超越了属的刻板印象。谁是非洲最早的工具标记者?考古学和解剖学的交叉观点

IF 0.6 4区 地球科学 Q3 ANTHROPOLOGY Anthropologie Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.anthro.2023.103187
Sandrine Prat
{"title":"超越了属的刻板印象。谁是非洲最早的工具标记者?考古学和解剖学的交叉观点","authors":"Sandrine Prat","doi":"10.1016/j.anthro.2023.103187","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The evolutionary history of hominins and archaeological assemblages has become considerably more complex in the last twenty-five years due to the contribution of innovative analytical methods and new archaeological and paleoanthropological discoveries. The discoveries unearthed in eastern and southern Africa show a high biological and cultural diversity. But what is the nature of the relationships between hominins and the different material cultures? Singularity or plurality of the stone and bone-tool makers and archaeological assemblages? We propose a crossed view on these questions based on investigations of hominin/culture associations in the Late Pliocene and Early Pleistocene fieldwork records, morphology-underlying hominins with manual skills as well on interdisciplinary research conducted recently. Our work highlights the plurality of bone and stone toolmakers, in particular <em>Paranthropus</em>, <em>H. habilis</em> and <em>H. erectus/ergaster</em> for Oldowan assemblages. Similarly, in terms of anatomy, the type of dexterity required to make Oldowan assemblages is likely not limited to <em>Homo</em> genus. The frequency of <em>Paranthropus</em> remains associated with Oldowan assemblages is not negligible and insignificant. The occurrences between Oldowan assemblages and <em>Paranthropus</em> seem not to be coincidental and <em>Paranthropus</em> should be therefore considered as a stone and bone-tool maker in the same way as it is for early <em>Homo</em>.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46860,"journal":{"name":"Anthropologie","volume":"127 4","pages":"Article 103187"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beyond the genus stereotype. Who were the first toolmarkers in Africa? Crossed views between archaeology and anatomy\",\"authors\":\"Sandrine Prat\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.anthro.2023.103187\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The evolutionary history of hominins and archaeological assemblages has become considerably more complex in the last twenty-five years due to the contribution of innovative analytical methods and new archaeological and paleoanthropological discoveries. The discoveries unearthed in eastern and southern Africa show a high biological and cultural diversity. But what is the nature of the relationships between hominins and the different material cultures? Singularity or plurality of the stone and bone-tool makers and archaeological assemblages? We propose a crossed view on these questions based on investigations of hominin/culture associations in the Late Pliocene and Early Pleistocene fieldwork records, morphology-underlying hominins with manual skills as well on interdisciplinary research conducted recently. Our work highlights the plurality of bone and stone toolmakers, in particular <em>Paranthropus</em>, <em>H. habilis</em> and <em>H. erectus/ergaster</em> for Oldowan assemblages. Similarly, in terms of anatomy, the type of dexterity required to make Oldowan assemblages is likely not limited to <em>Homo</em> genus. The frequency of <em>Paranthropus</em> remains associated with Oldowan assemblages is not negligible and insignificant. The occurrences between Oldowan assemblages and <em>Paranthropus</em> seem not to be coincidental and <em>Paranthropus</em> should be therefore considered as a stone and bone-tool maker in the same way as it is for early <em>Homo</em>.