Pilot Study for Reconstruction of Soft Tissues: Muscle Cross‐Sectional Area of the Forearm Estimated from Cortical Bone for a Neolithic Sample

Abstract

On a basis of a method for muscle cross-sectional area estimation from cortical bone area that was previously developed (Slizewski et al. Anat Rec 2013; 296:1695-1707, we reconstructed muscle cross-sectional area at 65% of radius length for a sample of Neolithic human remains from the Linear Pottery Culture (ca. 5,700-4,900 years BC). Muscle cross-sectional area estimations for the Neolithic sample were compared to in vivo measurements from a recent human sample. Results demonstrate that the Neolithic individuals had larger muscle cross-sectional area relative to radius length than the contemporary humans and that their forearms were more muscular and robust. We also found significant differences in relative muscle cross-sectional area between Neolithic and recent children that indicate different levels of physical stress and isometric activities. Our results fit into the framework of studies previously published about the sample and the Linear Pottery Culture. Therefore, the new approach was successfully applied to an archaeological sample for the first time here. Results of our pilot study indicate that muscle cross-sectional area estimation could in the future supplement other anthropological methods currently in use for the analysis of postcranial remains.

Do bone geometric properties of the proximal femoral diaphysis reflect loading history, muscle properties, or body dimensions?

“…Regarding activity reconstructions, this further underlines the importance of considering ground impact effects as a relevant source of osteogenic stimulus. Thus, the suggestion of Slizewski et al (, ) that CA could be used to reconstruct physical activity via reconstructing muscle size does not fully appreciate activity effects coming from sources other than muscle area (eg, gravitational loading and indirect effects of muscle size and strength). Bone geometric properties may be more informative when interpreted as responses to impact loading and loading frequency—possibly coupled with the strain situation due to localized effects in different regions—to gain more informative activity reconstructions.…”

“…High impact sports are associated with both increased bone and muscle mass (Niinimäki et al, , ). As bone properties correlate with muscle mass (Shaw, ), Slizewski, Schoenau, Shaw, and Harvati (); Slizewski, Burger‐Heinrich, Francken, Wahl, and Harvati () suggested that CA could be used as a proxy for physical activity reconstructions. However, the large prediction errors with CA values have raised concern (Shaw, ).…”

Relationship between body mass, lean mass, fat mass, and limb bone cross‐sectional geometry: Implications for estimating body mass and physique from the skeleton

“…Shaw () reported that bone cross‐sectional geometry was a relatively poor predictor of muscle area at the same cross‐sectional location for the humerus, ulna, and tibia of adult male athletes residing in the United Kingdom, although he reported correlations of up to 0.57 for the humerus, despite adjusting models for body mass (which may have removed a significant portion of any relationship). Slizewski, Schönau, Shaw, and Harvati () and Slizewski, Burger‐Heinrich, Francken, Wahl, and Harvati () reported stronger results for the ulna among a German sample of mixed sex and age.…”

The cross-sectional area of the gluteus maximus muscle varies according to habitual exercise loading: Implications for activity-related and evolutionary studies

“…The influence of loading type on muscle size -and through this process, bone mass, structure and strength -is relevant also to current discussions on the reliability of physical activity reconstructions (Jurmain and Roberts, 2008;Jurmain et al, 2012) and when attempting to reconstruct muscle size from bone cortical area (Shaw, 2010;Slizewski et al, 2013Slizewski et al, , 2014, muscle attachment site size (Eshed et al, 2004;Havelková et al, 2011;Lieverse et al, 2009;Wilczak, 1998;Zumwalt, 2006) or metabolic capabilities of past humans and human ancestors (Shaw, 2010). Slizewski et al (2013Slizewski et al ( , 2014 have suggested that due to correlation between cortical area and muscle area cortical areas can be used to reconstruct physical activity.…”

“…Slizewski et al (2013Slizewski et al ( , 2014 have suggested that due to correlation between cortical area and muscle area cortical areas can be used to reconstruct physical activity. Our studies suggest that while endurance runners and swimmers in our sample were active (competing athletes), only athletes in sports involving high magnitude, high or odd impact loadings had greater muscle size compared to controls.…”