
Heavy metal pollution from copper smelting during the Shang Dynasty at the Laoniupo site in the Bahe River valley, Guanzhong Basin, China
地理学报(英文版) ›› 2021, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (11) : 1675-1693.
Heavy metal pollution from copper smelting during the Shang Dynasty at the Laoniupo site in the Bahe River valley, Guanzhong Basin, China
Heavy metal pollution is hazardous for the environment and human health. However, there are few studies of heavy metal pollution caused by historic metallurgical activity. The Laoniupo site in the Bahe River valley, Guanzhong Basin, China, was an important settlement of the Shang Culture (1600-1046 BCE*We studied two stratigraphic profiles at the Laoniupo site, which were used for measurements of magnetic susceptibility, heavy metal concentrations, and AMS 14C ages to provide evidence of copper smelting activity at the site during the Shang Dynasty. The Nemerow Pollution Index and Geoaccumulation Index were calculated to assess the heavy metals record (Cu, Zn, Ni, Pb, Cr, and As) in the topsoil on the loess tableland. According to the Single Pollution Index, the topsoil was slightly polluted by As and unpolluted by Cu, Zn, Ni, Pb and Cr; according to the Nemerow Composite Pollution Index the topsoil was mildly polluted; and according to the Geoaccumulation Index, the topsoil was moderately polluted by As, slightly polluted by Cu, and unpolluted by Zn, Ni, Pb and Cr. The main cause of the heavy metal pollution in the topsoil is the presence of copper slag in the cultural layers that was disturbed by modern farming activity.
Background vales (mg/kg)
heavy metal pollution / copper smelting / Laoniupo site / Bahe River / Guanzhong Basin {{custom_keyword}} /
Figure 1 Maps showing (a) location of the Bahe River valley (square) in the Guanzhong Basin; (b) the LNP-1 and LNP-2 profiles at the Laoniupo site in the Bahe River valley marked with squares; (c) the relationship between the LNP-1/LNP-2 profiles and 38 topsoil samples at the Laoniupo site |
Figure 2 Photos showing (a) the landscape of wheat farmed on the loess terrace at the Laoniupo site in the Bahe River valley, Guanzhong Basin; (b) the pedostratigraphy of the LNP-1 profile; (c) copper slag; (d-e) pottery shards; (f) burnt earth at the Laoniupo site |
Table 1 Pedosedimentary descriptions of the LNP-1 and LNP-2 profiles in the Bahe River valley, Guanzhong Basin |
Profile | Depth (cm) | Pedostratigraphic subdivisions | Pedosedimentary descriptions |
---|---|---|---|
LNP-1 | 0-5 | Topsoil | Dull brown, silt, granular structure, some bio-pores, some earthworm burrows and excrement, abundant well-rounded spherical pellets (1.0-2.0 mm), some plant roots. |
5-180 | Cultural layer | Taupe fill, very loose, some burnt earths, charcoals, copper slags and pottery shards retrieved and identified as the artifacts of the Shang Dynasty. | |
>180 | Malan loess | Dull yellow-orange, silt, blocky structure, loose and porous. | |
LNP-2 | 0-5 | Topsoil | Dull brown, silt, granular structure, some bio-pores, some earthworm burrows and excrement, abundant well-rounded spherical pellets (1.0-2.0 mm), some plant roots. |
5-130 | Cultural layer | Taupe fill, very loose, some burnt earths, charcoals, copper slags and pottery shards retrieved and identified as the artifacts of the Shang Dynasty. | |
>130 | Malan loess | Dull yellow-orange, silt, blocky structure, loose and porous. |
Table 2 Classification of heavy metals evaluated with Single Pollution Index (Pi), Nemerow Composite Pollution Index (NCPI) and Geoaccumulation Index (Igeo) (Müller, 1969; Nemerow, 1974) |
Pi | NCPI | Igeo | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pi≤1 | Unpolluted | NCPI≤0.7 | Unpolluted | Igeo≤0 | Unpolluted |
1<Pi≤2 | Slightly polluted | 0.7<NCPI≤1.0 | Slightly polluted | 0<Igeo≤1 | Slightly polluted |
1<Igeo≤2 | Moderately polluted | ||||
2<Pi≤3 | Mild polluted | 1.0<NCPI≤2.0 | Mild polluted | 2<Igeo≤3 | Moderate to strongly polluted |
3<Pi≤5 | Moderately polluted | 2.0<NCPI≤3.0 | Moderately polluted | 3<Igeo≤4 | Strongly polluted |
4<Igeo≤5 | Strongly to extremely polluted | ||||
Pi>5 | Extremely polluted | NCPI>3.0 | Extremely polluted | Igeo>5 | Extremely polluted |
Table 3 Calibrated radiocarbon dates of the LNP-1 and LNP-2 profiles in the Bahe River valley, Guanzhong Basin |
Lab number | Profile name | Depth (cm) | Dating material | Radiocarbon date (yr BP) | Calibrated age (cal yr BP, 2σ) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Beta-559344 | LNP-1 | 100 | Charcoals | 3100 ± 30 | 3381-3232 |
Beta-561180 | LNP-2 | 70 | Charcoals | 3410 ± 30 | 3722-3576 |
Beta-559345 | LNP-2 | 110 | Charcoals | 3380 ± 30 | 3695-3565 |
Figure 3 Pedostratigraphy, concentrations of heavy metals Cu, Zn, Ni, Pb, Cr, As and magnetic susceptibility (MS) in the LNP-1 profile in the Bahe River valley, Guanzhong Basin |
Figure 4 Pedostratigraphy, concentrations of heavy metals Cu, Zn, Ni, Pb, Cr, As and magnetic susceptibility (MS) in the LNP-2 profile in the Bahe River valley, Guanzhong Basin |
Table 4 Concentrations of heavy metals Cu, Zn, Ni, Pb, Cr, and As and magnetic susceptibility (MS) in the LNP-1 and LNP-2 profiles in the Bahe River valley, Guanzhong Basin |
Profile | Samples | Depth (cm) | Cu (mg/kg) | Zn (mg/kg) | Ni (mg/kg) | Pb (mg/kg) | Cr (mg/kg) | As (mg/kg) | MS (×10-8 m3/kg) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LNP-1 | Cultural layer | 20 | 82.0 | 151.0 | 45.2 | 25.4 | 82.5 | 40.6 | 120.7 |
Cultural layer | 40 | 64.6 | 112.0 | 35.7 | 13.8 | 58.0 | 34.5 | 132.8 | |
Cultural layer | 60 | 86.8 | 123.0 | 37.8 | 13.0 | 60.1 | 42.7 | 111.7 | |
Cultural layer | 80 | 53.4 | 108.0 | 39.3 | 15.6 | 61.5 | 28.8 | 88.9 | |
Cultural layer | 100 | 70.6 | 118.0 | 36.9 | 18.5 | 58.5 | 33.1 | 89.8 | |
