Henshilwood Christopher S, Marean Curtis W
Centre for Development Studies, Univesity of Bergen, Norway, and State University of New York, Stony Brook, USA.
Curr Anthropol. 2003 Dec;44(5):627-51. doi: 10.1086/377665.
Archaeology's main contribution to the debate over the origins of modern humans has been investigating where and when modern human behavior is first recognized in the archaeological record. Most of this debate has been over the empirical record for the appearance and distribution of a set of traits that have come to be accepted as indicators of behavioral modernity. This debate has resulted in a series of competing models that we explicate here, and the traits are typically used as the test implications for these models. However, adequate tests of hypotheses and models rest on robust test implications, and we argue here that the current set of test implications suffers from three main problems: (1) Many are empirically derived from and context-specific to the richer European record, rendering them problematic for use in the primarily tropical and subtropical African continent. (2) They are ambiguous because other processes can be invoked, often with greater parsimony, to explain their character. (3) Many lack theoretical justification. In addition, there are severe taphonomic problems in the application of these test implications across differing spans of time. To provide adequate tests of these models, archaeologists must first subject these test implications to rigorous discussion, which is initiated here.
考古学对现代人类起源辩论的主要贡献在于研究在考古记录中现代人类行为首次被确认的地点和时间。这场辩论大多围绕着一系列特征的出现和分布的实证记录展开,这些特征已被公认为行为现代性的指标。这场辩论产生了一系列相互竞争的模型,我们在此对其进行阐述,而这些特征通常被用作这些模型的检验依据。然而,对假设和模型的充分检验依赖于有力的检验依据,我们在此认为,当前这组检验依据存在三个主要问题:(1)许多是从更丰富的欧洲记录中经验性推导出来的,且特定于其背景,这使得它们在主要为热带和亚热带的非洲大陆使用时存在问题。(2)它们含糊不清,因为可以用其他过程来解释其特征,而且这些过程往往更简洁。(3)许多缺乏理论依据。此外,在将这些检验依据应用于不同时间跨度时存在严重的埋藏学问题。为了对这些模型进行充分检验,考古学家必须首先对这些检验依据进行严格讨论,本文即开启此项讨论。