวดล้อมแบบป่าชายเลนและป่าเขาหินปูน ที่มีแนวเขาหินปูนและถ้ำ เนื่องจากหอยฝาเดียวเหล่านี้ต้องอาศัยสารหินปูนในการสร้างเปลือก ซึ่งจะเห็นได้ว่าตรงกับสภาพแวดล้อมของพื้นที่นี้ในปัจจุบัน ที่มีแนวเขาหินปูนและถ้ำเป็นจำนวนมาก ดังนั้นจึงทำให้เราสามารถอนุมานต่อไปได้ว่าหอยที่เราพบเหล่านี้ น่าจะเป็นหอยในพื้นถิ่น ไม่ใช่หอยที่นำมาจากที่อื่น

ส่วนในด้านอาหารการกินนั้น ยังไม่สามารถสรุปได้อย่างแน่ชัด เนื่องจากยังไม่ทราบว่าหอยที่พบนั้นเป็นหอยชนิดใดบ้าง โดยเฉพาะหอยสองฝาที่ยังไม่สามารถระบุได้ว่าเป็นหอยกาบน้ำจืดหรือหอยทะเล อีกทั้งเราไม่อาจสรุปถึงพฤติกรรมการบริโภคของคนได้อย่างตายตัวว่าคนในสมัยนั้นนำมาหอยมาใช้เพื่อรับประทานหรือไม่ หรือกินหอยชนิดนั้น ชนิดนี้หรือไม่ เพราะการกินเป็นเรื่องของรสนิยม

อย่างไรก็ตาม ขณะนี้ยังอยู่ในขั้นตอนของการดำเนินงานทั้งการขุดค้นและวิเคราะห์หลักฐานทางโบราณคดี ดังนั้นจึงจำเป็นต้องมีการวิเคราะห์ชนิดของหอยที่พบให้ได้เสียก่อนว่าเป็นหอยชนิดใดบ้าง พบมากในสภาพแวดล้อมแบบใด เป็นหอยที่เกิดขึ้นตามธรรมชาติในพื้นที่แห่งนี้ หรือคนนำเข้ามา เพื่อที่จะนำมาอธิบายถึงสภาพแวดล้อมและการเปลี่ยนแปลงของสภาพแวดล้อมในอดีต หน้าที่การใช้งานของพื้นที่ดังกล่าว หรืออาจรวมทั้งพฤติกรรมการบริโภคของคนในอดีตได้ในขั้นต่อไป โดยอาจจะใช้การศึกษาทางโบราณคดีเชิงชาติพันธุ์ (Ethnoarchaeology) ในการเปรียบเทียบจากพฤติกรรมการบริโภคหอยของคนในปัจจุบัน และใช้การวิเคราะห์ทางวิทยาศาสตร์

UN

ผลลัพธ์ของ Total station (เบื้องต้น)

ผลจากการขุดค้นจนถึงปัจจุบันสามารถนำค่าจากการบันทึกตำแหน่งของวัตถุุด้วย Total station มาทำการลงกราฟเพื่่อแสดงให้เห็นถึงการกระจายตัวและความหนาแน่นของโบราณวัตถุสองชนิดคือ เศษภาชนะดินเผา และเครื่องมือหิน ซึ่งเห็นได้ว่าเมื่อเปรียบเทียบกันทั้งสองหลุมทั้ง Trench A ทางซ้ายมือของภาพ และ Trench B ทางขวามือ สามารถสังเกตได้ว่าในช่วงระดับความลึก 20-60 เซนติเมตรจากผิวดินเป็นช่วงที่มีกลุ่มโบราณวัตถุประเภทเศษภาชนะดินเผากระจายตัวอยู่มาก ในขณะที่เครื่องมิอหินจะพบมากตั้งแต่แต่ชั้น 60 เซนติเมตรจากผิวดินลงไป ซึ่งในขณะนี้ Trench B ได้ขุดนำหน้า Trench A ไปหลายระดับแล้วจึงเห็นได้ว่าข้อมูลของ Trench A ยังมีส่วนที่ขาดอยู่ในช่วงความลึกหนึ่งเมตร เมื่อประกอบกับข้อมูลจากการขุดค้นพบว่าใน Trench B ซึ่งพบว่าว่ามีการขาดช่วงของวัตถุไประดับหนึ่งก่อนที่จะเข้าสู่การพบวัตถุที่เป็นภาชนะดินเผาสมบูรณ์ 2 ใบ ในวันนี้ จึงอาจทำให้สันนิษฐานได้ว่าใน Trench A ที่กำลังเข้าสู่ในระดับที่พบวัตถุน้อยลงเช่นกันเป็นไปได้ว่าจะเป็นการทิ้งช่วงก่อนจะเข้าสู่ชั้นที่มีการพบวัตถุอีกครั้ง ซึ่งอาจแสดงถึงการใช้พื้นที่ของคนโบราณที่เลือกใช้พื้นที่เป็นฤดูกาลคือ มีการใช้พื้นที่อย่างเข้มข้นก่อนจะทิ้งร้างไปจากนั้นจึงเข้ามาในพื้นที่ใหม่ ซึ่งหากเป็นเช่นนั้นการขุดค้นจากชั้นที่ไม่พบวัตถุใดๆลงลึกไปสู่อีกช่วงนึงจึงเป็นไปได้ว่าอาจจะพบวัตถุที่มีขนาดใหญ่สมบูรณ์เหมือนใน Trench B และให้ข้อมูลในเรื่องการใช้พื้นที่ของคนสมัยนั้นได้มากขึ้น

