Estimating stature in fossil hominids: which regression model and reference sample to use?

coResearchers have long appreciated the significant relationship between body size and an animal's overall adaptive strategy and life history. However, much more emphasis has been placed on interpreting body size than on the actual calculation of it. One measure of size that is especially important for human evolutionary studies is stature. Despite a long history of investigation, stature estimation remains plagued by two methodological problems: (1) the choice of the statistical estimator, and (2) the choice of the reference population from which to derive the parameters.This work addresses both of these problems in estimating stature for fossil hominids, with special reference to A.L. 288-1 (Australopithecus afarensis) and WT 15000 (Homo erectus). Three reference samples of known stature with maximum humerus and femur lengths are used in this study: a large (n=2209) human sample from North America, a smaller sample of modern human pygmies (n=19) from Africa, and a sample of wild-collected African great apes (n=85). Five regression techniques are used to estimate stature in the fossil hominids using both univariate and multivariate parameters derived from the reference samples: classical calibration, inverse calibration, major axis, reduced major axis and the zero-intercept ratio model. We also explore a new diagnostic to test extrapolation and allometric differences with multivariate data, and we calculate 95% confidence intervals to examine the range of variation in estimates for A.L. 288-1, WT 15000 and the new Bouri hominid (contemporary with [corrected] Australopithecus garhi). Results frequently vary depending on whether the data are univariate or multivariate. Unique limb proportions and fragmented remains complicate the choice of estimator. We are usually left in the end with the classical calibrator as the best choice. It is the maximum likelihood estimator that performs best overall, especially in scenarios where extrapolation occurs away from the mean of the reference sample. The new diagnostic appears to be a quick and efficient way to determine at the outset whether extrapolation exists in size and/or shape of the long bones between the reference sample and the target specimen.     

Femur/stature ratio and estimates of stature in mid- and late-Pleistocene fossil hominids

In previous limited investigations of the human femur/stature ratio we (Feldesman and Lundy: Journal of Human Evolution 17:583-596, 1988; Feldesman et al.: American Journal of Physical Anthropology 79:219-220, 1989) have shown it to be remarkably stable across ethnic and gender boundaries. In this study we evaluate the femur/stature ratio in 51 different "populations" of contemporary humans (n = 13,149) sampled from all over the world. We find that the mean ratio of femur length to stature in these populations is 26.74%, with a very restricted range of variation. When we compare mean femur/stature ratios of males and females, there are no statistically significant differences. ANOVA performed on a naive grouping of samples into "whites," "blacks," and "Asians" indicates that there are significant racial differences (P less than 0.001). When we subject these groups to Tukey's HSD procedure (a post-hoc test), we find that "blacks" are responsible for the significant ANOVA, being significantly (P less than 0.005) different from the other ethnic groups. "Whites" and "Asians" are not significantly different (P = 0.067) under the conditions of this analysis, although all these racial comparisons may be suspect given the small sample sizes. We tested the efficacy of the ratio in three situations: predicting stature of repatriated white Vietnam veterans; predicting stature in a random sample of South African blacks (of known stature), and predicting the stature of a single Akka pygmy. In the first and third cases, the femur/stature ratio does better than the traditionally recommended regression equation, while in the second case the predictions from the femur/stature ratio are less accurate than from the appropriate regression equation. These results encouraged us to apply this ratio to mid- and late-Pleistocene fossil hominids, where the choice of reference population for stature estimates continues to trouble workers. We estimated stature for a sizeable number of Homo erectus (HE), early Neanderthal (EN), Near Eastern Neanderthal (NEN), and early anatomically modern Homo sapiens (EAMHS) by using the simple relationship: stature (cm) = femur length (cm) * 100/26.74. Our results show that HE fossils are slightly taller on average than either EN or NEN samples, which do not differ significantly in stature, while EAMHS fossils are significantly taller than all three earlier groups. While these results are not surprising, our stature estimates for these fossils differ from currently published estimates based on sample-specific regression-based formulae.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)     

Estimation of australopithecine stature from long bones: A.L.288-1 as a test case

