Reading — 2026 Jan–Apr Recall Set 18

Maori fish hooks, made from wood, bone, stone and flax, are intended to have the best possible design and function. The hooks are designed to target specific species with precision. In the industry of commercial long-line fishing, there are some Maori hook designs that are making a splash. When Polynesians first came to New Zealand sometime between AD 1100–1300, they didn’t have the technology necessary to melt and manipulate metal from ore. Meanwhile, fish were the settlers’ main food source, so fishermen made their hooks and fishing gear out of wood, bone, stone and shells. Other plants native to New Zealand, such as flax (harakeke), cabbage tree (ti), and astelia (kiekie), provided the necessary fibrous material to make fishing-lines and nets of greater or equal strength to the jute used by Europeans at the time. Metal is more malleable and can be shaped in various ways, whereas natural materials are limited in the forms they can take; the Maori fish hooks needed to be innovative in overcoming these limitations. Early European explorers who settled and explored New Zealand claimed that Maori hooks, known as matau, were “odd”, “of doubtful efficacy”, “very clumsy affairs”, or “impossible looking”. Archaeologists from recent times have also described the round hook as odd, with comments such as “shaped in a manner which makes it very difficult to imagine could ever be effective in catching a fish”. William Anderson, who was aboard the Resolution during Cook’s third voyage in 1777 as the ship’s surgeon, remarked that the Maori “live chiefly by fishing, making use … of wooden fish hooks pointed with bone, but so oddly made that a stranger is at a loss to know how they can answer such a purpose.” The Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa conducted a study on Maori fish hooks 230 years later and demonstrated that the unique hook design was a matter of function. The hook’s design allowed it to catch fish by spinning away from the direction of the point and catching their jaws, instead of poking a hole through the fish or being used as a lever, as some archaeologists had suggested. It appears that the design of the Maori fish hook is perhaps the world’s most efficiently and masterfully designed, likely superior to any modern metal fish hook today. To make larger hooks, Maori used shanks made of strong wood, with stout points made of bone or shell. They tied tree branches and saplings together to grow them into ideal shapes for building, then harvested the plants when they reached the appropriate size. They hardened wood by carefully drying it and burying it underground with fires lit above. Human bone was often used for bone points, which were securely lashed to a groove at the end of the shank using pre-made flax materials (muka). When they wanted to catch larger species like sharks, groper and ling, they used composite hooks. However, on average, the traditional hook was usually no longer than a three-finger breadth (128 mm in length). To capture seabirds for food and feathers, like albatross, the islanders used slender hooks that can be differentiated from other hooks intended for fish by their lighter build and lack of an in-turned point. Many of these hooks were collected by early explorers, suggesting that seabird catching with hook and line was an important source of food and feathers for the Maori (105 mm in length). Slender hooks with wide gaps were used to capture albatross and other seabirds and can be distinguished from fish hooks by their lighter construction and absence of an in-turned point. Early explorers collected many of these hooks, which could indicate that catching seabirds provided significant amounts of food and feathers for the Maori. The Maori quickly adopted new materials once they became available through European explorers, sealers and whalers who began arriving towards the end of the 1700s. At this point, the Maori were still making their fish hooks but were now using metals and imported materials. Wooden and flax components of old, abandoned fish hooks decomposed quickly as traditional hooks were discarded in favour of new ones. Tools made of luxury materials such as ivory or greenstone may have been kept as decorative items, with stylised Maori fish hooks today serving as a symbol of cultural revitalisation. The Maori continued to recreate traditional designs even as new materials became available, preferring hook shapes introduced by Pakeha in the 1800s. By maintaining the tradition of the rotating hook design, they remained connected to an essential part of their cultural heritage. In the end, however, mass-produced European metal hooks eventually dominated, making it difficult to continue crafting hooks from nails, horseshoes and other metal objects. Eventually, traditional designs fell out of favour. By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, tourist and collector demand for Maori artefacts had grown, leading manufacturers to produce large quantities of forged hooks. These replicas were then traded with both Maori and Europeans as forgeries of the real thing, sometimes directly commissioned by artefact dealers. Fake hooks can be identified by their cheap construction, inconsistent materials, rudimentary lashings, odd or overly elaborate decorative carvings, and the absence of in-turned points or angled grooves used to attach the fishing-line properly. The evolution of matau throughout history symbolises how the Maori have adapted to European tools, materials and technology over time. It also reflects how European influence contributed to, rather than completely replaced, traditional Maori skills, as native materials were replaced or complemented by metals and, more recently, artificial materials. Today, commercial long-line fishermen around the world have begun using the circle-hook design—one that is nearly identical in appearance and function to the traditional matau. It appears that the advantages and improved catch-rates of this Maori technology have once again been recognised.