อย่างไรก็ตามข้อมูลตำแหน่งวัตถุนี้เป็นเพียงค่าตำแหน่งแนวดิ่ง ซึ่งอาจเห็นแต่ความหนาแน่นแต่ยังไม่เห็นภาพการกระจายตัวของวัตถุในแนวระดับ ประกอบกับการไม่ได้ใช้ข้อมูลชั้นดินมาช่วยในการมองภาพช่วงชั้นวัฒนธรรม จึงยังไม่สามารถบอกถึงการใช้พื้นที่ได้อย่างหนักแน่นพอ การตีความต้องอาศัยข้อมูลอีกหลายๆส่วนเข้ามาช่วยอีกมาก ซึ่งนี้เป็นเพียงข้อสังเกตเล็กๆน้อยๆส่วนตัวจากการมองข้อมูลตำแหน่งวัตถุแนวดิ่งจาก Total station เท่านั้น
แพรวชมพู ชุณหอุไร

TRANH LUẬN!

Khảo cổ học vẫn sẽ mãi là Khảo cổ học! Nghiên cứu khoa học này, các thông tin thu được từ quá trình khai quật có ý nghĩa quan trọng nhất, góp phần xác định, sâu chuỗi các thông tin thành một hệ thống.
Để có thể cung cấp nhiều thông tin nhất, việc đầu tiên là chúng ta cần đánh giá thái độ của những người trực tiếp phụ trách khai quật một di chỉ bất kỳ nào đó. Họ có tương đối khách quan hay không? Các số liệu được cung cấp từ quá trìnhc khai quật, nghiên cứu di chỉ như thế nào? Để tăng độ chân xác, mức độ khách quan của thông tin từ lòng đất, ngày nay ngành nghiên cứu của chúng ta được hỗ trợ bởi những máy móc tương đối hiện đại nhằm thực hiện những mục tiêu đó.
việc nghiên cứu các di chỉ tiền sử đặc biệt là các di chỉ ngoài trời cùng với các di chỉ mái đá, hang động cũng có nhiều nét tương đồng nhưng cũng luôn phản ảnh mức độ dị biệt. Đối với khảo cổ hoc hang động, mục tiêu nghiên cứu và hướng tiếp cận nghiên cứu phải được xác định một cách khoa học, cụ thể. Vì sao?
– Thứ nhất, các di tồn khảo cổ học hang động được bảo tồn rất tốt. Chính vì thế, thông tin thu được sẽ rất hữu ích không chỉ với nghiên cứu khảo cổ học còn với các ngành khoa học tự nhiên hay xã hội khác.
– Thứ hai, do sự khác nhau đáng kể về mặt không gian, quá trình thành tạo, bồi tụ mà tốc độ nắng đọng trầm tích trong hang động, mái đá … với các di chỉ ngoài trời cũng rất khác nhau.
– Thứ ba, chính vì có những khác nhau như vậy, nên việc hoạch định chiến lược nghiên cứu đóng vai trò quan trọng với quá trình nghiên cứu, khai quật hang động và mái đá. Khai quật cũng là quá trình xóa bỏ những “Units & Layers” lịch sử. Cho nên, các yêu cẩu về khai quật hang động phải được thực hiện một cách nghiên túc, trình tự.
Cho đến này, nghiên cứu hang động đặc biệt là các hang có di tồn về mặt khảo cổ học-động vật đang là tâm điểm trong nghiên cứu khảo cổ học tiền sử nói chung. Tùy từng điều kiện mà chúng ta có thể vận dụng các phương pháp khác nhau để tiến hành nghiên cứu một di chỉ. Tuy nhiên, mục đích cuối cùng của việc nghiên cứu đó vẫn là giải quyết các câu trả lời: đó là ở đó có cái gì, ai sống ở đó, họ sống như thế nào, họ sống từ khi nào….
Tạm bàn thế thôi, nghĩ rồi bàn tiếp (còn tiếp).
Thanh Sơn!

