Response to White et al.'s reply: 'Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art' [J. Hum. Evol. (2020) 102640].
Response to White et al.'s reply: 'Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art' [J. Hum. Evol. (2020) 102640].
复制标题
对怀特等人的答复的回应：“仍然没有考古证据表明尼安德特人创造了伊比利亚洞穴艺术”[J.
DOI：
10.1016/j.jhevol.2020.102810
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Hoffmann DL
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hoffmann DL
在最近的一篇论文中，White等人（2020）敦促谨慎接受我们对与洞穴壁画相关的方解石的UeTh日期（Hoffmann等人，2018a）以及我们的结论，即尼安德特人至少在65年前在西班牙的三个洞穴中制作了壁画。他们认为：(1)方解石中铀的损失可能导致错误的旧日期，因此UeTh日期需要用其他方法验证（例如14C）；(2)我们的抽样方法存在问题，可能导致数据不可靠；(3)现有的14C年代洞穴艺术资料，包括手印和矩形标志，表明不存在38ka BP之前的洞穴艺术。他们认为我们的结果“特别令人不安”，因为它们“与一百多年来对尼安德特人和现代人考古记录的研究观察相矛盾”（White et al., 2020: 2）。我们之前已经讨论过潜在的铀损失问题，以及我们用来确定这种情况是否已经发生的方法（Pike等人，2017；Hoffmann等人，2018b），因此我们认为没有必要详细讨论这一点。总之，我们沿着方解石沉积物的生长轴采集样品序列，并将UeTh日期与其地层顺序的一致性作为可靠性的指示（即，如果结果随着剖面的深入而变老，则它们是可靠的）。White等人（2020）认为，如果随着时间的推移，所有生长层都有规律地发生铀损失，则该测试将不起作用。据我们所知，没有任何合理的物理或化学过程会导致这种规律的铀损失，White等人（2020）也没有提供这种现象的例子来支持他们的假设。事实上，他们提供的铀损失的例子（White等人，2020:SOM图S1）采用了异常古老的日期被顺序排列的年轻日期所包围的形式，这正是我们的方法可以清楚识别的场景。注意他们的例子
In a recent paper, White et al.(2020) urge caution in accepting our UeTh dates on calcite associated with cave paintings (Hoffmann et al., 2018a) and our conclusions that Neanderthals made paintings in three caves in Spain at least 65 ka ago. They argue that (1) uranium loss from calcite can lead to erroneously old dates and consequently UeTh dates require validation by other methods (eg, 14C);(2) there are problems with our sampling methodology that can lead to unreliable dates; and (3) the existing corpus of 14C dates on cave art, including hand stencils and rectangular signs, argues against the production of any cave art before 38 ka BP. They believe our results to be" especially troubling" as they" contradict more than one hundred years of research observations on the Neanderthal and modern human archaeological record"(White et al., 2020: 2).We have previously discussed the issue of potential uranium loss and the methodology we use to identify whether this has occurred (Pike et al., 2017; Hoffmann et al., 2018b), so we do not feel the need to dwell in detail on this point. In summary, however, we take sequences of samples along the growth axis of calcite deposits and take the agreement of the UeTh dates with their stratigraphic order as an indication of reliability (ie, they are reliable if the results get older as one gets deeper into the section). White et al.(2020) suggest that this test would not work if uranium loss occurs across all growth layers regularly with time. We know of no plausible physical or chemical process that would cause such regular uranium loss, and White et al.(2020) do not provide an example of this phenomenon to back up their hypothesis. Indeed, the example of uranium loss they provide (White et al., 2020: SOM Fig. S1) takes the form of anomalously old dates bracketed by younger dates that are in sequence and is precisely the scenario that our method would clearly identify. Note that their example