Before Farming: the archaeology and anthropology of hunter-gatherers

ref: Before Farming 2006/2 article 1

The influence of infection on cytokine gene polymorphisms in evolution

Rodney J Scott
Faculty of Health, School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Newcastle, and Hunter Medical Research Institute, Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Division of Genetics, Hunter Area Pathology Service, John Hunter Hospital,
New Lambton, NSW, Australia
Rodney.scott@newcastle.edu.au

Sophia M Moscovis, Sharron T Hall, Maree Gleeson
Faculty of Health, School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Newcastle, and Hunter Medical Research Institute
Division of Immunology, Hunter Area Pathology Service
Sophia.Moscovis@newcastle.edu.au,Sharron.Hall@newcastle.edu.au, Maree.Gleeson@msmr.nsw.gov.au

June Roberts-Thomson
Faculty of Health, School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Newcastle, and Hunter Medical Research Institute
June.Roberts-thomson@newcastle.edu.au

C Caroline Blackwell
Division of Genetics, Hunter Area Pathology Service
Division of Immunology, Hunter Area Pathology Service
Caroline.Blackwell@newcastle.edu.au

Keywords: Ethnic groups, inflammatory cytokines, infectious disease, evolution

Abstract

Diverse populations appear to harbour different susceptibilities to disease and this has often been associated with poor socio-economic status. Since the completion of the human genome project new findings are beginning to challenge the notion that environmental pressures are the most significant in terms of health and disease. Evidence is accumulating that suggests genetic factors contribute in tandem with socio-economic status to health and disease not only at the individual but also at the population level.

By studying cytokine polymorphisms it is possible to define, to some extent, the relationship between a host population and disease. The relationship between disease evolution and a populations’ response is dynamic and ever changing. In this report we have examined the incidence of a series of cytokine polymorphisms in three different populations that hail from three different parts of the world. The cytokine profiles of the three populations are distinct and probably reflect the pathogenic influence each population was exposed to in the distant past.

ref: Before Farming 2006/2 article 2

The question of cranial robusticity

Darren Curnoe
Department of Anatomy, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine,
University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia
d.curnoe@unsw.edu.au

Alan Thorne
Department of Archaeology and Natural History, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia
thorne@coombs.anu.edu.au

Keywords: Australia, Pleistocene, modern human origins

Abstract

The existence of a morphologically robust Pleistocene Australian population has been controversial. This is largely due to the pivotal role this group has played in the multiregional model of modern human origins. Some researchers have argued that the robust morphology results at least in part from pseudopathology (artificial deformation) or pathology (haemoglobinopathy) rather than representing normal anatomical form. The present contribution puts these alternative explanations to the test. From a package of cranial deformation diagnostics, only one feature (frontal curvature index) suggests possible pseudopathology in one individual (Kow Swamp 5). Thus, the evidence for deformation even in this individual is at best weak. Further, there seems to be no evidence for pathological hyperostosis among Pleistocene Australians including robust crania. On the contrary, the robust morphology continues to be part of the variability characterising living Aborigines. Recently published luminescence dates for Kow Swamp are evaluated. We find that they provide reasonable dates for sediments at the site but are unrelated to buried human remains excavated at Kow Swamp during the 1970s.

ref: Before Farming 2006/2 article 3

Behaviourally modern at 300,000 BP: was my ancestor brighter than yours?

Paul SC Taçon
School of Arts, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, PMB 50, Gold Coast Mail Centre, Queensland 9726, Australia
p.tacon@griffith.edu.au

Keywords: Modern human behaviour, cultural evolution, ochre, symbolism, exchange

Abstract

When did behavioural modernity first emerge from a symbolic point of view? Many researchers place the date at 40,000, 60,000, 80,000 or, at the earliest, 100,000 years ago. In this paper it is argued that the earliest surviving evidence actually dates to between 300,000 to 400,000 years ago, with some roots of behavioural modernity even earlier. It also is argued that our view of the past has been distorted by the spurious nature of the archaeological record, political and historical bias and the idea that major cultural evolution occurred via revolutions and explosions rather than gradual development accelerated through cross-cultural exchange. Climate change undoubtedly played a role in shaping and defining the human animal but it is the cultural consequences of climate change that need better evaluation and articulation. Indeed, the hypothesis that major climate change beginning about 340,000 years ago was pivotal for accentuating modern behavioural development is advocated as worthy of exploration and testing. It is concluded that long distance contact and exchange between archaic humans fuelled the development of symbolic communication and identity, with mineral pigments integral to the process.

ref: Before Farming 2006/2 article 4

An Australian perspective on modern behaviour and artefact assemblages

Peter Hiscock
School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Australia Australian National University,
Canberra ACT 0200, Australia
Peter.Hiscock@anu.edu.au

Sue O’Connor
Department of Archaeology and Natural History, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia
soconnor@coombs.anu.edu.au

Keywords: Modernity, Palaeolithic, symbolism, microliths, Australia

Abstract

The emergence of ‘modern behaviour’ during prehistory has been the focus of many explorations of the archaeological record, but there is little agreement as to when a fundamental change in behaviour occurred or what the archaeological signature of that change might be. This paper explores a comparison of the Australian and southern African archaeological records to reveal that claims for the revolutionary materialisation of complex symbolic capacities in the late Pleistocene are problematic. Using a case study of one particular technology, we show that the archaeological evidence does not reveal unidirectional technological changes that can be simply interpreted in terms of symbolic transformations in the comparatively recent past. We conclude that existing models of temporal change in artefact
assemblages do not constitute viable tests of the major competing models of hominid evolution, such as replacement versus regional continuity models.