What does it take to set up an excavation?

When setting up an excavation at a site there is much more involved than just digging. For instance you must obtain two types of permits in order to excavate a site. You must first obtain one permit from the National Research Council of Thailand. Then you must obtain a permit from the Fine Arts Department of Thailand. Both must extend permission to excavate a site. In your application you need to give a detailed plan not only of how you will conduct your work, but what will happen to your finds after you finish. You need to make contact with certain people in the community as the next step such as the village chief for permission. You need to make contact with the local people of the community to make sure they are involved and feel comfortable with you being there. You need to also contact and make sure it is okay with the land owner to excavate on their land as well.

Communication is a key aspect of setting up an excavation. Without communication the community might not feel as receptive to the idea of you excavating in their site. It is important to welcome the community to the site to make sure they are informed about how you have done the work and what you have found. Community outreach and education is extremely important in the process. Local contacts in the area are highly invloved in communicating to others information from the site and education about the excavations progress. Word spreads fast and you want to make sure people are getting the right idea about the nature of the research.

Once the permits are obtained and contacts are set up, the archaeologists can assemble their team. In our case, Professor Marwick organised a field school and recruited university students to the team from all over the world. Funding from the Luce Foundation supports the participation of students from many Southeast Asian countries. Students all arrive to the site and are trained in the excavation process. Once this is done, theteam heads out to the site to excavate.

We set up trenches and label them to make them easier to identify which was worked in for the day. The trench is set up by using a baseline, which is a line which is used to start the measurement of the trench with. Then we use the baseline to start taking measurements with the offset line to place pegs in the ground to start stringing the trenches out in precise 1x1m squares. From this point we use the total station machine to record the points at the corners of the trenches. Once this process is complete and we have recorded all the points we are able to start digging the excavation one unit at a time. Each excavation unit is just five centimeters deep and we dig it carefully with hand tools such trowels, dental picks and brushes. After each unit, we take detailed notes, photographs, record points with our total station, and then prepare to do the next unit down.

It is a slow and complicated process yet very rewarding. It is very nice to meet people in the community and learn all about Thai culture while participating in a project like this. Being able to have that contact with the community makes the excavation process even more special.

AH

Marvelous Malacology

Malacology is the study of mollusks. Archeaomalacology is the study of what remains of the mollusk, the shell, in the archaeological record. Studying shells found in archaeological sites can help to answer questions like; What was the ancient environment like? What did ancient people eat?

Mollusks make up one of the largest groups of invertebrates on the planet. Invertebrates are animals without backbones. Many invertebrates have an exoskeleton that acts as a shield from predators and gives their bodies structure and support. Many mollusks produce exoskeletons which are left behind as shells when the animal dies. Some shells are deposited through natural processes, like the crashing waves of a beach. Others are transported by humans, because of their beauty, or more often as a food source.

Archaeomalacologists study the shells that are believed to be left behind by ancient people. We know that a shell was probably used by a human if it was transported away from its original location and it found in association with artifacts or other evidence of human occupation, such as charcoal from a fire.

Many shells have been found in the KTC site throughout the excavation. Many of these shells were probably utilized by humans as sources of food. What is interesting about the KTC site are the types of shells found during excavation, how the frequency of each type changes and what those changes might tell us about the ancient environments.

