Keith, Would you please post your sources for the statements that the use of ochres and pigments was universal in all hunter-gatherer societies?
I am very much interested in the differences in gender ornamentation and those sources would be of great help to me. Thanks, Selma ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 9:36 AM Subject: [Futurework] No end to human evolution > Thank you, Selma, for posting Nicholas Wade's article from the New York > Times. We really ought to be reading as much well-written material as we > can on the subject of genetics. The way that the medical profession is now > saving babies with deleterious genes (and I am not implying that they > should act otherwise), many of which will be passed on to future > generations, means that a lot of genetic reparation will have to be done > sooner or later if the human species is to be kept in good condition, and > the more that we are informed about these matters the better. > > I have just two comments to make on the article: > > The following paragrah has particular interest to me because the hypothesis > I am advancing on my website on evolutionary economics is that almost all > economic goods were once 'status goods'. By this I mean that they were > originally acquired not for their present-day purpose but to claim, or > confirm, status in the social group. I think that the first status good was > probably pigments and ochres of various sorts which were used as body > ornamentation -- a universal behaviour among all hunter-gatherer tribes. > There is evidence that such ochres were traded over long distances at least > as late as 75,000BC. It would thus seem from the latest evidence, that > clothes fall into the same category -- that is, that they were worn long > before there was a climatic need for them when humans migrated into Europe > and up to the edge of the Ice Age glaciers. Every hunter-gatherer tribe, > even in the tropics where clothes are not at all necessary has some form of > uniform -- such as straw body-cones, cloaks and hats -- which are worn on > special occasions such as initiation ceremonies or war dances or partner > selection meetings with neighbouring tribes. > > <<<< > Clothing came long after we were naked. Dr. Mark Stoneking, of the > Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, managed to address this > question by calculating when the human body louse (which lives only in > clothing, not hair) evolved from the human head louse. That proud event in > human history dates to between 72,000 and 42,000 years ago, Dr. Stoneking > reported. > >>>> > > And then there's another part-paragraph which I'd like to quote: > > <<<< > Most animals struggle to survive in a harsh environment, beset by accidents > and predators. Humans got that problem largely under control long ago but > live in a fiercer jungle -- that of a human society. Indeed, social > intelligence -- the ability to keep track of a society's hierarchy and what > chits an individual owed to others or had due -- may have been a factor in > the increase of human brain size. > >>>> > > The fact of rank order, and also of the balancing up of obligations were > probably implanted in our genes and brains long before the brain started > growing into the frontal lobe regions at a rapid rate. What the frontal > lobes did in the case of rank order was to make the status of the > individual more explicit by means of body ornamentation -- and then a whole > series of possessions that became fashionable in successive periods of > history. As to satisfying debts, then there is much evidence that the > anicent Sumerians, at about 3,000BC used suitably impressed clay tablets as > credits. This, too, would have been a result of the frontal lobes being > able to create imaginative objects which helped individuals' memories of > their obligations. > > KSH > > <<<< > THE END OF EVOLUTION? > > Nicholas Wade > > The most improbable item in science fiction movies is not the hardware -- > the faster-than-light travel, the tractor beams, the levitation -- but the > people. Strangely, they always look and behave just like us. Yet the one > safe prediction about the far future is that humans will be a lot further > along in their evolution. > > Last week population geneticists, rummaging in DNA's ever-fascinating > attic, set dates on two important changes in the human form. > > Dr. Alan R. Rogers of the University of Utah figured out that the ancestral > human population had acquired black skin, as a protection against the sun, > at least 1.2 million years ago, and therefore that it must have shed its > fur some time before this date. > > Clothing came long after we were naked. Dr. Mark Stoneking, of the > Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, managed to address this > question by calculating when the human body louse (which lives only in > clothing, not hair) evolved from the human head louse. That proud event in > human history dates to between 72,000 and 42,000 years ago, Dr. Stoneking > reported > > So where do we go from here? Have we attained perfection and ceased to evolve? > > Many geneticists think that is very unlikely, though few find it easy to > say where we are headed or how fast. Until the agricultural revolution > 10,000 years ago, people used to live in small populations with little gene > flow between them. That is the best situation for rapid evolution, said > Sewall Wright, one of the founders of population genetics. But Sir Ronald > A. Fisher, another founder of the discipline, argued that large populations > with random mating -- just what globalization and air travel are helping to > bring about -- were the best fodder for rapid evolution. > > "Which of them is right? No one really knows," Dr. Rogers said. > > Considering that the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees lived only 5 > to 6 million years ago, human evolution seems to have been quite