Regression equations for the estimation of stature from long bones, although derived from modern human populations, are frequently applied to early hominids. In fact, some of these equations have even been recommended or especially created to be applied to Australopithecus remains. In this study, 45 sets of regression and correlation formulae, recurrent in anthropological and medico-legal literature, are applied to long bones of the Pliocene hominid A.L.288-1 ('Lucy'), in order to assess which, if any, could be considered suitable for stature reconstruction in 'gracile' australopithecines. Virtually every method based on regression equations overestimates stature as compared with the estimate based on reconstruction of all the preserved skeletal parts. In addition, most methods failed to give consistent results with data from different limb segments. None of the sets of regression formulae tested here can be recommended as a reliable means of stature estimation in 'gracile' australopithecines.     

Human body mass estimation: a comparison of "morphometric" and "mechanical" methods

In the past, body mass was reconstructed from hominin skeletal remains using both "mechanical" methods which rely on the support of body mass by weight-bearing skeletal elements, and "morphometric" methods which reconstruct body mass through direct assessment of body size and shape. A previous comparison of two such techniques, using femoral head breadth (mechanical) and stature and bi-iliac breadth (morphometric), indicated a good general correspondence between them (Ruff et al. [1997] Nature 387:173-176). However, the two techniques were never systematically compared across a large group of modern humans of diverse body form. This study incorporates skeletal measures taken from 1,173 Holocene adult individuals, representing diverse geographic origins, body sizes, and body shapes. Femoral head breadth, bi-iliac breadth (after pelvic rearticulation), and long bone lengths were measured on each individual. Statures were estimated from long bone lengths using appropriate reference samples. Body masses were calculated using three available femoral head breadth (FH) formulae and the stature/bi-iliac breadth (STBIB) formula, and compared. All methods yielded similar results. Correlations between FH estimates and STBIB estimates are 0.74-0.81. Slight differences in results between the three FH estimates can be attributed to sampling differences in the original reference samples, and in particular, the body-size ranges included in those samples. There is no evidence for systematic differences in results due to differences in body proportions. Since the STBIB method was validated on other samples, and the FH methods produced similar estimates, this argues that either may be applied to skeletal remains with some confidence.     

Early hominin limb proportions

Recent analyses and new fossil discoveries suggest that the evolution of hominin limb length proportions is complex, with evolutionary reversals and a decoupling of proportions within and between limbs. This study takes into account intraspecific variation to test whether or not the limb proportions of four early hominin associated skeletons (AL 288-1, OH 62, BOU-VP-12/1, and KNM-WT 15000) can be considered to be significantly different from one another. Exact randomization methods were used to compare the differences between pairs of fossil skeletons to the differences observed between all possible pairs of individuals within large samples of Gorilla gorilla, Pan troglodytes, Pongo pygmaeus, and Homo sapiens. Although the difference in humerofemoral proportions between OH 62 and AL 288-1 does not exceed variation in the extant samples, it is rare. When humerofemoral midshaft circumferences are compared, the difference between OH 62 and AL 288-1 is fairly common in extant species. This, in combination with error associated with the limb lengths estimates, suggests that it may be premature to consider H. (or Australopithecus) habilis as having more apelike limb proportions than those in A. afarensis. The humerofemoral index of BOU-VP-12/1 differs significantly from both OH 62 and AL 288-1, but not from KNM-WT 15000. Published length estimates, if correct, suggest that the relative forearm length of BOU-VP-12/1 is unique among hominins, exceeding those of the African apes and resembling the proportions in Pongo.Evidence that A. afarensis exhibited a less apelike upper:lower limb design than A. africanus (and possibly H. habilis) suggests that, if A. afarensis is broadly ancestral to A. africanus, the latter did not simply inherit primitive morphology associated with arboreality, but is derived in this regard. The fact that the limb proportions of OH 62 (and possibly KNM-ER 3735) are no more human like than those of AL 288-1 underscores the primitive body design of H. habilis.     

