Reply to: An Initial Upper Palaeolithic attribution is not empirically supported at Shiyu, northern China

IF 13.9 1区 生物学 Q1 ECOLOGY
Shi-Xia Yang, Jia-Fu Zhang, Jian-Ping Yue, Fa-Xiang Huan, Andreu Ollé, Francesco d’Errico, Michael Petraglia
{"title":"Reply to: An Initial Upper Palaeolithic attribution is not empirically supported at Shiyu, northern China","authors":"Shi-Xia Yang, Jia-Fu Zhang, Jian-Ping Yue, Fa-Xiang Huan, Andreu Ollé, Francesco d’Errico, Michael Petraglia","doi":"10.1038/s41559-024-02554-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><span>replying to</span> L. Carmignani et al. <i>Nature Ecology &amp; Evolution</i> https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02548-9 (2024)</p><p>Carmignani and colleagues<sup>1</sup> contend that our identification of the oldest and easternmost Initial Upper Palaeolithic (IUP) attribution at Shiyu, northern China<sup>2</sup> is based on a misuse of technological definitions and biased artefact sampling. However, this criticism is hampered by restrictive Eurocentric definitions and methodological misunderstandings. Carmignani et al.<sup>1</sup> apply a narrow definition of the Asian IUP based on the presence of points and blades reduced from sub-volumetric, non-Levallois-system burin cores. Shiyu does not perfectly conform to this definition, so they exclude its lithic industry from the IUP. We argue that this definition hampers understanding of modern human dispersals across Eurasia. Like any other discipline where classification is central, archaeologists define categories of objects and assemblages based on similarities in sets of traits. These categories are not inherently meaningful; rather, their significance arises from assumptions about underlying biological and cultural processes. The assumption that lends meaning to the IUP is that it reflects a combination of demic and cultural diffusion processes associated with the spread of <i>Homo sapiens</i> throughout Eurasia<sup>3</sup>. To understand this evolutionary history, we need to adopt a flexible comparative approach that uses the original IUP definition as a baseline rather than a set of strict, restrictive criteria. A more flexible approach may help to disentangle cultural innovations and diffusion occurring during or after demic diffusion, as well as cultural blending with local populations on a regional scale, thereby illuminating the complex interactions that certainly occurred, with possible implications for gene exchange. Success in this endeavour depends on being able to distinguish diffusion of innovation from cultural convergence. Opening up our definitions admittedly creates greater uncertainty about the drivers of similarity and the meaning that underlies cultural constructs<sup>4,5</sup>, but there are good reasons for taking this risk. Can we reasonably believe that in a territory of 44 million km<sup>2</sup>, stretching from the Arctic to the Equator, the expansion of <i>H. sapiens</i> over thousands of years, encountering different hominin species, was associated with a single, uniform technology? It is clear in this context that the strict application by Carmignani et al.<sup>1</sup> of a points, blades and volumetric burin core definition, possibly useful in characterizing the IUP in one region, will fail to capture the overall complexity of <i>H. sapiens</i>’ expansion in others. This strict Eurocentric definition and interpretive framework does not pay attention to regional traditions in which cultural novelties occur, possibly signalling the dispersal of <i>H. sapiens</i> populations. Carmignani et al.<sup>1</sup> suggest that Shiyu lithics share features of the European Mousterian. Implying relationship to lithic industries produced by Neanderthals discounts any element of novelty at Shiyu that could link to <i>H. sapiens</i> dispersal, as was suggested by previously discovered human remains at the site<sup>6</sup>.</p>","PeriodicalId":18835,"journal":{"name":"Nature ecology & evolution","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":13.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature ecology & evolution","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02554-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

replying to L. Carmignani et al. Nature Ecology & Evolution https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02548-9 (2024)

