Stature in Holocene foragers of North India

Abstract

The Ganga Plain of North India provides an archaeological and skeletal record of semi-nomadic Holocene foragers in association with an aceramic Mesolithic culture. Prior estimates of stature for Mesolithic Lake Cultures (MLC) used inappropriate equations from an American White reference group and need revision. Attention is given to intralimb body proportions and geo-climatic provenance of MLC series in considering the most suitable reference population. Regression equations from ancient Egyptians are used in reconstructing stature for MLC skeletal series from Damdama (DDM), Mahadaha (MDH), and Sarai Nahar Rai (SNR). Mean stature is estimated at between 174 (MDH) and 178 cm (DDM and SNR) for males, and between 163 cm (MDH) and 179 cm (SNR) for females. Stature estimates based on ancient Egyptian equations are significantly shorter (from 3.5 to 7.1 cm shorter in males; from 3.2 to 7.5 cm shorter in females) than estimates using the American White reference group. Revised stature estimates from tibia length and from femur + tibia more accurately estimate MLC stature for two reasons: a) these elements are highly correlated with stature and have lower standard estimates of error, and b) uncertainty regarding methods of measuring tibia length is avoided. When compared with Holocene samples of native Americans and Mesolithic Europeans, MLC series from North India are tall. This aspect of their biological variation confirms earlier assessments and results from the synergistic influence of balanced nutrition from broad-spectrum foraging, body-proportions adapted to a seasonally hot and arid climate, and the functional demands of a mobile, semi-nomadic life-style.

Stature estimation equations for South Asian skeletons based on DXA scans of contemporary adults

“…Our results also suggest equations derived for ancient Egyptians by Raxter et al () perform better than those of Trotter and Gleser, and only slightly worse than our new equations. This is consistent with Lukacs et al's () argument that the Egyptian equations were more suitable for South Asians, based on similarities in limb proportions, and supports the utility of comparing intralimb proportions between reference and study data sets to select the most appropriate equations (e.g., Auerbach & Ruff, ).…”

“…Given known variation in stature and body proportions among populations inhabiting the vast Indian subcontinent, which may include climatic, genetic, developmental, and temporal components (Deaton, ; Lukacs et al, ; Meshram et al, ; Perkins, Khan, Smith, & Subramanian, ; Shome et al, ; Siddiqui & Shah, 1944), it is highly probable that no single set of equations will be appropriate for the whole region (Nat, ; Nath & Badkur, 2002; Pan, 1924). Rather, as others have advocated (Auerbach & Ruff, 2010) it may be that a set of equations for different populations from South Asia need to be derived, and the most appropriate for a given sample can then be selected based on similarity in limb proportions.…”

“…To put these results in context and evaluate whether equations used in or proposed by other studies give comparably reliable results, stature was also estimated using published equations derived from: (a) worldwide populations that are often applied to South Asian archaeological skeletons (Feldesman & Fountain, 1996; Trotter, 1970); (b) ‘Asian’ samples more broadly (Feldesman and Fountain, ); and (c) Indian samples (Athawale, ; Kate & Mujumdar, 1976; Kolte & Bansal, ; Kumar & Reddy, ; Meshram et al, ; Nath & Badkur, 2002; Patil et al, ). Recently, Lukacs, Pal, and Nelson () applied equations developed by Raxter et al (2008) for ancient Egyptians to Mesolithic South Asians, on the basis that these two groups shared similar limb proportions. The performance of these equations was therefore also assessed.…”

The effect of diet and sociopolitical change on physiological stress and behavior in lateRoman‐EarlyByzantine (300–700AD) and Islamic (902–1,235AD) populations from Ibiza, Spain

“…If deficits are severe or sustained enough to prevent catch‐up growth, they result in reduced adult stature, long bone length, and body mass (Mays, Ives, & Brickley, 2009; Saunders, 2008). Variation in stature and bone length has been used extensively to evaluate differences in longitudinal growth reflective of difference in growth stress between populations (Hughes‐Morey, 2016; Lukacs, Pal, & Nelson, 2014; Maat, 2005; Mays, 2016; Mays et al, 2009; Ruff, Garofalo, & Holmes, 2013; Saunders, 2008; Temple, Bazaliiskii, Goriunova, & Weber, 2014). Joint surface dimensions allow reconstruction of body mass, as they undergo functional adaptation to the mechanical load imposed by body mass (Auerbach & Ruff, 2004; Lieberman, Devlin, & Pearson, 2001; Trinkaus, Churchill, & Ruff, 1994).…”

Estimating the stature of ancient high‐altitude Andean populations from skeletal remains of the Chachapoya of Peru

“…While a multitude of stature estimation LRFs have been created for populations around the world, the ratios between long‐bone lengths and stature have been found to be strongly correlated with geographic region (Béguelin, ; Haviland, ; Lukacs, Pal, & Nelson, ; Mummert, Esche, Robinson, & Armelagos, ; Pomeroy & Stock, ; Raxter et al, ). This population specificity requires the creation of stature estimation formulae that are derived from the study group or are created from a group with similar environmental and nutritional pressures.…”