rapid. The > chimp, our closest living relative, is still a standard ape, whereas we > have become a truly weird one. And our evolution put on an extra spurt just > 50,000 years ago, the date when we may have perfected language, made our > first objets d'art and dispersed from our ancestral homeland some place in > northeast Africa. > > Despite the medical advances and creature comforts that shelter people in > rich countries, natural selection is still hard at work. Microbes and > parasites still nip at our heels, forcing the human genome to stay in > constant motion. It is clearly in the throes of adapting to malaria, a > disease that seems to have struck only in the last 8,000 years, and the > protective gene that has sickle cell anemia as a side effect is a sign of a > hasty patch. > > It seems reasonable to predict that the human physical form will stay in > equilibrium with its surroundings. If the ozone layer thins, pale skins > will be out and dark skins de rigeur. If climate heats up, the adaptations > for living in hot places will spread, though it could take tens or hundreds > of generations for a new gene to become widespread. > > Sexual selection, too, is busily at work. This powerful process, first > recognized by Darwin, works on traits that are attractive to other sex, and > help the owner's genes spread into the next generation. The peacock's tail, > a wonder of the natural world, has been created by the sexual preference of > generations of peahens. > > Human skin color and hair distribution may be pale echoes of the same > process. Recent social changes may have accelerated the pace of sexual > selection. "You used to marry a lass from your local village, now it's > anyone you can track down on the Internet," said Dr. Mark Pagel, an > evolutionary biologist at the University of Reading in England. > > Though features like the peacock's tail are chosen for aesthetic, or > arbitrary, reasons, they often seem to be correlated with health, and > indeed their owners are chosen as mates because these features subliminally > advertise a good immune system or freedom from parasites. So if sexual > selection in people becomes more intense as people have a wider choice of > mates, that suggests a terribly Panglossian forecast we will become more > healthy and ever more beautiful. > > Most animals struggle to survive in a harsh environment, beset by accidents > and predators. Humans got that problem largely under control long ago but > live in a fiercer jungle -- that of a human society. Indeed, social > intelligence -- the ability to keep track of a society's hierarchy and what > chits an individual owed to others or had due -- may have been a factor in > the increase of human brain size. As the prevalence of Caesareans suggests, > the circumference of babies' brains seems to have gotten as large as > circumstances permit. Will requirements for extra neural circuitry make our > descendants into coneheads? Doubtless, sexual selection will maintain a > decorative swatch of hair on top. > > Society, and the knowledge needed to survive in it, seems to get ever more > complex, suggesting that human social behavior will continue to evolve. > Unfortunately, evolution has no concept of progress, so behavioral change > is not always for the better. "I suspect that our social behavior evolves > rapidly but that much of it changes direction over time," said Dr. Henry C. > Harpending, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of Utah. > > Warrior societies like the Yanomamo of South America give reproductive > success to the man who is "violent, scary and effective at male-male > conflict," whereas among peasant farmers, the successful male would be one > who feeds his children and passes on an estate to them, Dr. Harpending said. > > A dramatic instance of the former process came to light earlier this year > with the discovery that no less than 8 percent of men who live today in the > former domains of the Mongol empire carry the Y chromosome of Genghis Khan > and the Mongol royal house. It is hard to see a Genghis having much > reproductive success in modern societies. Perhaps another Panglossian > prediction is called for in a more ordered society, evolution will favor > the fostering type of male over the Yanomamo-style brutes. > > Not everything is roses in evolution's garden. Ronald Fisher, the British > biologist, pointed out in 1930 that the genes for mental ability tend to > move upward through the social classes but that fertility is higher in the > lower social classes. He concluded that selection constantly opposes genes > that favor creativity and intelligence. > > Fisher's idea has not been proven wrong in theory, although many > biologists, besides detesting it for the support it gave to eugenic > policies, believe it has proven false in practice. "It hasn't been formally > refuted in the sense that we could never test it," Dr. Pagel said. Though > people with fewer resources tend to have more children, that may be for > lack of education, not intelligence. "Education is the best contraceptive. > If you brought these people up in the middle class they would have fewer > children," Dr. Pagel said. "Fisher's empirical observation is correct, that > the lower orders have more babies, but that doesn't mean their genotypes > are inferior." > > Given all the possibilities for human evolutionary change, it is hard to > know which path our distant descendants will be constrained to tread. From > a New York perspective, however, it is hard to ignore a certain foreboding > that under the joint power of sexual selection and Fisher's gloomy > prognosis we will become ever more beautiful and less acute. The future, in > a word, is Californian. > > New York Times 24 August 2003 > >>>> > > > Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England, > <www.evolutionary-economics.org> > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
