Moscow University
Anthropology
Bulletin
Anthropology
Bulletin
Lomonosov Moscow State University, Anuchin Research Institute and Museum of Anthropology, Mokhovaya st., 11, Moscow, 125009, Russia
Kharitonov V.M., e-mail: h1946v@yandex.ru
Ecological and constitutional correlations of fossil hominids influence the differences in total and relative size of post-cranial skeleton bones, determined by post-natal growth. This paper presents the results of comparative analysis of postcranial skeleton growth parameters of modern men, fossil Mesolithic induviduals (а 15 years-old adolescent from La Chaise,), fossil Upper Paleolithic individuals (an adult from Sungir 1, а 12–13 years-old adolscent from Sungir 2, and а 9–10 years-old adolscent from Sungir 3; a 15–17 years-old adolscent Grotto Kids Grimaldi) and fossil Nean-derthals (perinatal from Mezmay, а 5–7 months-old neonate from Kiik-Koba, а 9–10 years-old adolscent from Teshik Tash,). In this paper the published data on the skeleton growth processes of modern men is used (Greece, Bronze Age Germany – 6-7 AD, the Slavs – the Middle Ages, Indian Knoll-modern men, Aleuts and Eskimos – modern men , men from Stavropol – Bronze Age). Comparison of the minimum age periods parameters of the separate series of modern children has shown that the size of bones of an individual from La Chaise corresponds to the one of the Indians Knoll aged from 15.5 to 21 years-old, exceeds the one of 20 years-old Aleuts and Eskimos, and of 14 years-old Europeans, as well as 15 years-old medieval Slavs. The pro-portions of the limbs of an individual from La Chaise doesn’t differ from the ones typical for all comparised modern groups. The totalsize of long bones of adolescents from Sungir 2 and 3 is bigger than the one of modern children of similar age (7–12 years, 13–18 years). The size of the long bons allows us to suggest rapid relative growth of adolscents from Sungir 2, 3 in comparison with various modern groups. There are no absolute differences between the 15–17 years-old adolescent from Grimaldi and all analyzed groups of modern adolescents. The most distinc-tive trait of adolescent from Grimaldi is the size of his lower limbs’ bones. Now we can hardly confirm that the growth of Grimaldi adolescent’s bones was accelerated. Long bones of a Neanderthal from Mezmay are smaller in terms of the relative-growing than those of modern children (aged under 2 years). Therefore the long bones growth of the individual from Mezmay is more intensive than that of modern children. The skeleton proportions of the Neanderthal children from Mezmay and Kiik-Koba differ from those of modern children. The amount of post-natal long bones growth in Kiik-Koba child is higher than in modern children of the same age. In this paper we compared age-series of craniometric attributes of a Neanderthal from Teshik-Tash and of a sapiens. We identified the cases in which the total size of the skeleton bones of a fossil hominid differ from all six groups of modern humans of similar dental age. There are also cases in which not all the groups of modern men differ in total size of the skeleton bones from compared fossil individuals in the same way. The matched limbs proportions of hominid make contrast most cases, which indicates the importance of late stages of ontogeny for morphological changes inhuman evolution. The results of comparative analy-sis of the post-cranial skeleton bones relative growth seem more complicated. The extent of morphologi-cal differences between fossil hominid and modern humans differs between the age periods of postnatal ontogeny. Thus, the increase of postcranial bone dimensions in the Neanderthals might exceed that of modern humans, and the rate of achieving the definite size could exceed that of modern humans or be even less.
human evolution, postcranial skeleton, fossil hominids, postnatal ontogeny, relative growth
Цит.: Kharitonov V.M. Comparative analysis of relative growth postkranial skeleton in postnatal ontogenesis hominid // Moscow University Anthropology Bulletin (Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seria XXIII. Antropologia), 2015; 1/2015; с. 25-36
Download text