4.6 Article

Evaluating the Photoprotective Effects of Ochre on Human Skin by In Vivo SPF Assessment: Implications for Human Evolution, Adaptation and Dispersal

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136090

关键词

-

资金

  1. PROTEA French-South Africa exchange programme
  2. AHKR (Department of Archaeology, History, Cultural Studies and Religion, University of Bergen)
  3. European Research Council
  4. TRACSYMBOLS [249587]
  5. Photobiology Laboratory of Medunsa Campus, Sefako Makgatho University of Health Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Archaeological indicators of cognitively modern behaviour become increasingly prevalent during the African Middle Stone Age (MSA). Although the exploitation of ochre is viewed as a key feature of the emergence of modern human behaviour, the uses to which ochre and ochre-based mixtures were put remain ambiguous. Here we present the results of an experimental study exploring the efficacy of ochre as a topical photoprotective compound. This is achieved through the in vivo calculation of the sun protection factor (SPF) values of ochre samples obtained from Ovahimba women (Kunene Region, Northern Namibia) and the Palaeozoic Bokkeveld Group deposits of the Cape Supergroup (Western Cape Province, South Africa). We employ visible spectroscopy, energy-dispersive X-ray fluorescence (EDXRF), X-ray diffraction (XRD) and granulometric analyses to characterise ochre samples. The capacity of ochre to inhibit the susceptibility of humans to the harmful effects of exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) is confirmed and the mechanisms implicated in the efficacy of ochre as a sunscreen identified. It is posited that the habitual application of ochre may have represented a crucial innovation for MSA humans by limiting the adverse effects of ultraviolet exposure. This may have facilitated the colonisation of geographic regions largely unfavourable to the constitutive skin colour of newly arriving populations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据