Late Pleistocene Human Dispersals Across Eurasia

解剖学上的现代人(AMH)在晚更新世(约120-10kya)期间迁出非洲，是人类历史上的一个重要阶段。近几十年来，由于技术进步和人类化石的新发现，特别是在AMH和其他原始人类种群之间的空间和时间重叠方面，建议的扩散时间和路线已被显著修订(Sankaraman等人)。2012年；Prufer等人。2014年；Bae等人。2017年)。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等人。2017年：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，这些变化广泛地显示出文化复杂性和象征性的增加，以及更频繁的技术创新和变化(Hoffecker，2011)。UP技术通常与AMH联系在一起，因此，它最早出现在欧亚大陆的考古遗址上，被推断为AMH的“到来”。通过延伸和对比，欧亚大陆早于UP的旧石器时代中期(MP)工业通常与欧亚大陆的其他原始人群体有关，如尼安德特人和丹尼索瓦人。然而，MP和UP行业和人口之间的明确区别在旧石器时代早期(IUP)遗址是有问题的。IUP是一个统称，指的是欧亚大陆使用的一种物质文化，时间跨度为50到35年。BP)，定义为一种类似勒瓦卢行业的刀片生产风格，包括MP和UP刀具类型(Kuhn 2019)。而在Levant UP的一些地点，发现了与IUP相关的材料，如珠子和骨工具(Kuhn等人。2009年)，IUP的年代地层位置始终落在MP和上层之间。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原始人物种--都无法确切推断，因为在任何IUP层中都没有发现原始人的遗骸。要提高对宫内节育器扩散过程的理解，需要自信地将宫内节育器与其制造者联系起来(S)。整个欧亚大陆的长期环境变化也可能对原始人类的种群动态和分布产生影响(Muller等人。2011年)。虽然来自格陵兰冰芯的氧同位素记录表明，在整个晚更新世，大范围的温度变化，但在区域和地方尺度上，这些变化可能更加微妙(Timmerman和Freidrich 2016；Carto等人)。2011年)。环境变化可能限制或允许了遗传证据所表明的原始人物种之间相互作用的时期(S)(Sankararaman等人)。2012年；Prufer等人。2014年；Fu等人。2015年)，并限制人口在冰川时期避难(斯图尔特和斯特林格，2012年)。因此，对欧亚大陆晚更新世环境变化的大陆尺度重建将使AMH的扩散过程具体化，同时也有助于关于非人类原始人物种灭绝的讨论。这个项目将试图回答三个问题：i)谁是IUP的制造者？IUP可以被认为是AMH到达欧亚大陆的物质代用品吗？ii)欧亚大陆晚更新世的环境变化能否通过整合代用证据和古气候模型来重建？iii)环境变化如何影响人的分布和AMH的扩散？为了回答问题I)，IUP地点的沉积物将分析古人DNA，而ii)和iii)涉及更广泛的跨学科古环境证据的结合，沉积物DNA结果将被纳入其中。

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.