Proximal femur articulation in Pliocene hominids

The supposed "nonhuman anthropoid"-type femur head articular surface described for the Pliocene hominid specimen A.L.288-1 ("Lucy") by Stern and Susman in 1983 is present in significant numbers of modern human femora. This nonmetric skeletal trait was also found to be sex-related in modern human samples examined.     

Stature estimation in ancient Egyptians: a new technique based on anatomical reconstruction of stature

Trotter and Gleser's (Trotter and Gleser: Am J Phys Anthropol 10 (1952) 469-514; Trotter and Gleser: Am J Phys Anthropol 16 (1958) 79-123) long bone formulae for US Blacks or derivations thereof (Robins and Shute: Hum Evol 1 (1986) 313-324) have been previously used to estimate the stature of ancient Egyptians. However, limb length to stature proportions differ between human populations; consequently, the most accurate mathematical stature estimates will be obtained when the population being examined is as similar as possible in proportions to the population used to create the equations. The purpose of this study was to create new stature regression formulae based on direct reconstructions of stature in ancient Egyptians and assess their accuracy in comparison to other stature estimation methods. We also compare Egyptian body proportions to those of modern American Blacks and Whites. Living stature estimates were derived using a revised Fully anatomical method (Raxter et al.: Am J Phys Anthropol 130 (2006) 374-384). Long bone stature regression equations were then derived for each sex. Our results confirm that, although ancient Egyptians are closer in body proportion to modern American Blacks than they are to American Whites, proportions in Blacks and Egyptians are not identical. The newly generated Egyptian-based stature regression formulae have standard errors of estimate of 1.9-4.2 cm. All mean directional differences are less than 0.4% compared to anatomically estimated stature, while results using previous formulae are more variable, with mean directional biases varying between 0.2% and 1.1%, tibial and radial estimates being the most biased. There is no evidence for significant variation in proportions among temporal or social groupings; thus, the new formulae may be broadly applicable to ancient Egyptian remains.     

Evaluation of juvenile stature and body mass prediction

This investigation evaluates the performance of juvenile stature (from tibia and radius lengths) and body mass (from breadth of the femoral distal metaphysis) prediction equations based on the Denver Growth Study sample (Ruff C. 2007. Am J Phys Anthropol 133 698-716). The sample used here for evaluation is an independent sample of juveniles brought to the Franklin County (Ohio) Coroner in 1990-1991. The Ohio sample differs somewhat from the Denver reference sample: it includes approximately 25% African-Americans (rather than all European-Americans), a significant number of right limb bones were measured (rather than all left side), it includes a wider range of economic statuses and it includes individuals who died from disease and trauma. As such the composition and measures of the Ohio sample correspond more generally to that seen in skeletal samples so that the accuracy of the estimates from the present sample should approach those found in practical applications of these methods. Results indicate that both juvenile body mass and stature are estimated relatively accurately. Accuracy of body mass estimates for 1-13-year-old juveniles is similar for African-American and European-American males and females. The least accurate estimates are for individuals in the 8-13 years age class (excluding individuals with body mass indices greater than the age specific 95th percentile): n = 9, +/- 2.9 kg, 95% confidence interval 1.4-4.4 kg. Accuracy of stature estimates for 1-17-year-old juveniles is comparable for the tibia and radius and, as with body mass estimates, are similar for African-American and European-American males and females. For combined age, sex, and ancestry groups average accuracies are in the +/-3.5 to +/-6.5 cm range. Some limitations of the methods are discussed.     

"Lucy's" body height and relative leg length: human- or ape-like?

The body height of Australopithecus afarensis A.L. 288-1 ("Lucy") has recently been estimated and calculated as between 1 m to 1.06 m; other estimates give ca. 1.20 m. In addition, it is often stated that her relative leg length was shorter than that of modern humans. Using relative leg-, femur- and tibia length it is shown that both statements together can not be true; either her body height must at least have been around 1.06 to 1.10 m to give "Lucy" human-like leg proportions, or, to achieve a shorter, more ape-like leg ratio, a body height of ca. 1.20 m must be assumed.     