The two main types of shells we find are gastropods and bivalves. Bivalves are mollusks that live between two tightly hinged shells. Gastropods are mollusks that live in a single shell, into which they can coil tightly for added protection. For this reason, gastropod shells are usually easy to identify because of the characteristic coiling of the shell. During the first part of the excavation, the majority of shells found were gastropods. The most common type found comes from a family commonly known as horn snails. These mollusks typically reside in brackish water, or water that is between salty and fresh. They are most typically found in mangrove environments. As the excavation continues, we are starting to see a shift from gastropods to bivalve mollusks. Unlike gastropods, the majority of bivalves like in saltier environments.

The change in the type of shells found indicates a change in the diets of the ancient inhabitance of KTC. The reason for this was most likely an environmental shift which is reflected in the abundance of each type of shell at different time periods. As the excavation progresses, a clearer view of the dietary trends will appear and give more clues about the ancient people that inhabited KTC and the environment in which they lived.

ความเปลี่ยนแปลงของวัตถุในชั้นดินเพิงผาโต๊ะช่อง

จากการทำการขุดค้นมาเป็นเวลาร่วมสองอาทิตย์ สามารถสังเกตเห็นความเปลี่ยนแปลงของวัตถุทั้งเรื่องของชนิด ขนาด และจำนวน ได้อยู่พอสมควร ซึ่งก็คือ ในดินชั้้้้้้นบนชนิดของหอยที่พบโดยมากเป็นพวกหอยแม่น้ำฝาเดียว (Gastropoda) แต่เมื่อลงถึงชั้นดินที่ต่ำลงมาหรือราว 40 เซนติเมตรจากผิวดินชนิดหอยที่พบส่วนใหญ่กลับเปลี่ยนเป็นพวกหอยแม่น้ำสองฝา (Bivalvia) อย่างชัดเจนซึ่งอาจสันนิษฐานได้ถึงการเปลี่ยนแปลงทางสภาพแวดล้อมในสมัยนั้น หรืออาจเป็นเพียงค่านิยมการกินของมนุษย์ที่เปลี่ยนไป เนื่องจากหากเปรียบเทียบกับการเปลี่ยนแปลงของกระดูกสัตว์นั้นจะเเห็นได้ว่ายังคงเป็นพวกสัตว์ขนาดเล็กอยู่อย่างต่อเนื่องไม่พบการเปลี่ยนแปลงแต่อย่างใด ความเปลี่ยนแปลงอีกอย่างหนึ่งที่สามารถสังเกตได้คือ การเพิ่มและลดของชนิดโบราณวัตถุดังนี้ ถ่านและกลุ่มพื้นที่ๆพบร่องรอยการใช้ไฟพบอย่างหนาแน่นและต่อเนื่องมาตลอดจนกระทั่งราวความลึกที่ 50 เซนติเมตรจากผิวดินจึงค่อยๆลดปริมาณลงจนบางเบา เศษภาชนะดินเผาที่พบก็บางเบาในชั้นบนและเพิ่มปริมาณหนาแน่นขึ้นในระดับที่ความลึกลงมา รวมทั้งเครื่องมือหินนั้นเริ่มพบในช่วงระดับความลึกราว 20-30 เซนติเมตรจากผิวดิน และเพิ่มปริมาณมากขึ้นในระดับที่ลึกลงมา โดยเครื่องมือินที่พบมากในช่วงแรกนั้นเป็นพวกเครื่องมือหินขัด (Polished tool) ส่วนในระดับที่ลึกกว่าพบว่ามีเครื่องมือหินประเภทสะเก็ดหิน (Flake tool) ร่วมด้วย
นี้เป็นเพียงข้อสังเกตบางประการจากการขุดค้นที่เพิงผาโต๊ช่อง ความเปลี่ยนแปลงของโบราณวัตถุนั้นยังไม่อาจตีค่าอายุสมัยได้เนื่องจากยังไม่พบวัตถุชิ้นเด่นที่จะเป็นตัวแทนบอกสมัยได้เลย อีกทั้งตอนนี้ก็ยังไม่ได้มีการเก็บตัวอย่างถ่านเพื่อหาค่าอายุแต่อย่างใด สิ่งที่สามารถสังเกตได้จากความเปลี่ยนของวัตถุตอนนี้อาจมีแค่เพียงการใช้พื้นที่ๆสัมพันธ์กับความหนาแน่นและเบาบางของวัตถุเท่านั้น คือช่วงที่พบวัตถุปริมาณมากแสดงให้เห็ถึงการใช้พื้นที่อย่างต่อเนื่อง และเมื่อวัตถุนั้นเบาบางอาจหมายถึงการทิ้งร้างไม่ใช้พื้นที่นั้นไป อย่างไรก็ตามการขุดค้นยังไม่เสร็จสิ้นการวิเคราะห์วัตถุยังคงต้องดำเนินต่อไป ฉะนั้นการจะกล่าวสรุปในตอนนี้ก็ดูจะเป็นการด่วนสรุปเกินไปจึงต้องรอให้พบหลักฐานหรือมีการศึกษาต่อเพิ่มเติมต่อไป

