《A Short History of Nearly Everything》第149章

it　was　so　superior　to　existing　tools　that　soon　others　were　following　the　inventor’s　lead　andmaking　hand　axes　of　their　own。　eventually　whole　societies　existed　that　seemed　to　do　littleelse。　“they　made　them　in　the　thousands；”　says　ian　tattersall。　“there　are　some　places　inafrica　where　you　literally　can’t　move　without　stepping　on　them。　it’s　strange　because　they　arequite　intensive　objects　to　make。　it　was　as　if　they　made　them　for　the　sheer　pleasure　of　it。”
from　a　shelf　in　his　sunny　workroom　tattersall　took　down　an　enormous　cast；　perhaps　a　footand　a　half　long　and　eight　inches　wide　at　its　widest　point；　and　handed　it　to　me。　it　was　shapedlike　a　spearhead；　but　one　the　size　of　a　stepping…stone。　as　a　fiberglass　cast　it　weighed　only　afew　ounces；　but　the　original；　which　was　found　in　tanzania；　weighed　twenty…five　pounds。　“itwas　pletely　useless　as　a　tool；”　tattersall　said。　“it　would　have　taken　two　people　to　lift　itadequately；　and　even　then　it　would　have　been　exhausting　to　try　to　pound　anything　with　it。”
“what　was　it　used　for　then？”
tattersall　gave　a　genial　shrug；　pleased　at　the　mystery　of　it。　“no　idea。　it　must　have　had　somesymbolic　importance；　but　we　can　only　guess　what。”
the　axes　became　known　as　acheulean　tools；　after　st。　acheul；　a　suburb　of　amiens　innorthern　france；　where　the　first　examples　were　found　in　the　nineteenth　century；　and　contrastwith　the　older；　simpler　tools　known　as　oldowan；　originally　found　at　olduvai　gorge　intanzania。　in　older　textbooks；　oldowan　tools　are　usually　shown　as　blunt；　rounded；　hand…sizedstones。　in　fact；　paleoanthropologists　now　tend　to　believe　that　the　tool　part　of　oldowan　rockswere　the　pieces　flaked　off　these　larger　stones；　which　could　then　be　used　for　cutting。
now　here’s　the　mystery。　when　early　modern　humans—the　ones　who　would　eventuallybee　us—started　to　move　out　of　africa　something　over　a　hundred　thousand　years　ago；acheulean　tools　were　the　technology　of　choice。　these　early　homo　sapiens　loved　theiracheulean　tools；　too。　they　carried　them　vast　distances。　sometimes　they　even　took　unshapedrocks　with　them　to　make　into　tools　later　on。　they　were；　in　a　word；　devoted　to　the　technology。
but　although　acheulean　tools　have　been　found　throughout　africa；　europe；　and　western　andcentral　asia；　they　have　almost　never　been　found　in　the　far　east。　this　is　deeply　puzzling。
in　the　1940s　a　harvard　paleontologist　named　hallum　movius　drew　something　called　themovius　line；　dividing　the　side　with　acheulean　tools　from　the　one　without。　the　line　runs　in　asoutheasterly　direction　across　europe　and　the　middle　east　to　the　vicinity　of　modern…daycalcutta　and　bangladesh。　beyond　the　movius　line；　across　the　whole　of　southeast　asia　andinto　china；　only　the　older；　simpler　oldowan　tools　have　been　found。　we　know　that　homosapiens　went　far　beyond　this　point；　so　why　would　they　carry　an　advanced　and　treasured　stonetechnology　to　the　edge　of　the　far　east　and　then　just　abandon　it？
“that　troubled　me　for　a　long　time；”　recalls　alan　thorne　of　the　australian　nationaluniversity　in　canberra。　“the　whole　of　modern　anthropology　was　built　round　the　idea　thathumans　came　out　of　africa　in　two　waves—a　first　wave　of　homo　erectus；　which　became　javaman　and　peking　man　and　the　like；　and　a　later；　more　advanced　wave　of　homo　sapiens；　whichdisplaced　the　first　lot。　yet　to　accept　that　you　must　believe　thathomo　sapiens　got　so　far　withtheir　more　modern　technology　and　then；　for　whatever　reason；　gave　it　up。　it　was　all　verypuzzling；　to　say　the　least。”
as　it　turned　out；　there　would　be　a　great　deal　else　to　be　puzzled　about；　and　one　of　the　mostpuzzling　findings　of　all　would　e　from　thorne’s　own　part　of　the　world；　in　the　outback　ofaustralia。　in　1968；　a　geologist　named　jim　bowler　was　poking　around　on　a　long…dried　lakebedcalled　mungo　in　a　parched　and　lonely　corner　of　western　new　south　wales　when　somethingvery　unexpected　caught　his　eye。　sticking　out　of　a　crescent…shaped　sand　ridge　of　a　type　knownas　a　lunette　were　some　human　bones。　at　the　time；　it　was　believed　that　humans　had　been　inaustralia　for　no　more　than　8；000　years；　but　mungo　had　been　dry　for　12；000　years。　so　whatwas　anyone　doing　in　such　an　inhospitable　place？
the　answer；　provided　by　carbon　dating；　was　that　the　bones’　owner　had　lived　there　whenlake　mungo　was　a　much　more　agreeable　habitat；　a　dozen　miles　long；　full　of　water　and　fish；fringed　by　pleasant　groves　of　casuarina　trees。　to　everyone’s　astonishment；　the　bones　turnedout　to　be　23；000　years　old。　other　bones　found　nearby　were　dated　to　as　much　as　60；000　years。
this　was　unexpected　to　the　point　of　seeming　practically　impossible。　at　no　time　sincehominids　first　arose　on　earth　has　australia　not　been　an　island。　any　human　beings　who　arrivedthere　must　have　e　by　sea；　in　large　enough　numbers　to　start　a　breeding　population；　aftercrossing　sixty　miles　or　more　of　open　water　without　having　any　way　of　knowing　that　aconvenient　landfall　awaited　them。　having　landed；　the　mungo　people　had　then　found　their　waymore　than　two　thousand　miles　inland　from　australia’s　north　coast—the　presumed　point　ofentry—which　suggests；　according　to　a　report　in　the　proceedings　of　the　national　academy　ofsciences；　“that　people　may　have　first　arrived　substantially　earlier　than　60；000　years　ago。”
how　they　got　there　and　why　they　came　are　questions　that　can’t　be　answered。　according　tomost　anthropology　texts；　there’s　no　evidence　that　people　could　even　speak　60；000　years　ago；much　less　engage　in　the　sorts　of　cooperative　efforts　necessary　to　build　ocean…worthy　craft　andcolonize　island　continents。
“there’s　just　a　whole　lot　we　don’t　know　about　the　movements　of　people　before　recordedhistory；”　alan　thorne　told　me　when　i　met　him　in　canberra。　“do　you　know　that　whennineteenth…century　anthropologists　first　got　to　papua　new　guinea；　they　found　people　in　thehighlands　of　the　interior；　in　some　of　the　most　inaccessible　terrain　on　earth；　growing　sweetpotatoes。　sweet　potatoes　are　native　to　south　america。　so　how　did　they　get　to　papua　newguinea？　we　don’t　know。　don’t　have　the　faintest　idea。　but　what　is　certain　is　that　people　havebeen　moving　around　with　considerable　assuredness　for　longer　than　traditionally　thought；　andalmost　certainly　sharing　genes　as　well　as　information。”
the　problem；　as　e