Cultural layer | 130 | 339.0 | 89.4 | 40.2 | 17.3 | 60.8 | 25.8 | 165.0 | |
Cultural layer | 170 | 35.0 | 95.5 | 43.4 | 19.0 | 68.8 | 32.2 | 181.3 | |
Malan loess | 190 | 28.0 | 93.0 | 35.9 | 18.5 | 62.0 | 39.3 | 99.8 | |
Malan loess | 220 | 28.5 | 86.0 | 34.0 | 14.9 | 61.4 | 36.6 | 101.9 | |
LNP-2 | Cultural layer | 10 | 99.7 | 105.0 | 35.5 | 25.8 | 62.2 | 46.2 | 135.3 |
Cultural layer | 30 | 70.6 | 90.9 | 35.4 | 19.3 | 58.6 | 49.7 | 140.65 | |
Cultural layer | 50 | 42.8 | 104.0 | 36.7 | 20.5 | 69.5 | 40.5 | 146.0 | |
Cultural layer | 70 | 39.6 | 101.0 | 33.5 | 19.9 | 64.8 | 42.9 | 146.3 | |
Cultural layer | 90 | 43.8 | 90.0 | 37.5 | 22.8 | 61.5 | 42.1 | 173.1 | |
Malan loess | 150 | 30.2 | 87.6 | 33.4 | 8.6 | 60.0 | 41.6 | 104.0 | |
Burnt earth | - | 47.2 | 108.0 | 39.2 | 19.5 | 70.1 | 37.8 | - | |
LNP-S15 | Copper slag | - | 436.0 | 158.0 | 36.6 | 24.7 | 61.6 | 867.0 | - |
Figure 5 Variations of the concentration of heavy metals Cu, Zn, Ni, Pb, Cr, and As in the topsoil at the Laoniupo site in the Bahe River valley, Guanzhong Basin |
Table 5 Concentrations of heavy metals Cu, Zn, Ni, Pb, Cr, and As in the topsoil at the Laoniupo site of the Bahe River valley, Guanzhong Basin, the evaluation criterion (GB 15618-2018) and the geochemical background values in Shaanxi Province (CNEMC, 1990; CNEPA, 2018) |
Heavy metals | Min (mg/kg) | Max (mg/kg) | Mean (mg/kg) | SD | CV | Sk | Kg | GB 15618-2018 (mg/kg) | Background vales (mg/kg) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cu | 31.3 | 137 | 52.05 | 22.94 | 0.44 | 1.90 | 3.88 | 100 | 21.4 |
Zn | 80.8 | 127 | 100.40 | 10.01 | 0.10 | 0.51 | 0.40 | 300 | 69.4 |
Ni | 32.0 | 41.8 | 36.41 | 2.41 | 0.07 | 0.18 | -0.18 | 190 | 28.8 |
Pb | 23.4 | 33.9 | 28.26 | 2.41 | 0.09 | 0.11 | -0.36 | 170 | 21.4 |
Cr | 58.3 | 75.8 | 65.67 | 4.01 | 0.06 | 0.42 | 0.46 | 250 | 62.5 |
As | 31.0 | 51.7 | 40.85 | 4.31 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.20 | 25 | 11.1 |
Min = Minimum; Max = Maximum; SD = Standard deviation; CV = Coefficient of variation; Sk = Skewness; Kg = Kurtosis |
Figure 6 Variations of the Single Pollution Index (Pi) and Geoaccumulation Index (Igeo) in the topsoil at the Laoniupo site in the Bahe River valley, Guanzhong Basin |
Table 6 Heavy metal pollution evaluated with Single Pollution Index (Pi), Nemerow Composite Pollution Index (NCPI) and Geoaccumulation Index (Igeo) in the topsoil at the Laoniupo site in the Bahe River valley, Guanzhong Basin |
Heavy metals | Pi | NCPI | Igeo | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Min | Max | Mean | Min | Max | Mean | ||
Cu | 0.31 | 1.37 | 0.52 | 1.51 | -0.04 | 2.09 | 0.59 |
Zn | 0.27 | 0.42 | 0.33 | -0.37 | 0.29 | -0.06 | |
Ni | 0.17 | 0.22 | 0.19 | -0.43 | -0.05 | -0.25 | |
Pb | 0.14 | 0.20 | 0.17 | -0.01 | -0.46 | -0.19 | |
Cr | 0.23 | 0.30 | 0.26 | -0.69 | -0.31 | -0.52 | |
As | 1.24 | 2.07 | 1.63 | 0.90 | 1.63 | 1.29 |
Min = Minimum; Max = Maximum |
[1] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[2] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[3] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[4] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[5] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[6] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[7] |
CNEPA China National Environmental Protection Agency, 2018. Environmental Quality Standard for Soils, Report No.GB 15618-2018. Beijing: China National Environmental Protection Agency. (in Chinese)
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[8] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[9] |
CNEMC China National Environmental Monitoring Centre, 1990. Background Value of Soil Elements in China. Beijing: China Environmental Science Press. (in Chinese)
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[10] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[11] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[12] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[13] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[14] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[15] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[16] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[17] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[18] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[19] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[20] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[21] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[22] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[23] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[24] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[25] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[26] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[27] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[28] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[29] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[30] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[31] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[32] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[33] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[34] |
Concentrations of metals in birch leaves were measured around the Severonikel smelter at Monchegorsk, Kola Peninsula, northwestern Russia, between 1991 and 1994. Concentrations of Ni, Cu and Fe near the smelter were 6-12 times higher than the recent regional background concentrations, while concentrations of Mn and Zn were 5-10 and 1.5-2 times lower, respectively. The regional background concentrations of Ni and Cu have increased 3-5 times during the last 20 years. Foliage concentrations of micronutrients (Zn and Mn) showed less annual variation than Ni and Cu. Contamination changed more sharply along the northeastern gradient than along the southern one. Subalpine birch forests were significantly less affected by Ni and Cu than lowland forests, but the lower concentration of Mn indicated a greater impact of SO(2) in mountainous regions. Although birch accumulated relatively less pollutants than conifers, birch resistance to pollution makes it a possible indicator in environmental studies since it survives even within the wastelands where conifers have vanished.
