Diaphyseal Cross-sectional Geometry of Near Eastern Middle Palaeolithic Humans: The Femur

Previous assessments of Near Eastern Middle Palaeolithic late archaic and early modern human femoral diaphyses have noted differences in shaft shape and robusticity, which have been used to support arguments of differential locomotor activity levels or patterns between the groups. Cross-sectional bi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of archaeological science Vol. 26; no. 4; pp. 409 - 424
Main Authors Trinkaus, Erik, Ruff, Christopher B.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Amsterdam Elsevier Ltd 01.04.1999
Elsevier Science
Academic Press
Subjects
BIOMECHANICS
FEMUR
HUMAN PALAEONTOLOGY
Human paleontology
Methodology and general studies
MODERN HUMANS
NEANDERTALS
Prehistory and protohistory
Neanderthal
Middle Palaeolithic
Asia
Israel
FEMUR
HUMAN PALAEONTOLOGY
MODERN HUMANS
BIOMECHANICS
NEANDERTALS
Geometry
Human palaeontology
Anthropology
Femur
Method
Comparison
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Previous assessments of Near Eastern Middle Palaeolithic late archaic and early modern human femoral diaphyses have noted differences in shaft shape and robusticity, which have been used to support arguments of differential locomotor activity levels or patterns between the groups. Cross-sectional biomechanical analysis of these femoral remains, however, documents that the perceived differences in overall strength are largely the product of contrasting ecogeographically related body proportions; once these proportions are taken into account and diaphyseal strength measures are appropriately scaled, any differences in overall shaft hypertrophy disappear. At the same time, clear differences in midshaft shape remain, with slightly more antero-posterior strength in the early modern human sample and more medio-lateral reinforcement in the late archaic human sample. It remains unclear to what extent these differences, as well as structural similarities in the subtrochanteric region, might be due to differences in body shape and especially pelvic and hip proportions. In combination with contrasts in femoral neck-shaft angles, it remains possible that the similarities in overall robusticity may hide a subtle mosaic of differences in factors contributing to that uniformity.
ISSN:0305-4403
1095-9238
DOI:10.1006/jasc.1998.0343