Inferences on Sicilian Mesolithic subsistence patterns from cross-sectional geometry and entheseal changes

Abstract

Using cross-sectional geometry (CSG), entheseal changes (ECs), and presence of external auditory meatus exostosis (EAE), this study tests hypothesis -bases on isotopic and zooarchaeological evidence -that in the Sicilian Mesolithic terrestrial rather than marine resources were predominantly exploited, in substantial continuity with previous Epigravettian hunters. Results show similarities in the general frequency of ECs -a rough proxy for overall activity -with Late Pleistocene hunters, in contrast with Mesolithic coastal foragers or Neolithic herders/farmers. Yet, CSG suggests that this possible continuity in the type of resources exploited was accompanied by a behavioral change, and in particular the abandonment of the throwing technology, possibly in favor of new tools such as traps and the bow and arrow. In fact, the dramatic decrease in humeral bilateral asymmetry documented at a European level with the Pleistocene-Holocene transition can be found also in the Sicilian Mesolithic. Results for the lower limb appear compatible with a certain degree of terrestrial mobility in a rugged environment. The frequency of EAE suggests that activities related to water were present but not common; however, their prominence is difficult to determine 2 given the small sample size. The pattern of information provided by the proxies for activity used here is complex and partially contrasting, but has the potential to integrate and enrich archaeological methods and biochemical approaches. This study corroborates a varied scenario of continuity and discontinuity in subsistence at the Pleistocene-Holocene transition, and highlights the importance of a regional bioarchaeological approach of human biological and behavioral adaptations.

The upper limb skeleton and behavioral lateralization of modern humans from Zhaoguo Cave, southwestern China

“…Since the Zhaoguo M1 individual is likely to be left‐hand dominant, the level of structural bilateral asymmetry in humeri may be underestimating behavioral asymmetry. This is relevant since changes in humeral asymmetry within the same region or within the same general subsistence pattern (e.g., hunter‐gather) have been interpreted as indicative of technological changes (Sládek et al, 2016a, b; Sparacello et al, 2011, 2015, 2020). For example, male Mesolithic (Holocene) hunter‐gatherers regionally in Europe exhibit a sharp decrease in humeral asymmetry compared to their UP counterparts, which has been interpreted as evidence of technological or subsistence changes (e.g., a shift from unimanual throwing to the use of the bow‐and‐arrow) within the hunting‐gathering strategy (Sládek, Ruff, et al, 2016a).…”

“…There are no substantial changes in magnitudes of humeral asymmetry through the Late Pleistocene, indicating relative continuity in patterns of manipulatory behavior during this period (Sparacello et al, 2017). When evident, substantial changes in bilateral asymmetry of upper limbs within the same region or within the same general subsistence pattern have been interpreted as evidence of technological change (Sládek et al, 2016a, b; Sparacello et al, 2011, 2020; Sparacello, d'Ercole, & Coppa, 2015). Thus, if there is relative stasis in a regional subsistence strategy over time (e.g., in southwestern China), upper limb bone robusticity or bilateral structural asymmetry also could be expected to remain relatively consistent, assuming no migration in and out of the region.…”

Tendencias en el uso del cuerpo en el valle del Atuel (sur de Mendoza) durante el Holoceno tardío final

“…Como hipótesis derivada se proponen patrones diferenciados de uso del cuerpo que responden al tipo de subsistencia, lo cual se refleja en CE y LA específicos en cada uno de los desiertos. En algunos contextos se ha detectado una tendencia a la disminución del estrés mecánico en miembros inferiores como consecuencia de una reducción en la movilidad (Holt, 2003;Holt y Formicola, 2008;Larsen y Ruff, 2011;Marchi et al, 2011;Stock et al, 2011;Salega, 2016;Sparacello et al, 2020). Asimismo, los miembros superiores reflejarían en mayor medida actividades manuales vinculadas con la subsistencia (Eshed et al, 2004;Henderson, 2008;Villotte et al, 2010;Schrader, 2012;Henderson et al, 2018;Varalli et al, 2020).…”

Quotidian lives on isolated bodies: Entheseal changes and cross‐sectional geometry among the aboriginal population of La Gomera (ca. 200–1500 AD, Canary Islands)

“…Several authors have also addressed the influence of postural evolution, climate, body mass and diet on these geometric properties (Agostini, Holt, & Relethford, 2018; González‐Reimers et al, 2014; Osipov, Pickard, Garcia‐Donas, Márquez‐Grant, & Kranioti, 2020; Pearson, 2015; Pomeroy, Cole, Macintosh, Wells, & Stock, 2018; Ruff et al, 2015). In recent years, some studies have combined EC with cross‐sectional geometry (CSG) to analyse their correlation with physical activity (Becker, 2020; Kubicka & Myszka, 2020; Laffranchi, Charisi, Jiménez‐Brobeil, & Milella, 2020; Michopoulou, Nikita, & Valakos, 2015; Nikita, Xanthopoulou, Bertsatos, Chovalopoulou, & Hafez, 2019; Sparacello et al, 2020).…”