38 



T.W. HOLLIDAY AND S.E. CHURCHILL 



Table 1 Summary statistics (mean, standard devition, number of 



specimens) for Gough's Cave 1, fossil and recent human male samples - 

 predicted stature (in cm). 



Predicted stature 



Gough's Cave 1 



European Mesolithic 



European Late Upper Palaeolithic 



European Early Upper Palaeolithic 



European Neandertals 



Recent Europeans 



Recent North Africans 



Recent Sub-Saharans 



166.2 



167.5,4.8,7 



170.2,6.6,17 



170.1,7.9,11 



166.7,3.8,4 



171.6,5.8,311 



167.4, 5.9, 75 



164.7,8.2,62 



statistically significantly) higher than our LUP and EUP means of 

 170.2 cm and 170.1 cm, respectively. 



Not unexpectedly, our results suggest that stature in Europe is 

 highest among Upper Paleolithic (both EUP and LUP) and recent 

 Europeans. Neandertals and Mesolithic Europeans, on the other 

 hand, are significantly shorter than recent Europeans (two-tailed t 

 test, p = 0.020 and 0.048, respectively). These results are similar to 

 those reported by Frayer et al. (1993) and Formicola & Giannecchini 

 (1999). With regard to the Mesolithic sample, this reduction in 

 stature may be due to a drop in dietary protein. Such a drop could 

 have followed decreased reliance on big game following the refor- 

 estation of Europe, a phenomenon documented by archaeologists for 

 many early Holocene hunter-gatherers (Straus et al., 1980; Geddes 

 etal., 1986). 



Note that among the recent human groups, stature appears to 

 decrease as one moves toward the equator. This is likely a secondary 

 consequence of a decrease in body mass associated with increas- 

 ingly hotter, more tropical temperatures, following Bergmann's rule 

 (see below). 



Body Mass 



Table 2 gives predicted body mass summary statistics for Gough's 

 Cave 1 and the comparative male sample. Among the recent human 

 samples, there is a clear decrease in body mass (based on either 

 predictive method) from higher to lower latitudes. This reflects 

 adherence of humans to Bergmann's (1847) ecological rule (dis- 

 cussed below). The Gough's Cave 1 specimen has a predicted body 

 mass of 64.8 kg based on femoral head size, and a mass of 67.3 kg 

 based on stature and bi-iliac breadth. It is noteworthy that despite the 

 fact that the two methods use very different anatomical features, the 

 two predictions deviate from each other by less than 4%. Note, also 

 that across all groups, the mean body mass estimates using the non- 

 biomechanical (stature/bi-iliac breadth) method are close to those 

 derived from the femoral head. The greatest difference between the 

 two methods is found among the EUP sample, whose body mass 



prediction based on stature and bi-iliac breadth is 5.8% higher than 

 the one based on femoral head diameter. Note, too, that while the 

 Neandertal sample appears to be characterized by high body mass, 

 there is relatively little evidence for a subsequent change in body 

 mass in Europe from the EUP to the present (a result consistent with 

 the findings of Ruff et al., 1997). As for the specimen of interest, 

 Gough's Cave 1 is not atypical among early Holocene Europeans in 

 mass; he falls slightly below the Mesolithic male mean based on the 

 femoral head prediction, and slightly above the mean for the stature/ 

 bi-iliac breadth prediction. He, like most of his Mesolithic cohorts, is 

 light relative to recent Europeans; his femoral head-predicted and bi- 

 iliac breadth/femoral length predicted weights fall on the 29 lh and 

 37 th recent European male percentiles, respectively. 



BODY SHAPE 



Intralimb Proportions 



Elongation of the distal limb segment relative to the proximal has 

 been demonstrated to be associated with overall limb elongation in 

 both the upper and lower limb (Meadows & Jantz, 1995), and is 

 correlated with climatic variables (Roberts, 1978; Trinkaus, 1981). 

 Distal limb segment elongation is typically quantified in the form of 

 brachial (radius length/humeral length x 100) and crural (tibial 

 length/femoral length x 100) indices. These skeletal measures are 

 comparable to the anthropometric antebrachial index (forearm length/ 

 upper arm length x 100) and calf/thigh index (calf length/thigh 

 length x 100), respectively, which are commonly taken on living 

 people (Roberts, 1978). 



Table 3 gives summary statistics for the brachial and crural indices 

 of the Gough's Cave 1 specimen and fossil and recent human 

 samples. Note that among the recent humans, the indices show a 

 cline from lower to higher latitudes, with high indices in the former, 

 and low indices in the latter. This is presumably the result of long- 

 term climatic selection (discussed below). Within groups, male and 

 female brachial and crural index values are similar (males do, 

 however, tend to have higher brachial indices than females; Trinkaus, 

 1981 ; Holliday, 1995). Given the difficulty in assigning sex to some 

 fossil specimens (as well as the already small size of the fossil 

 sample), combined-sex means are given in Table 3. This does not 

 affect the overall pattern, as will be evident below, when we discuss 

 Gough Cave l's relationship to other males from the comparative 

 sample. 



As is evident from Table 3, the Cheddar specimen, like other Late 

 Pleistocene and early Holocene Europeans, has elongated distal limb 

 segments in both the upper and lower limb. In fact, Gough's Cave 1 

 has indices not unlike the means of the recent African samples, and 



Table 2 Summary statistics for Gough's Cave 1, fossil and recent human 

 males - predicted body mass (in kg). 



Table 3 Summary statistics for Gough's Cave 1 , fossil and recent human 

 samples - brachial and crural indices. 





Femoral Head Method 



Stature/BIB Method 





Brachial Index 



Crural Index 



Gough's Cave 1 



64.8 



67.3 



Gough's Cave 1 



77.1 



88.9 



European Mesolithic 



66.9, 7.2, 7 



66.0, 2.3, 6 



European Mesolithic 



77.5, 1.9, 10 



85.5,2.6, 10 



European Late Upper 



67.7, 6.6, 14 



67.4, 8.2, 6 



European Late Upper 



78.6,3.0, 17 



85.1,1.9,22 



Palaeolithic 







Palaeolithic 







European Early Upper 



65.8, 10.0, 10 



69.6, 7.3, 6 



European Early Upper 



77.9,2.2, 17 



85.4, 1.9, 13 



Palaeolithic 







Palaeolithic 







European Neandertals 



82.9, 4.3, 4 



79.3,-1 



European Neandertals 



73.2,2.5,5 



78.7, 1.6,4 



Recent Europeans 



69.3,7.3,134 



71.0,7.4, 126 



Recent Europeans 



75.0,2.5,391 



82.7, 2.4, 436 



Recent North Africans 



59.0, 7.6, 73 



61.3,5.5,60 



Recent North Africans 



78.6,2.4, 136 



85.0,2.3,133 



Recent Sub-Saharans 



54.7, 8.5, 53 



53.6,8.6,49 



Recent Sub-Saharans 



78.6,2.8, 103 



85.4,2.4,110 



