摘要
本文回顾中国人类古生物学在２０世纪的主要研究进展。中国的化石曾经数度入围最早期的人类。目前中国已有６０余处地点发现了人类化石， 其中最古老的暂时要推云南元谋上那蚌的两颗门齿。对中国人类化石的研究提出了连续进化附带杂交的模式， 支持现代人起源的多地区进化说。中国各时期的化石人类有较显著的地区差异。中国人类的发展可能比喻为既有分支间的杂交融合，
Changes of the position of Chinese fossils in the early history of hominid\ \ Sinanthropus pekinensis had been one of the earliest hominids from 1931 through 1959. In 1931 the artefacts unearthed from Sinanthropus site were admited by Breuil, the authority of the Paleolithic study. In 1959, the discovery of Zinjanthropus and associated artefacts made the historical record of man\|made tool extended to 1\^75Ma.\; Gigantopithecus had been suggested as the ancestor of Pithecanthropus erectus and Sinanthropus pekinensis in 1940s by F.Weidenreich. But this proposal has not been commonly accepted in paleoanthropological circle.\; In 1965, Simons and Pilbeam proposed the Ramapithecus belonging to hominid and five teeth of Dryopithecus found in 1956 at Kaiyuan, Yunnan, southwestern China were included in the circle of earliest hominid. So China became one of the candidate areas of human cradle. Since 1975 many Ramapithecus fossils including 5 skulls and other pieces of bone have been unearthed from Lufeng, Yunnan. The importance of Chinese fossils in the study of human origin increased. In 1980s, Lufengpithecus was excluded from the human circle, Chinese fossils are no longer considered as a part of human earliest ancestor. 2\ Earliest human in China\; Sinanthropus is the first one acting as the earliest human in China. In 1964 Gongwangling Homo erectus skull\|cap replaced Homo erectus pekinensis fossils as the earliest ancestor in China. In 1965, Yuanmou incisors took this prominent position. Yuanmou is dated by paleomagnetism as of 1\^7Ma. A new ESR date of 1\^6(LU)—1\^1(EU)Ma was published recently. By the way, the Longgupo mandible is of an ape, the provenience of the incisor is problematic, so far this site has not yielded any early Pleistocene hominid fossil.Recent discovery of stone and bony artefacts of probably 2Ma from Fanchang,Anhui province is the indirect indicator of the existence of humans in so early period in China. 3\ Outline of human evolution in China 3\^1\ Consideration at the intercontinental level—Continuous evolution with hybridization Totally more than 60 sites yielding human fossils have been found in China. There are a series of common morphological features shown among these fossils. Between the Homo erectus and Homo sapiens fossils found in China there is mosaic of morphological features which indicates that between these chrono\|species the change is transitional. No clear\|cut morphological demarcation line could be drawn between them. Among Chinese human fossils there are a few specimens with morphological features inharmonious with other fossils found in China. This phenomenon indicates the result of gene flow from Western world. The inharmonious features are very few so the gene flow is not strong. Therefore the scenario in China is continous evolution with hybridization. This is also supported by the evidence from paleolithic archeology and mammalian faunas.Evidence from all of these aspects strongly supports the Maltiregional Evolution Hypothesis for the origin of modern humans which has different submodels in different regions.e.g.continuity might exist in less extent in Europe than in East Asia.\;Comparisons between the fossils from China and those from areas east and south to China indicate that there are communications among the populations of these areas during late Pleistocene. 3\^2\ Consideration at the interpopulational level in China——There are distinct interpopulational differences between different small regions\; There are distinct differences between the recent human populations of North and South China. The difference could be roughly in certain extent traced to Neolithic and late Paleolithic stage. There is no evidence showing that it could be extended to archaic Homo sapiens and Homo erectus . There are distinct interpopulational differences in the latter two stages. These differences might be only the interpopulational difference instead of representing the difference between North and South China.
出处
《人类学学报》
CSCD
北大核心
1999年第3期165-175,共11页
Acta Anthropologica Sinica