Assessing A.L. 288-1 femur length using computer-aided three-dimensional reconstruction

Fossil reconstruction remains a requisite task for many types of paleoanthropological research. While reconstructions are traditionally accomplished by hand, computer modeling offers a novel and mathematically rigorous approach while providing advantages over the manual process. Computer models of fossil specimens can be reflected, scaled, and aligned in virtual space with relative ease; therefore, it is simple to generate multiple reconstructions to find the "best" one. Here we report on the reconstruction of A.L. 288-1ap (left femur) using three-dimensional computer models. Our "best" reconstruction has a maximum length of 277mm, which is very near both the 280mm originally estimated and the frequently cited 281mm.     

Stature in archeological samples from central Italy: methodological issues and diachronic changes

Stature reconstructions from skeletal remains are usually obtained through regression equations based on the relationship between height and limb bone length. Different equations have been employed to reconstruct stature in skeletal samples, but this is the first study to provide a systematic analysis of the reliability of the different methods for Italian historical samples. Aims of this article are: 1) to analyze the reliability of different regression methods to estimate stature for populations living in Central Italy from the Iron Age to Medieval times; 2) to search for trends in stature over this time period by applying the most reliable regression method. Long bone measurements were collected from 1,021 individuals (560 males, 461 females), from 66 archeological sites for males and 54 for females. Three time periods were identified: Iron Age, Roman period, and Medieval period. To determine the most appropriate equation to reconstruct stature the Delta parameter of Gini (Memorie di metodologia statistica. Milano: Giuffre A. 1939), in which stature estimates derived from different limb bones are compared, was employed. The equations proposed by Pearson (Philos Trans R Soc London 192 (1899) 169-244) and Trotter and Gleser for Afro-Americans (Am J Phys Anthropol 10 (1952) 463-514; Am J Phys Anthropol 47 (1977) 355-356) provided the most consistent estimates when applied to our sample. We then used the equation by Pearson for further analyses. Results indicate a reduction in stature in the transition from the Iron Age to the Roman period, and a subsequent increase in the transition from the Roman period to the Medieval period. Changes of limb lengths over time were more pronounced in the distal than in the proximal elements in both limbs.     

Femoral lengths and stature in Plio-Pleistocene hominids

This study reports the femoral lengths of 31 Plio-Pleistocene hominids dated between 3.1 and 0.7 million years ago, and uses those lengths to estimate stature by way of the femur-stature ratio reported by Feldesman et al. (Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 78:219-220, 1989). By this method the average female Australopithecus afarensis is 105 cm and the average male is 151 cm. The respective values are 115 and 138 cm for A. africanus. As defined by Howell (In VJ Maglio and HBS Cooke (eds): The Evolution of African Mammals. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978) and Johanson et al. (Kirtlandia 28:1-14, 1978), Homo habilis is a sexually dimorphic species, with females standing 118 cm and males 157 cm. Such apparently strong dimorphism may be due to the possibility that there are actually two species of nonrobust hominids between 2 and 1.7 m.y.a. The estimate for the female Australopithecus boisei is 124 cm and for the male, 137 cm, but these estimates are especially difficult to be certain of because there are no femora that can be positively identified as male A. boisei. Australopithecus robustus is estimated to be 110 cm (female) and 132 cm (male). African Homo erectus stood 160 cm (female) and 180 cm (male). From these estimates several generalizations are apparent. First, there is apparently strong sexual dimorphism in stature in A. afarensis and H. habilis, but less in the other species. Second, the "robust" australopithecines were relatively small statured. Third, it is apparently not true that humans have been getting progressively taller throughout their evolutionary history. Some individuals were as tall as modern humans 3 m.y.a., by 2 m.y.a. one individual stood about 173 cm, and by 1.7 m.y.a. a stature of 180+ cm was not uncommon.     