แพรวชมพู ชุณหอุไร

VÀI NÉT VỀ MÁI ĐÁ KTC

Đã hơn 10 ngày trôi qua, quá trình khai quật di chỉ khảo cổ học KTC đã đạt được nhiều kết quả tương đối thú vị. Tuy vậy, đi đôi với điều đó, những vấn đề thảo luận cũng cần được xem xét một cách thấu đáo.

Cảnh quan.

Di chỉ KTC cách bờ biển khoảng 3km theo đường chim bay. Di chỉ là một mái đá, với chiều cao từ nền đến vòm cửa khoảng 10m, chiều dài khoảng 25 đến 30m. Quan sát kỹ mái đá cho thấy, đây là một nơi cư trú tương đối lý tưởng của người cổ KTC. Hướng về phía bên phải của mái đá theo hướng Bắc chừng 20m là một con suối nhỏ. Với cấu trúc của mái đá hiện tại, việc cư trú sẽ tương đối thuận lời vì vòm mái đá có thể nhận được lượng ánh sáng trên toàn bộ diện tích vốn có. Tuy vậy, cho dù là khảo cổ học châu Âu, châu Á hay Mỹ… tuy có khác nhau về cách thức xử lý hiện trường nhưng đều cố gắng thu nhặt nhiều thông tin nhất có thể. Tất nhiên, qui trình khai quật phải tuần tự và khoa học.

Khai quật.

Về di chỉ KTC, hiện tại chúng tôi đã bóc đến UNIT 10 ở hai hố khai quật, được qui định là Trench A và B. Cách gọi và qui định về loại hình di tích có sự khác biệt rất lớn so với ở nước ta và một số nước khác mà ta đã tiếp xúc. Ví dụ, khi tiến hành bóc 1 lớp 5cm, đó là một Unit, khi phát hiện ra các di tích, nó sẽ được gọi là Context 1,2,3… Mặc dù vậy, theo tôi điều này hơi rắc rối và có vẻ không hợp lý. Khi tiến hành gặp các di tích, các bạn không chú ý tới cấu trúc và mặt cắt ngang-dọc của di tích (tùy mức độ cắt)… Một hạn chế thấy rõ, chúng ta sẽ rất khó quan sát cấu trúc, hàm lượng vật chất bên trong của di tích… Thêm vào đó, việc tiến hành đo vẽ cũng thực sự không chính xác… Chính vì vậy, giả dụ như chúng ta tiến hành khai quật trên một diện tích rông như ở Việt Nam, nếu không làm cẩn thận, chúng ta sẽ mất rất nhiều thông tin. Đặc biệt, ở các di chỉ có niên đại trung kỳ Đồng đến sơ kỳ Sắt thường có dấu vết của hệ thống cột nhà bị chôn lấp theo thời gian như ở nước ta.