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[35] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[36] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[37] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[38] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[39] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[40] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[41] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[42] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[43] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[44] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[45] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[46] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[47] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[48] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[49] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[50] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[51] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[52] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[53] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[54] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[55] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[56] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[57] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[58] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[59] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[60] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[61] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[62] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[63] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[64] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[65] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[66] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[67] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[68] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[69] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[70] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[71] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[72] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[73] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[74] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[75] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[76] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[77] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[78] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[79] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[80] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[81] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[82] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[83] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[84] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[85] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[86] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[87] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[88] |
In the 9 years since my first survey of early metallurgy appeared in this journal (65) metallurgy has become a major battleground between those who argue independent invention and those who argue diffusion in the evolution of urban civilization. In this new article I contend that: 1) The upland belt and debouching river valleys of southwestern Asia have a clear priority in the beginnings of copper metallurgy and extractive metallurgy generally, suggesting that the forces of urbanization contributing to the rise of metallurgy there were more massive, widespread, and better integrated than elsewhere. 2) The trend to polymetallism, against the background of pyrotechnology generally and the other important technologies of urbanism, established a necessary sequence to early metallurgy. This sequence was a prerequisite to the coming of the Iron Age, which was uniquely contained at first within the environment of Anatolia and the eastern Mediterranean and spread outward from there. 3) The course of metallurgy and possibly of the other urbanizing technologies can best be understood through a process of diffusion and multiple innovation interrelating metallurgical evolution over much of Eurasia, but with the area defined by the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea, the Red Sea, and the eastern Mediterranean as its center. Only in this fashion can we place metallurgy in its proper role as an important subsystem in the rise of civilization.
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[89] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[90] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[91] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[92] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[93] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[94] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[95] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[96] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[97] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[98] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[99] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[100] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
[101] |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
{{custom_ref.label}} |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
/
〈 |
|
〉 |