Journal
JOURNAL OF HUMAN EVOLUTION
Volume 156, Issue -, Pages -Publisher
ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2021.102997
Keywords
Foot; Body mass index; Australopithecus; Homo
Categories
Funding
- National Science Foundation [BNS-8504290]
- Marian and Adolf Lichstern Fund for Anthropological Research
- Social Sciences Divisional Research Fund of the University of Chicago
- Harvard Travellers Club
- NSF [BCS-1232522]
- Leakey Foundation
- Wenner Gren Foundation [8592]
- University of New Mexico Latin American Institute
- Sigma Xi
- University of Chicago Social Sciences Divisional Research Grant [4-56004]
- Scientific Researche-Flanders [G.0125.05]
- University of Antwerp (BOF) [1094]
- Flemish Government
- University of New Mexico Department of Anthropology
- University of Chicago Center for International Studies
Ask authors/readers for more resources
The study reveals a strong correlation between body mass and foot size, with foot area being able to predict body mass in the combined sample with an average error of about 10%. Body shape, represented by BMI, also affects foot size proportions, with higher BMI samples showing relatively smaller feet. Equations for estimating body mass from foot size and BMI are derived, along with techniques for estimating body mass in juveniles and converting between foot and footprint size.
Although many studies relating stature to foot length have been carried out, the relationship between foot size and body mass remains poorly understood. Here we investigate this relationship in 193 adult and 50 juvenile habitually unshod/minimally shod individuals from five different populations-Machiguenga, Daasanach, Pume, Hadzabe, and Samoans-varying greatly in body size and shape. Body mass is highly correlated with foot size, and can be predicted from foot area (maximum length x breadth) in the combined sample with an average error of about 10%. However, comparisons among populations indicate that body shape, as represented by the body mass index (BMI), has a significant effect on foot size proportions, with higher BMI samples exhibiting relatively smaller feet. Thus, we also derive equations for estimating body mass from both foot size and BMI, with BMI in footprint samples taken as an average value for a taxon or population, estimated independently from skeletal remains. Techniques are also developed for estimating body mass in juveniles, who have relatively larger feet than adults, and for converting between foot and footprint size. Sample applications are given for five Pliocene through Holocene hominin footprint samples from Laetoli (Australopithecus afarensis), Ileret (probable Homo erectus), Happisburgh (possible Homo antecessor), Le Rozel (archaic Homo sapiens), and Barcin Hoyfik (H. sapiens). Body mass estimates for Homo footprint samples appear reasonable when compared to skeletal estimates for related samples. However, estimates for the Laetoli footprint sample using the new formulae appear to be too high when compared to skeletal estimates for A. afarensis. Based on the proportions of A.L. 288-1, this is apparently a result of relatively large feet in this taxon. A different method using a ratio between body mass and foot area in A.L. 288-1 provides estimates more concordant with skeletal estimates and should be used for A. afarensis. (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available