Archeology and the evolution of human behavior
Archeology and the evolution of human behavior
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/(sici)1520-6505(2000)9:1
复制
发表时间：
2000
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
R. Klein
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Klein
人类古生物学和旧石器时代考古学都关注人类史前时期最古老的阶段，并且经常从同一地点获取材料。然而，自 19 世纪中叶这两个领域成立以来，它们的实践和理论在很大程度上仍然是分开的。随着 21 世纪的到来，人类古生物学家主要接受人体解剖学或生物人类学方面的培训，他们的理论主要来自 20 世纪末的进化生物学。相比之下，旧石器时代的考古学家接受过回收和分类古代物质残留物的训练，他们的解释框架主要源于文化人类学。实践中的差异意味着人类古生物学家通常没有能力评估旧石器时代考古学中的争议，反之亦然。理论上的差异更为深刻，因为人类古生物学家毫不犹豫地将主要的形态变化或差异归因于自然选择、突变、基因漂变或基因流。相比之下，旧石器时代的考古学家倾向于将主要的行为变化归因于新开发的文化策略或人口增长，即使这些变化与明显的形态变化同时发生。许多人特别拒绝对现代人类与其直接祖先之间的行为差异进行生物学解释，有些人认为这种解释带有种族主义的味道。1然而，那些接受人类进化现实的人也必须承认，一些古代人类必定缺乏参与历史人类社会的天生能力。由于我们缺乏此类前现代人的历史类比，并且考古学无法替代目击者的描述，因此我们可以
Human paleontology and Paleolithic archeology both focus on the most ancient phases of human prehistory, and they often draw their materials from the same sites. Yet, since the mid-19th century when both fields were founded, their practice and theory have remained largely separate. As the 21st century dawns, human paleontologists are trained mainly in human anatomy or biological anthropology, and they take their theory principally from late 20th century evolutionary biology. In contrast, Paleolithic archeologists are trained to recover and sort ancient material residues, and their interpretative frameworks stem primarily from cultural anthropology. The difference in practice means that human paleontologists are usually ill-equipped to assess controversies in Paleolithic archeology and vice versa. The difference in theory is more profound, since human paleontologists unflinchingly attribute major morphological changes or differences to natural selection, mutation, gene drift, or gene flow. Paleolithic archeologists in contrast tend to ascribe major behavioral changes to newly developed cultural strategies or to population growth, even when the changes coincide with conspicuous morphological changes. Many especially reject biological explanations for perceived behavioral differences between modern humans and their immediate precursors, and some believe that such explanations smack of racism.1 Yet those who accept the reality of human evolution must also accept that some ancient humans must have lacked the inborn capacity to participate in historic human societies. Since we lack historic analogs for such premodern people and archeology cannot substitute for an eyewitness account, we can