In our celebrity-obsessed culture, TV shows, internet blogs, and even newspapers are often full of the latest news, gossip and scandals about current celebrities. A It seems that our current society cannot get enough information about the daily lives of celebrities. But how did celebrities become such an important force in our culture? While people have always shared a certain obsession with the fantastic and the famous, the notion of celebrity, as well as the types of people termed ‘celebrities’, has evolved greatly throughout the ages. The word ‘celebrity’ has its roots in the language of the ancient Roman civilization. The word we now know to mean ‘a condition of being famous’ or ‘a famous person’ is derived from the Latin word ‘celeber’, meaning ‘frequented or populous’. B The celebrities of the ancient world were the powerful and awesome deities of Greece and Rome, and the citizens of these civilizations believed in a vast number of immortals who had a direct impact on their lives. It was, therefore, important to know about these figures’ personal lives. This need to know led to the creation of myths, which personalized the gods and involved them in ancient celebrity scandals that thrilled and excited the common people. C During ancient times, amateur and professional athletes also began to make an impact on the celebrity culture. Victors in the ancient Olympic Games were treated as heroes and were often elevated to god-like status. In the ancient Roman civilization, gladiators – the equivalent of today’s professional athletes – were also revered by the common people for their heroics and seemingly superhuman strength. D As Europe moved into the Dark Ages (the years spanning approximately 400–1300 AD) and a time when athletics and the arts were largely forgotten, monarchs and rulers continued to maintain celebrity status, while religious figures took on newfound fame. The miraculous lives and fascinating deaths of spiritual figures lent excitement to the lives of common people when there was often little else to be excited about, as they faced war, disease and food shortages. E During the period 1300–1600 AD, or the Renaissance period as it is known, interest in ruling figures faded. As Europe emerged from its long neglect of the arts, there was greater appreciation for portraits, statues and stone carvings. This period of appreciation for the arts lent a sense of celebrity to artists who were noted for their works and their personal achievements. It was a time when artists began to surpass political and religious individuals for supreme celebrity – a trend that would continue into later centuries. F While the figures of the ancient and early modern civilizations were able to achieve moderate and sometimes lasting celebrity within particular cultures, the global reach of their fame was limited. It was not until the 1700s, when technological advances made publishing commercially viable, that the extent of a person’s fame could spread further. The increase in the availability of the written word was accompanied by a huge rise in the number of common people who could read, allowing a mass audience to find out about celebrities for the first time. Suddenly, the lives of authors, politicians, war heroes, and other celebrities could now be read about in newspapers around the world. These gave ordinary people the opportunity to become intimately knowledgeable about the figures they most admired. G In the modern era, particularly as radio and film took off in the 1900s, things really began to change. First, radio began to make its way into the average home in the 1920s and 1930s. Professional athletes also began to be regarded as stars, as their games and exploits could be broadcast over the air for an entirely new audience. Then, the rise of television in the 1950s only cemented the premier level of celebrity that film stars, athletes and television actors were beginning to share. This also meant a huge increase in the individual salaries of these celebrities. Even a few animals gained fame through children’s TV shows. The emergence of reality television shows in the late 1990s allowed all kinds of people with little ability to enjoy a short burst of fame on the television screen. All you needed, it seemed, was an attractive appearance. Today, reality television programmers make it possible to be famous not for doing anything in particular, but simply for being, with the audience deciding whether someone deserves to become a celebrity or not. As the meaning of celebrity continues to evolve and redefine itself in a quickly changing world, there is no telling who will become of interest next.

