Interpreting skeletal growth in the past from a functional and physiological perspective

Abstract

The study of juvenile skeletal remains can yield important insights into the health, behavior, and biological relationships of past populations. However, most studies of past skeletal growth have been limited to relatively simple metrics. Considering additional skeletal parameters and taking a broader physiological perspective can provide a more complete assessment of growth patterns and environmental and genetic effects on those patterns. We review here some alternative approaches to ontogenetic studies of archaeological and paleontological skeletal material, including analyses of body size (stature and body mass) and cortical bone structure of long bone diaphyses and the mandibular corpus. Together such analyses can shed new light on both systemic and localized influences on bone growth, and the metabolic and mechanical factors underlying variation in growth.

Insights on the paleoepidemiology of ancient tuberculosis from the structural analysis of postcranial remains from the Ligurian Neolithic (northwestern Italy)

“…Due to greater periosteal than endosteal development during growth, relative cortical area normally increases during adolescence and early adulthood (Garn, 1970;Ruff et al, 1994;Ruff et al, 2013). In young adults, the combined effect of growth and mechanical loading can lead to medullary stenosis .…”

Skeletal growth in early and late Neolithic foragers from the Cis‐Baikal region of Eastern Siberia

“…Single bones are, however, subject to variation in proportional growth and the relative contribution of each limb to stature (Ruff, 2007;Ruff et al, 2013). As a result, femoral and tibial diaphyseal length may not necessarily be perfectly associated with the influence of systemic stress on cumulative stature.…”

“…The environmental influence on growth during infancy and childhood reflects a relatively strong response to demands for maintenance early in development that diminish energetic resources allocated for growth (Hochberg and Albertsson-Wikland, 2008;Hochberg, 2009). These findings are of particular importance to bioarchaeological research as age-specific variation in stature and body mass may help explain the relative environmental contribution to skeletal growth in genetically divergent populations (Ruff et al, 2013).…”

Ontogeny of modern human longitudinal body and transverse shoulder proportions

“…Yet, data are scarce regarding transverse growth of the body. However, little is known of the relationship between the transverse and longitudinal dimensions during growth, and comparisons between different skeletal regions can reveal localized functional influences on the dynamics of bone growth (Ruff, Garalo, Holmes, 2013). The latter studies document different growth patterns of the limb bones and the clavicle (Humphrey, 1998;Pinhasi et al, 2005Pinhasi et al, , 2014, and between populations for the distal diaphyseal dimensions of the femur and humerus (Pinhasi et al, 2005(Pinhasi et al, , 2014.…”

“…Although femoral distal metaphyseal breadth (DMB) has been used as a proxy for subadult body mass in the past decade (Ruff, 2007;Ruff et al, 2013;Pinhasi et al, 2014;Trinkaus et al, 2014a), distal femoral epiphyseal variation also reflects biomechanical load variation during growth, which is also influenced by body proportions. Although Ruff's (2007) study is based on a single longitudinal sample of European ancestry, its body mass formulae seem to perform well in populations with differing proportions (Cowgill, 2010).…”