Late Pleistocene Human Dispersals Across Eurasia

更新世晚期人类在欧亚大陆的扩散

• 批准号: 2102434
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: University of Oxford
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2018
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2018 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2102434
• 关键词: Late; Pleistocene; Human; Dispersals; Across

The dispersal of anatomically modern humans (AMH) out of Africa during the Late Pleistocene (c. 120 - 10 kya) is an important stage of the human past. Suggested timings and routes of dispersals have been significantly revised over recent decades due to technological advances and new finds of hominin fossils, particularly with regards to spatial and chronological overlap between AMH and other hominin populations (Sankararaman et al. 2012; Prufer et al. 2014; Bae et al. 2017). While general consensus supports an African origin for Homo sapiens, chronologies of their 'arrival and survival' in regions outside Africa remain debated (Bae et al. 2017: 1). The expansion of AMH out of Africa occurred during the archaeological period known as the Upper Palaeolithic (UP). The UP is defined by key changes in material culture that broadly demonstrate an increase in cultural complexity and symbolism alongside more frequent technological innovation and variation (Hoffecker 2011). UP technology is often associated with AMH, thus its earliest occurrence at archaeological sites across Eurasia has been inferred as the 'arrival' of AMH. Middle Palaeolithic (MP) industries that predate the UP in Eurasia are, by extension and contrast, typically associated with other hominin populations in Eurasia such as Neanderthals and Denisovans. However, clear-cut distinctions between MP and UP industries and populations are problematised at Initial Upper Palaeolithic (IUP) sites. The IUP is a collective term for a material culture used across Eurasia between 50 and 35 calibrated years before present (cal. BP), defined by a style of blade production resembling the Levallois industry that incorporates both MP and UP tool types (Kuhn 2019). While at some sites in the Levant UP material such as beads and bone tools are found in association with the IUP (Kuhn et al. 2009), the IUP's chronostratigraphic position consistently falls between MP and UP layers. Currently, the makers of the IUP - whether AMH, Neanderthals, Denisovans, or another hominin species - cannot be inferred with any certainty, given the lack of hominin remains found in any IUP layer. Improving understanding of the process of AMH dispersal requires confidently associating the IUP with its maker(s). Long-term environmental change across Eurasia is also likely to have had effects on hominin population dynamics and distribution (Muller et al. 2011). Whilst oxygen isotope records from Greenland ice cores imply largescale temperature change through the Late Pleistocene, at regional and local scales these changes are likely to have been more nuanced (Timmerman and Freidrich 2016; Carto et al. 2011). Environmental change may have constrained or enabled period(s) of interaction between hominin species indicated by genetic evidence (Sankararaman et al. 2012; Prufer et al. 2014; Fu et al. 2015), and restricted populations toward refugia during glacial periods (Stewart and Stringer 2012). Continental-scale reconstructions of Late Pleistocene environmental change in Eurasia will therefore contextualise AMH dispersal processes, while also contributing to discussions on the extinction of non-human hominin species. This project will attempt to answer three questions:i) Who were the makers of the IUP? Can the IUP be considered a material proxy for the arrival of AMH in Eurasia?ii) Can Late Pleistocene environmental change in Eurasia be reconstructed by integrating proxy evidence and palaeoclimate models?iii) How did environmental changes affect hominin distributions and AMH dispersal?To answer question i), sediments at IUP sites will be analysed for hominin DNA, while ii) and iii) involve broader incorporation of interdisciplinary palaeoenvironmental evidence, into which sediment DNA results will be incorporated.

现代人类（AMH）在晚更新世（约公元前200年）从非洲扩散出去。120 - 10 kya）是人类过去的一个重要阶段。近几十年来，由于技术进步和人类化石的新发现，特别是AMH和其他人类种群之间的空间和时间重叠，人们对传播的时间和路线进行了重大修订（Sankararaman et al. 2012; Prufer et al. 2014; Bae et al. 2017）。虽然普遍的共识支持智人起源于非洲，但他们在非洲以外地区的“到达和生存”的年表仍然存在争议（Bae et al. 2017：1）。AMH在非洲的扩张发生在被称为旧石器时代晚期（UP）的考古时期。UP是由物质文化的关键变化定义的，这些变化广泛地表明了文化复杂性和象征意义的增加，以及更频繁的技术创新和变化（Hoffecker 2011）。UP技术通常与AMH有关，因此它最早出现在欧亚大陆的考古遗址被推断为AMH的“到来”。旧石器时代中期（MP）的工业早于欧亚大陆的UP，通过延伸和对比，通常与欧亚大陆的其他人类种群有关，如尼安德特人和丹尼索瓦人。然而，在旧石器时代早期（IUP）遗址，MP和UP行业和人口之间的明确区别存在问题。IUP是欧亚大陆在50至35年前使用的材料文化的统称（cal. BP），由类似Levallois行业的刀片生产风格定义，包括MP和UP工具类型（Kuhn 2019）。虽然在黎凡特的某些地点发现了与IUP相关的UP材料，如珠子和骨工具（Kuhn等人，2009），但IUP的年代地层位置始终处于MP和UP层之间的福尔斯。目前，IUP的制造者-无论是AMH，尼安德特人，丹尼索瓦人还是其他人类物种-都无法肯定地推断，因为在任何IUP层中都没有发现人类遗骸。提高对AMH传播过程的理解需要自信地将IUP与其制造者联系起来。欧亚大陆的长期环境变化也可能对人类种群动态和分布产生影响（Muller et al. 2011）。虽然来自格陵兰冰芯的氧同位素记录暗示了晚更新世的大规模温度变化，但在区域和局部尺度上，这些变化可能更加微妙（Timmerman和Freidrich 2016; Carto等人2011）。遗传证据表明，环境变化可能限制或启用了人类物种之间的相互作用时期（Sankararaman et al. 2012; Prufer et al. 2014; Fu et al. 2015），并限制了冰川时期种群的避难所（Stewart and Stringer 2012）。因此，在欧亚大陆的晚更新世环境变化的大陆规模的重建将contextualise AMH的传播过程，同时也有助于讨论非人类的古人类物种的灭绝。这个项目将试图回答三个问题：一）谁是IUP的制造商？IUP可以被认为是AMH到达欧亚大陆的物质代理吗？（ii）欧亚大陆晚更新世环境变化能否通过代用证据和古气候模型的整合重建？环境变化如何影响人类分布和AMH传播？为了回答问题i），将对IUP站点的沉积物进行人类DNA分析，而ii）和iii）涉及更广泛的跨学科古环境证据的合并，其中将纳入沉积物DNA结果。