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46860,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anthropologie\",\"volume\":\"127 4\",\"pages\":\"Article 103187\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anthropologie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003552123000845\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anthropologie","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003552123000845","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在过去的25年里,由于创新的分析方法和新的考古和古人类学发现的贡献,人类和考古组合的进化史变得相当复杂。在非洲东部和南部的发现显示出高度的生物和文化多样性。但是人类和不同物质文化之间的关系本质是什么呢?石器和骨制工具制造者和考古组合是单一的还是多元的?根据上新世晚期和更新世早期的田野调查记录、具有手工技能的人类形态基础以及最近开展的跨学科研究,我们提出了对这些问题的交叉观点。我们的工作强调了骨骼和石器制造者的多样性,特别是奥尔德瓦人组合中的副人、能人和直立人/匠人。同样,从解剖学的角度来看,制造奥尔德瓦人组合所需的灵巧类型可能并不局限于人属。与奥尔多瓦人组合有关的傍人猿的频率是不可忽视的。奥尔多瓦人组合和傍人之间的出现似乎不是巧合,因此傍人应该被认为是石器和骨制工具的制造者,就像早期人属一样。人类的历史和组合是由人类的历史和组合构成的,是由人类的历史和组合构成的,是由人类的历史和组合构成的,是由人类的历史和组合构成的,是由人类的历史和组合构成的,是由人类的历史和组合构成的。在非洲东部和澳大利亚东部,有一个巨大的多样性,我们计划生物多样性和文化多样性。人类与不同文化之间的关系是怎样的?Singularite ou pluralite des工匠des文物lithiques et osseux et des组合archeologiques吗?关于交叉交叉问题的建议有:交叉交叉交叉问题、交叉交叉问题、交叉交叉问题、交叉交叉问题、交叉交叉问题、交叉交叉问题、交叉交叉问题、交叉交叉问题、交叉交叉问题。法国人的劳动在过去的几个世纪里都是如此,特别是在近人猿、能人、直立人、古埃及人的生活中。De même, d 'un point De vue anatomique, le type De dextsamri,要求pour resamaliser, les assembly, Oldowayens,最可能的是,通过限定的形式Homo。La fracimquence des restes de Paranthropus associes - sams - aux - assembles - Oldowayens est - loin ' être不可忽略的和微不足道的。Les事件之间组合Oldowayens et le流派南非不semblent可能一个巧合等le流派南非devrait所以可能同样像联合国工匠des文物lithiques et osseux盟meme滴定度变量的总理representants du流派人类。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Beyond the genus stereotype. Who were the first toolmarkers in Africa? Crossed views between archaeology and anatomy

The evolutionary history of hominins and archaeological assemblages has become considerably more complex in the last twenty-five years due to the contribution of innovative analytical methods and new archaeological and paleoanthropological discoveries. The discoveries unearthed in eastern and southern Africa show a high biological and cultural diversity. But what is the nature of the relationships between hominins and the different material cultures? Singularity or plurality of the stone and bone-tool makers and archaeological assemblages? We propose a crossed view on these questions based on investigations of hominin/culture associations in the Late Pliocene and Early Pleistocene fieldwork records, morphology-underlying hominins with manual skills as well on interdisciplinary research conducted recently. Our work highlights the plurality of bone and stone toolmakers, in particular Paranthropus, H. habilis and H. erectus/ergaster for Oldowan assemblages. Similarly, in terms of anatomy, the type of dexterity required to make Oldowan assemblages is likely not limited to Homo genus. The frequency of Paranthropus remains associated with Oldowan assemblages is not negligible and insignificant. The occurrences between Oldowan assemblages and Paranthropus seem not to be coincidental and Paranthropus should be therefore considered as a stone and bone-tool maker in the same way as it is for early Homo.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Anthropologie
Anthropologie ANTHROPOLOGY-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
59
期刊介绍: First published in 1890, Anthropologie remains one of the most important journals devoted to prehistoric sciences and paleoanthropology. It regularly publishes thematic issues, originalsarticles and book reviews.
期刊最新文献
Editorial board Les monuments funéraires et cultuels du Sahara central (Algérie) : définitions et classifications Une sépulture mésolithique douteuse sans relation archéo-stratigraphique dans la grotte du Rond-du-Barry (Polignac, Haute-Loire, France) Deux cas de façonnage dentaire rituel au Néolithique en Europe. Dolmen A1 de la nécropole de Chenon (Charente, France) A “shaman” burial from the PPNA settlement of Çemka Höyük, Upper Tigris Basin, Turkiye
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1