32 



D.E. HAWKEY 



Table 8 Incisor Breadth ratio (IB) of upper central and lateral incisors compared with early and recent populations. 



IB 



Area/Site 



Sex 



Source 



0.83 



0.83 

 0.80 

 0.80 

 0.80 

 0.78 

 0.78 

 0.75 

 0.72 



Gough's Cave (Late Paleolithic-Mesolithic) 



Jomon (Early Japan) 

 Mehrgarh (Neolithic Pakistan) 

 Mahadaha (Mesolithic India) 

 Nubia (Mesolithic East Africa) 

 Khoisan (Recent South Africa) 

 Anglo-Saxon (Early Britain) 

 Natufian (Epi-Paleolithic Levant) 

 Britain (Recent) 



M&F 



M 

 M&F 

 M&F 



M 



M 



M 

 M&F 



M 



Present study 



Brace & Nagai 1982 



Lukacs 1985 



Lukacs & Hemphill 1992 



Calcagno 1986 



Haeussler et al 1989; van Reenan 1982 



Lavelle 1968 



Dahlberg 1960 



Lavelle 1972 



Table 9 Molar Crown Area calculated for upper and lower M 1 and M2 (Ml -M2CA) and compared to early and recent populations. 



Ml-M2CA(mm 2 ) Area/Site 



Sex 



Source 



536 

 503 

 503 

 486 

 486 

 485 

 465 

 448 

 428 



Nubia (Mesolithic East Africa) 



Mahadaha (Mesolithic India) 



Natufian (Epi-Paleolithic Levant) 



Mehrgarh (Neolithic Pakistan) 



Gough's Cave (Late Paleolithic-Mesolithic) 



Britain (Recent) 



Jomon (Early Japan) 



Anglo-Saxon (Early Britain) 



Khoisan (Recent South Africa) 



M 

 M&F 

 M&F 

 M&F 

 M&F 



M 



M 



M 



M 



Calcagno 1986 



Lukacs & Hemphill 1992 



Dahlberg 1960 



Lukacs & Hemphill 1991 



Present study 



Lavelle 1968 



Brace & Nagai 1982 



Lavelle 1968 



Haeussler et al 1989; van Reenan 1982 



Table 10 Comparisons of Gough's Cave metric and morphological data forTCA absolute mean difference (TCAD), Penrose Size (PEN SIZE), Penrose 

 Shape (PEN SHAPE), and Morphology (DAS) ranked in terms of most similar to least similar. 



Site/ Area 



TCAD 



Site/Area 



PEN SIZE 



Site/Area 



PEN SHAPE 



Site/ Area 



DAS% 



Mehrgarh 



3 



Natufian 



0.02 



Natufian 



0.87 



Early Europe 



83.3 



Natufian 



20 



Mehrgarh 



0.04 



Mehrgarh 



0.97 



Early S. Asia 



83.3 



Early Europe 



23 



Mahadaha 



0.05 



Jomon 



1.07 



Early Jomon 



80.0 



Jomon 



53 



Anglo-Saxon 



0.33 



Nubia 



1.10 



Recent Europe 



72.2 



Anglo-Saxon 



53 



Jomon 



0.39 



Mahadaha 



1.24 



Early Natufian 



70.0 



Recent Britain 



68 



Nubia 



0.59 



Khoisan 



1.34 



Early N. Africa 



70.0 



Mahadaha 



69 



Recent Britain 



0.97 



Anglo-Saxon 



2.39 



Recent S. Africa 



60.0 



Nubia 



124 



Khoisan 



1.14 



Recent Britain 



4.22 



Early Baikal 



52.6 



Khoisan 



124 











Early Nubia 



42.1 



Although an increase in the presence of calculus has been observed 

 with the advent of Neolithic culture (Hildebolt & Molnar 1991), 

 calculus deposits on the teeth are also found in populations with 

 hunter-gatherer or mixed economies, and may actually be under- 

 reported in archaeological specimens due to preservation or 

 postmorten damage (Brothwell 198 1 ). Evidence ofphytoliths within 

 the calculus deposits of Gough's Cave teeth has been recovered by K. 

 Dobney of University of Bradford (reported in. Currant et al 1989). 

 While the presence ofphytoliths can introduce a somewhat abrasive 

 element into the diet, the teeth of the Gough's Cave sample are not 

 excessively worn. However, a hunter-gatherer subsistence strategy 

 also includes a reliance on meat, an element that is not necessarily 

 abrasive to the dentition (Hillson 1986). Thus, the presence of crown 

 microtrauma in Gough's Cave may be at least partially related to 

 subsistence, especially when grit and bone may be present in the diet 

 (Turner & Cadien 1969). 



Although caution should be used in a macroscopic analysis of 

 enamel disturbances (Hillson & Brand 1997), it has been suggested 

 that hunter/gatherers tend to be less severely affected by enamel 

 hypoplasias (Cook & Buikstra 1979; Lukacs et al 1982), with the 

 average age of onset between four to five years of age (Schulz & 

 McHenry 1975). But the low instance of enamel hypoplasia in the 



Gough's Cave sample may not reflect a lack of nutritional stress, 

 because there can be a variety of underlying causes (Goodman & 

 Rose 1 99 1 ). The Mesolithic site of Mahadaha, for example, exhibits 

 a high frequency (64%) of enamel defects, although the population 

 appears to be free of nutritional stress markers in the osseous remains 

 (Lovell 1992). Some authors have suggested that the amount of 

 stress seen in a population may be reflected in greater dental asym- 

 metry (Bailit et al 1970), or even by significant tooth size variation 

 within age groups (Guargliardo 1982), neither of which are espe- 

 cially apparent in the limited number of individuals from Gough's 

 Cave. 



Other features: An absence of evidence for either enamel clean- 

 ing striations or interproximal grooves, coupled with a lack of caries, 

 periodontal pathology and only slight degree of calculus, suggest 

 that the people of Gough's Cave did not need to practice a rigorous 

 form of dental hygiene. Early teeth cleaning practices, however, have 

 been noted in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and North American 

 Indians, who often utilized the frayed end of twigs to clean the teeth 

 (Hawkey et al n.d.). Similarly there is even earlier evidence for 

 interproximal grooves between the teeth, usually attributed to use of 

 a 'toothpick' to remove irritating substances. These grooves have 

 been reported for a variety of groups in Europe, dating from the Late 