Researchers are investigating the processes in the brain that give rise to fear in animals. The results may lead to new ways to treat human anxiety. Over the years, the majority of people acquire a range of skills for coping with frightening situations. They will attempt to placate a vexed teacher or boss and will shout and run when chased by a hostile stranger. But some individuals become overwhelmed in circumstances others would consider only minimally stressful: fear of ridicule might cause them to shake uncontrollably when called on to speak in a group, or terror of strangers might lead them to hide at home, unable to work or shop for groceries. Why do certain people fall prey to excessive fear? Ned H. Kalin and Steven E. Shelton at the University of Wisconsin–Madison are addressing this problem by identifying specific brain processes that regulate fear and its associated behaviors. Despite the availability of non-invasive computer-imaging techniques, such information is still extremely difficult to obtain in humans. Hence, they have turned their attention to another primate, the rhesus monkey. These animals undergo many of the same physiological and psychological developmental stages that humans do, but in a more compressed time span. As we gain more insight into the nature and operation of neural circuits that modulate fear in monkeys, it should be possible to pinpoint the brain processes that cause inordinate anxiety in people, and to devise new therapies to counteract it. Effective interventions would be particularly valuable if they were applied at an early age, as growing evidence suggests overly fearful youngsters are at high risk of later emotional distress. When they began their studies two decades ago, Kalin and Shelton knew that they would first have to find cues that elicit fear and identify behaviors that reflect different types of anxiety. With such information in hand, they could then proceed to determine the age at which monkeys begin to match defensive behaviors selectively to specific cues. Finally, by determining the parts of the brain that reach maturity during the same time span, they could gain clues to the regions that underlie the regulation of fear and fear-related behavior. The experiments were carried out at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Kalin and Shelton discerned varied behaviors by exposing monkeys between six and 12 months old to three related situations. In the alone condition, an animal was separated from its mother and left by itself in a cage for ten minutes. In the no-eye-contact condition, a person stood motionless outside the cage and avoided looking at the solitary infant. In the stare condition, a person was again present and motionless but, assuming a neutral expression, peered directly at the animal. These positions are no more frightening than those that primates encounter frequently in the wild, or those that human infants meet whenever they are left at a day-care centre. In the alone condition, most monkeys became very active and emitted frequent gentle “coo” calls made with pursed lips. More than 40 years ago it was deduced that when an infant monkey is separated from its mother, it yearns to regain the closeness and security provided by nearness to the parent. These responses help to draw the mother’s attention. In contrast, in the more frightening no-eye-contact situation, the monkeys reduced their activity greatly and sometimes froze for extended periods of time. When an infant spots a potential predator, its goal shifts from attracting the mother to becoming inconspicuous. Inhibiting motion and freezing are common attempts to achieve this in many species. If the infant perceives that it has been detected, its aim shifts to warding off an attack. So the stare condition evoked a third set of responses. The monkeys made several hostile gestures: barking (forcing air from the abdomen through the vocal cords to emit a harsh, growl-like sound) and staring back. Sometimes the animals mixed the threatening displays with submissive ones, such as fear grimaces, which look something like wary grins, or grinding of teeth. Having identified three categories of defensive behaviours, Kalin and Shelton set about determining when infant monkeys first begin to apply them effectively. Several lines of work had led them to surmise that the ability to make such choices emerges when an infant is around two months old. To establish the critical period of development, they examined four groups of infant monkeys ranging in age up to 12 weeks old. The babies were separated from their mothers, left to acclimatise to a cage, and then exposed to the alone, no-eye-contact and stare conditions. All sessions were videotaped for analysis. They found that the infants in the youngest group (no more than two weeks old) engaged in defensive behaviours, but they lacked some motor control and seemed to act randomly, as if they had not noticed the human beings that were present. Babies in the two intermediate-age groups had good motor control, but their actions seemed unrelated to the test condition. Only animals in the oldest group (nine- to 12-week-old) conducted themselves differently in each situation, and their reactions were both appropriate and identical to those of mature monkeys. This finding meant motor control was not the prime determinant of selective responding and that nine to 12 weeks is the critical age for the appearance of a monkey’s ability to adaptively modulate its defensive activity to meet changing demands.