Carmignani and colleagues1 contend that our identification of the oldest and easternmost Initial Upper Palaeolithic (IUP) attribution at Shiyu, northern China2 is based on a misuse of technological definitions and biased artefact sampling. However, this criticism is hampered by restrictive Eurocentric definitions and methodological misunderstandings. Carmignani et al.1 apply a narrow definition of the Asian IUP based on the presence of points and blades reduced from sub-volumetric, non-Levallois-system burin cores. Shiyu does not perfectly conform to this definition, so they exclude its lithic industry from the IUP. We argue that this definition hampers understanding of modern human dispersals across Eurasia. Like any other discipline where classification is central, archaeologists define categories of objects and assemblages based on similarities in sets of traits. These categories are not inherently meaningful; rather, their significance arises from assumptions about underlying biological and cultural processes. The assumption that lends meaning to the IUP is that it reflects a combination of demic and cultural diffusion processes associated with the spread of Homo sapiens throughout Eurasia3. To understand this evolutionary history, we need to adopt a flexible comparative approach that uses the original IUP definition as a baseline rather than a set of strict, restrictive criteria. A more flexible approach may help to disentangle cultural innovations and diffusion occurring during or after demic diffusion, as well as cultural blending with local populations on a regional scale, thereby illuminating the complex interactions that certainly occurred, with possible implications for gene exchange. Success in this endeavour depends on being able to distinguish diffusion of innovation from cultural convergence. Opening up our definitions admittedly creates greater uncertainty about the drivers of similarity and the meaning that underlies cultural constructs4,5, but there are good reasons for taking this risk. Can we reasonably believe that in a territory of 44 million km2, stretching from the Arctic to the Equator, the expansion of H. sapiens over thousands of years, encountering different hominin species, was associated with a single, uniform technology? It is clear in this context that the strict application by Carmignani et al.1 of a points, blades and volumetric burin core definition, possibly useful in characterizing the IUP in one region, will fail to capture the overall complexity of H. sapiens’ expansion in others. This strict Eurocentric definition and interpretive framework does not pay attention to regional traditions in which cultural novelties occur, possibly signalling the dispersal of H. sapiens populations. Carmignani et al.1 suggest that Shiyu lithics share features of the European Mousterian. Implying relationship to lithic industries produced by Neanderthals discounts any element of novelty at Shiyu that could link to H. sapiens dispersal, as was suggested by previously discovered human remains at the site6.

Abstract Image

答复中国北部石峪的旧石器时代初期归属没有得到经验支持
回复 L. Carmignani 等人的文章(Nature Ecology & Evolution https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02548-9 (2024))。Carmignani 及其同事1 认为,我们对中国北方石峪最古老、最东边的旧石器时代初期(IUP)的认定2 是基于对技术定义的误用和对文物取样的偏差。然而,欧洲中心主义的限制性定义和方法上的误解阻碍了这一批评。Carmignani 等人1 对亚洲 IUP 下了一个狭义的定义,其依据是从次体积、非列瓦卢瓦系统的錾核中提取的点和刃。石峪并不完全符合这一定义,因此他们将其石器工业排除在IUP之外。我们认为,这一定义妨碍了对现代人类在欧亚大陆散布情况的了解。与任何其他以分类为核心的学科一样,考古学家根据一系列特征的相似性来定义物品和组合的类别。这些类别本身并无意义;相反,它们的意义来自于对潜在的生物和文化过程的假设。赋予 IUP 以意义的假设是,它反映了与智人在整个欧亚大陆的传播相关的人口和文化扩散过程的组合3。为了了解这一进化历史,我们需要采用一种灵活的比较方法,将最初的 IUP 定义作为基线,而不是一套严格的限制性标准。一种更加灵活的方法可能有助于区分文化创新和发生在去米氏扩散期间或之后的扩散,以及在区域范围内与当地人群的文化融合,从而揭示肯定会发生的复杂互动,并可能对基因交换产生影响。这项工作能否取得成功,取决于能否将创新扩散与文化融合区分开来。诚然,开放我们的定义会给相似性的驱动因素和文化建构的意义带来更大的不确定性4,5,但我们有充分的理由冒这个险。我们是否有理由相信,在从北极延伸到赤道的 4400 万平方公里的土地上,智人在数千年的扩张过程中遇到了不同的类人物种,而这与单一、统一的技术有关?在这种情况下,卡米尼亚尼等人1 严格采用点、叶片和体积錾核的定义,可能有助于描述一个地区的IUP特征,但显然无法反映智人在其他地区扩张的整体复杂性。这种严格的以欧洲为中心的定义和解释框架没有注意到出现文化创新的地区传统,而这些文化创新可能标志着智人种群的扩散。Carmignani 等人1 认为,石峪石器与欧洲的莫斯特石器有相同之处。这意味着石峪与尼安德特人生产的石器工业有关系,从而使石峪的任何可能与智人迁徙有关的新奇元素消失殆尽,而之前在该遗址发现的人类遗骸则表明了这一点6。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nature ecology & evolution
Nature ecology & evolution Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
CiteScore
22.20
自引率
2.40%
发文量
282
期刊介绍: Nature Ecology & Evolution is interested in the full spectrum of ecological and evolutionary biology, encompassing approaches at the molecular, organismal, population, community and ecosystem levels, as well as relevant parts of the social sciences. Nature Ecology & Evolution provides a place where all researchers and policymakers interested in all aspects of life's diversity can come together to learn about the most accomplished and significant advances in the field and to discuss topical issues. An online-only monthly journal, our broad scope ensures that the research published reaches the widest possible audience of scientists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信