4.3 Review

Body proportions in ancient Andeans from high and low altitudes

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
卷 128, 期 3, 页码 569-585

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.20137

关键词

limb proportions; ecogeographic variation; high altitude; Andes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Living human populations from high altitudes in the Andes exhibit relatively short limbs compared with neighboring groups from lower elevations as adaptations to cold climates characteristic of high-altitude environments. This study compares relative limb lengths and proportions in pre-Contact human skeletons from different altitudes to test whether ecogeographic variation also existed in Andean prehistory. Maximum lengths of the humerus, radius, femur, and tibia, and femoral head breadth are measured in sex-specific groups of adult human skeletons (N = 346) from the central (n = 80) and the south-central (n = 123) Andean coasts, the Atacama Desert at 2,500 in (n = 102), and the southern Peruvian highlands at 2,000-3,800 m (n = 4 1). To test whether limb lengths vary with altitude, comparisons are made of intralimb proportions, limb lengths against body mass estimates derived from published equations, limb lengths against the geometric mean of all measurements, and principal component analysis. Intralimb proportions do not statistically differ between coastal groups and those from the Atacama Desert, whereas intralimb proportions are significantly shorter in the Peruvian highland sample. Overall body size and limb lengths relative to body size vary along an altitudinal gradient, with larger individuals from coastal environments and smaller individuals with relatively longer limbs for their size from higher elevations. Ecogeographic variation in relation to climate explains the variation in intralimb proportions, and dietary variation may explain the altitudinal cline in body size and limb lengths relative to body size. The potential effects of gene flow on variation in body proportions in Andean prehistory are also explored.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据