Reply to Barkai: Implications of the Konso bone handaxe
Reply to Barkai: Implications of the Konso bone handaxe
复制标题
回复Barkai：孔索骨手斧的含义
DOI：
10.1073/pnas.2018084117
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Beyene Yonas
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Suwa Gen;Asfaw Berhane;Sano Katsuhiro;Beyene Yonas
我们欢迎Ran Barkai关于我们最近报道的Konso骨手斧象征意义的想法(1)(2)。首先，我们同意1.4 Mya的非洲直立人在认知能力上可能相当复杂，包括潜在的符号感知和行为。事实上，这一发现的技术背景表明了比之前认为的更高水平的认知，这一点我们将在下文进一步讨论。接下来，我们注意到，尽管骨髓被开采，但加工部位的碎裂新鲜骨骼上覆盖着软组织。一项实验研究报告说，骨膜的存在妨碍了有效的可控敲击，而另一项实验报告说，风化的骨(和石头)比新断裂的新鲜骨更容易剥落(4)。这些可能是骨成形比碎石成形更少见的根本原因。因此，我们同意，制作近索骨手斧的人很可能是故意这样做的。考虑到近索丰富的石材原料，骨制手斧的制造者一定是特意选择了骨头，尽管这并不是必须的。然而，在早更新世的Konso、Olduvai和其他地方，骨手斧的绝对稀有与反复出现的象征功能背道而驰。相反，骨手斧的出现证明了那时所获得的行为广度和认知能力。我们强调，近索骨手斧出现在一种日益复杂的工具技术和相关认知的背景下，其进展在1.75百万年至1.2百万年之间，从∼在1.45百万年至1.2百万年(5)看到的向心大核、孔贝瓦薄片和其他准备好的核心还原技术就可以看出这一点。骨手斧可以被认为是这种认知复杂性的另一种输出。允许猜测，制作它的原因可能有很大的范围：从对将敲击技术应用于不同的物理材料的好奇心，作为与大型哺乳动物资源有关的象征性物品(6)，或类似于“过度制作”的石手斧，出于审美倾向(7)，或为了炫耀技术能力以获得社会地位或吸引异性(8)。最近对大脑的功能研究越来越多地表明，伴随着工具制作及其学习的实际神经激活和连接模式，特别是关于中更新世阿舍利时期的手斧复制技能，电路中的重叠与语言发生重叠(9)。这被解释为意味着工具技术和语言交流的共同进化(9)，或者两者的并行发展(10)。1.0Mya Acheulean之前的技术出现的层级复杂性表明，工具技术、社会学习和某种形式的口头或语音交流的共同进化可能已经延伸到更早的更新世，并形成了大脑行为和文化共同进化的关键组成部分，具有更新世人类和现存人类的特征(11)。令人惊讶的是，这个周期的一个明显的早期表现是最早的阿舍利人在∼1.75Mya和接近同时代的向我们所知的直立人的原始形态的过渡。最后，我们等待中国对更年轻的骨制手斧的进一步描述。
We welcome Ran Barkai’s thoughts (1) on the symbolic significance of the Konso bone handaxe that we recently reported (2). First, we agree that African Homo erectus at 1.4 Mya may have been considerably sophisticated in their cognitive capacities, including potential symbolic perception and behavior. Indeed, the technological context of the find suggests a higher level of cognition than previously thought, a point we further discuss below. Next, we note that, although bone marrow was exploited, fragmented fresh bones at processing sites are covered with soft tissue. One experimental work (3) reports that presence of periosteum precludes efficient controlled percussion, and another reports that weathered bone (and stone) is easier to flake than newly broken and fresh bone (4). These are probably the underlying reasons why bone shaping was undoubtedly rare compared to lithic shaping. Therefore, we agree that whoever made the Konso bone handaxe probably did so purposefully. Given the abundance of lithic raw material at Konso, the maker of the bone handaxe must have specifically chosen bone, even though this was not necessary. However, the sheer rarity of bone handaxes in the Early Pleistocene at Konso, Olduvai, and elsewhere speaks against a recurrent symbolic function. Rather, the occurrence of bone handaxes exemplifies the behavioral breadth and cognitive capacities attained by that time. We emphasize that the Konso bone handaxe occurs in the context of an increasingly complex tool technology, and associated cognition, that progressed between 1.75 Mya and 1.2 Mya, as evinced by the large centripetal cores, Kombewa flakes, and other prepared-core reduction techniques seen at Konso by∼ 1.45 Mya to 1.2 Mya (5). The bone handaxe can be considered an alternative output of this cognitive complexity. Allowing speculations, the reason for its making can range widely: from curiosity about applying percussion techniques on a different physical material, as a symbolic item related to large mammal resources (6), or, similar to “overly made” stone handaxes, proclivity for aesthetics (7), or to show off technological prowess for social status or to attract the opposite sex (8). Recent functional studies of the brain have increasingly shown the actual neural activation and connectivity patterns that accompany tool making and its learning, and that, especially regarding the Middle Pleistocene Acheulean handaxe replication skills, overlap in circuitry occurs with language (9). This has been interpreted to imply coevolution of tool technology and verbal communication (9), or a parallel development of the two (10). The emerging hierarchical complexity of the pre-1.0 Mya Acheulean technology suggests that coevolution of tool technology, social learning, and some form of verbal or vocal communication might have extended well back into the Early Pleistocene, and formed a key component of the brain− behavior− culture coevolutionary “helical cycle” that characterizes both Pleistocene Homo and extant humans (11). It is quite striking that a clear, early manifestation of this cycle is represented by the earliest Acheulean at∼ 1.75 Mya and the near-coeval transition to a hominin morphology that we recognize as Homo erectus. Lastly, we await further descriptions of the much younger suggested bone handaxe from China.