Theo tôi, cấu trúc địa tầng hiện trạng ban đầu của KTC đã bị xáo trộn tuy là mang tính cục bộ nhưng cũng cần phải cân nhắc và xem xét kỹ lưỡng về vấn đề niên đại. Tuy nhiên, nhận thức này dường như không được xem xét kỹ ở KTC. Với độ sâu đang dừng ở 70cm, ít nhất có thể vẽ ra ba mức địa tầng hoàn toàn khác nhau. Layer 1 và 2 sẽ chủ yếu là lớp của những cư dân cư trú muộn hơn (thời đại Kim khí). Bắt đầu từ mức giao thoa của Layer 2 và 3 thì lượng vật chất và di vật thu được không lớn… Cấu tạo và thành phần vật chất trong đất có rất nhiều sạn sỏi nhỏ, di vật khảo cổ rất ít. Vậy, liệu có khả năng việc cư trú không mang tính liên tục…. Đến hôm nay, sau khi hoàn thành xong mức 3, chúng ta có thể biết được, tỷ lệ các loại nhuyễn thể đã có sự thay đổi. Đặc biệt, đồ đá và công cụ đá đã xuất hiện với tần suất tăng dần… Đó là một dấu hiệu cho thấy, đã có sự thay đổi tương đối lớn trong cách thức sống và chế tạo công cụ… Và, ở một góc độ nào đó, mật độ cư trú có vẻ đã bị gián đoạn. Về mảnh tước, kỹ thuật chế tác đã tương đối cao: kỹ thuật ghè hai mặt. Bên cạnh đó, họ cũng tận dụng mảnh tước để tu chỉnh thành các công cụ mảnh nhưng mức độ chưa nhiều. Dòng nguyên liệu và vấn đề nguyên liệu ở đây là một đề tài cần phải thảo luận sâu hơn. Bước đầu có thể nhận ra được, nguyên liệu gồm Andezite, Sét bột kết… Người KTC khả năng không thịnh hành kỹ thuật bổ cuội. Do con suối bao quanh mái đá không lớn đồng thời không có nguồn nguyên liệu phục vụ cho chế tác nên chắc chắn họ phải đi xa để kiếm tìm nguyên liệu…

Thêm vào đó, qua thành phần động vật có thể thấy, vài trò của nhuyễn thể nước ngọt và nước mặn tương đương nhau. Có nhiều con bị chặt đít nhưng cũng có nhiều còn với kích thước lớn vẫn giữ nguyên hình dạng ban đầu. Tại sao? Ngoài ra, ốc núi cũng có mặt trong thực đơn của người cổ KTC. Cùng với việc khai thác ốc suối, ốc núi, thông qua thành phần xương răng động vật đã thu nhặt được có thể thấy một số loài động vật ở đây có kích thước không lớn. Xương thu được rất vụn đồng thời dấu vết (cut marked) bị cắt khía vẫn còn lưu lại trên bề mặt…
Tóm lại, đây chỉ là nhận thức và cái nhìn sơ bộ của cá nhân. Kết quả thế nào hồi sau sẽ rõ.

Phạm Thanh Sơn

 

 

 

Khao Toh Chong Excavations and Findings

KMH

Four brief observations of ceramic changes at KTC

Throughout our excavations at the archaeological site KTC, I have observed probable changes in ceramic attributes (ie. measurable features of the ceramic such as design, material, thickness, colour, etc.). This observation has occurred through sieving, working at the analysis field lab and also digging up pottery sherds. Although we are still working on analyzing pottery sherds at our site, these changes are worth mentioning as they can indicate a change in the culture of the prehistoric people occupying this site.

My first observation is that the material has changed over time. While we once were observing porcelain pottery sherds in the upper excavation units, we are now beginning to observe simpler ceramics, such as earthenware, in the deeper excavation units.

Another observation is that the colour has progressively changed the deeper we go into the deposit at the site. Although this is somewhat subjective and deserves more research, it appears that the colour has been changing from a black hue to a more reddish one within the ceramics we have observed at the site. This may indicate that they were created using different methods or that they were created using a different sort of raw material.

Perhaps the most important observation is that it appears the deeper we dig in the site, the more ceramics we find with designs on them. Although we are only at 0.60 metres deep and our analysis is basic and not yet complete, this change in the frequency of decorated pieces may indicate changes in the cultural identity of the people making the pots.

The last observation is that the thickness of the pottery seems to have increased the deeper that we dig. This also deserves a bit more data and research, but if it turns out to be a reliable observation, it could indicate a change in technology for creating thinner more fragile ceramics in more recent times.

Overall, this change in pottery could end up being a significant change in culture over time and is worth taking a deeper look into with more analysis in the lab.