ref: 2003/1 (16)

Editorial

With this first issue of 2003 we welcome a new associate editor, Luis Borrero of the Instituto Multidisciplinaria de Historia y Ciencias Humanas (IMHICIHU), Buenos Aires. Luis' appointment gives us a much needed presence in South America and we look forward to bringing current research in this vast region to the attention of our readers. As a starting point, a news item from Paul Bahn on the dating of rock art from the Paiu? region of Brazil underlines the significance of South America for our understanding of Pleistocene dispersals in general, as well as the contentious subject of pre-Clovis settlement in the New World.

Clovis and paleoindian research also feature in our departmental review from the University of Wyoming and the North American theme is continued in two of the research articles from CHAGS 9 which model social interaction within bounded landscapes. O'Shea develops an explicitly archaeological hypothesis for modelling the interaction between communities on the shores of the upper Great Lakes who adopted agriculture and inland hunter-gatherers whose access to shoreline resources was subsequently curtailed. He draws attention to the biases inherent in ethnohistoric accounts from the region and the distorting effect they have on previous attempts to model forager/farmer interaction in the region. Archaeological data from inland earthworks is interpreted here as evidence of seasonal aggregation sites that served as centres for social, ideological and economic exchange between inland foragers and lakeside farmers. O'Shea's model should interest researchers grappling with the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition.

On a generally similar theme, Renouf models the interaction of Palaeoeskimo and Recent Indian (Beothuk) populations on Newfoundland in the late Holocene. The biological concept of mutualism provides an analytical tool for developing a testable model of resource allocation and exchange between coastal and hinterland communities. European settlement, initially on the coast followed by inland expansion, disrupts the interdependence of the two indigenous groups. The socio-biological approach used may not appeal to some, but there is room here for individual agency to be considered when modelling the specifics of social interaction at the interface between communities.

Eriksson, Lougas and Zagorska build on a theme that featured in the last issue of Before Farming, namely that of dietary and social change during the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition. The remarkable cemetery and settlement complex of Zvejnieki, Latvia, provides evidence for dietary continuity (ie, freshwater fish) but ideological change (eg, burial practices) across the typological divide. The new isotopic, dating and faunal data presented here contribute to an already considerable archaeological record for the site complex, but also highlight the regional variability in the process of social change that undoubtedly characterised the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition across northern Europe.

Enloe delves into the dense undergrowth that is the methodology for detecting and reconstructing patterns of food sharing in the archaeological record. Comparative hunter-gatherer data illustrate the inherent complexity of socially structured pathways of food distribution, especially those based on kinship. Add to this the distortions of taphonomic processes and the task for the archaeologist becomes daunting. Enloe builds a case for using skeletal element frequencies and bone refits to detect distribution patterns at individual sites. The unusually well-preserved late Upper Palaeolithic site of Pincevent, France provides a test case where taphonomic biases are minimal and chronological controls are tight. The results are ambiguous if not disappointing for Pincevent, but all is not doom and gloom - Enloe suggests a way forward.

This issue also presents the first of three instalments of articles based on presentations at the Australian Rock Art Research Association (AURA) conference held in Alice Springs in 2000. The extended editorial by Faulstich, Taçon and Ouzman introduces the themes of human relationships with landscapes, animals and other people that feature in rock art world-wide. The trio argue persuasively that rock art is uniquely positioned as a mirror that reflects our own preconceptions of other cultures as well as allowing us to see the world through the eyes of others. There is also a slight diversion from the hunter-gatherer theme of Before Farming with O'Regan's retrospective on the past neglect and bright future for Maori rock art as a source of knowledge and cultural pride for contemporary Maoris - a diversion worth taking for its insights.

For the cultural anthropologists among you our personal review from Megan Biesele is a testament to the importance of giving voice (or indeed listening) to indigenous people. Those whose interests are more Palaeolithic in orientation, will find stones and bones in short supply this time, but they will feature again in the next issue. Meanwhile, perhaps our book reviews - Miracle on Binford's challenging opus Constructing frames of reference and Mazel on Mitchell's The archaeology of southern Africa - may help fill the gap. Please bear with us, Before Farming was always intended as a broad church for those with catholic tastes in hunter-gatherer research.

THE EDITOR

© Western Academic & Specialist Press Ltd 2003