Stature estimation in prehistoric Native Americans of Ohio

In the present report we investigate stature estimation techniques in a sample of 64 (35 male, 29 female) prehistoric Native Americans from Ohio. Because living stature is unknown for these 64 individuals, we use Fully's (1956) anatomical method to provide the best estimates of living stature. In this method all osseous components of skeletal height are measured and soft tissue correction is added. Comparisons of regression equations commonly used for stature estimation in prehistoric Eastern Woodland Native American populations, but developed for East Asian and East Asian-derived populations (using lower extremity components), show that these commonly used equations consistently yield stature estimates 2 to 8 cm in excess of the best estimates from Fully's method. Based on the skeletal height measures of the 64 individuals in the present sample, we develop regression equations for the estimation of stature. These equations yield stature estimates virtually identical to estimates from Fully's method and may prove useful for stature reconstruction in other prehistoric Eastern Woodland Native American populations.     

Application of Body Mass Index According to Height-Age in Short and Tall Children

Background

In children with either delayed or accelerated growth, expressing the body mass index (BMI) to chronological age might lead to invalid body composition estimates. Reference to height-age has been suggested for such populations; however its validity has not been demonstrated.

Methods

Anthropometric data of healthy children were obtained from the German KiGGS survey. We selected three samples with different height distributions representing short stature (mean height SDS: -1.6), normal stature (height SDS: 0), and tall stature (height SDS: +1.6), and compared BMI-for-age and BMI-for-height-age between these samples across the paediatric age range. Differences between samples were tested using Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance and permutation tests.

Results

At a given age, BMI was distributed towards lower values in short, and towards higher values in tall subjects as compared to a population with average height distribution. Expressing BMI to height-age eliminated these differences in boys with a short stature from 4 years to 14 years of age, in tall boys from 4 to 16 years, in short girls aged 2-10 years or tall girls aged 2-17 years.

Conclusion

From late infancy to adolescent age, BMI distribution co-varies with height distribution and referencing to height-age appears appropriate within this age period. However, caution is needed when data about pubertal status are absent.     

Are the differences between Stw 431 (Australopithecus africanus) and A.L. 288-1 (A. afarensis) significant?

Recent studies of early hominin body proportions paint a complex evolutionary picture, with multiple instances of reversal in body shape. These interpretations rest heavily upon the inferred limb joint proportions of Australopithecus africanus. For example, the partial skeleton Stw 431 has been suggested to show ape-like joint proportions compared to the A. afarensis specimen A.L. 288-1. This suggests an evolutionary reversal in the more recent A. africanus. However, no study has examined the probability of sampling the differences between Stw 431 and A.L. 288-1 from a single extant hominoid species. The present study compares elbow/hip and elbow/lumbosacral joint size ratios between Stw 431 and A.L. 288-1 using exact randomization, based on chimpanzee and human models of variation. Results indicate that differences in elbow/hip proportions between Stw 431 and A.L. 288-1 can be sampled from a single species. In contrast, differences in elbow/lumbosacral proportions between Stw 431 and A.L. 288-1 show a significantly low probability of being sampled from a single species. Thus, Stw 431 and A.L. 288-1 are not significantly different from each with regard to limb joint proportions, but Stw 431 has a significantly smaller lumbosacral joint. This pattern does not conform to previous interpretations of limb proportions in A. africanus. Low statistical power in the present study may account for the discrepancy. Further research is needed to illuminate the functional implications of variation in relative lumbosacral joint size in early hominins.     

Stature in Holocene foragers of North India

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. Am J Phys Anthropol 153:408–416, 2014. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Evolutionary reversals of limb proportions in early hominids? Evidence from KNM-ER 3735 (Homo habilis)

Upper-to-lower limb proportions of Homo habilis are often said to be more ape-like than those of its reputed ancestor, Australopithecus afarensis. Such proportions would either imply multiple evolutionary reversals or parallel development of a relatively short upper limb in A. afarensis and later Homo. However, assessments of limb proportions are complicated by the fragmentary nature of the two known H. habilis skeletons, OH 62 and KNM-ER 3735. Initially, KNM-ER 3735 was compared to A.L. 288-1 (A. afarensis) using a single modern human and chimpanzee as reference. Here, based on a larger comparative sample, we find that the relative size of the distal humerus, radial head, and shaft of both KNM-ER 3735 and A.L. 288-1 lie within the range of variation of modern humans, whereas their sacra are small as is the case for all early hominids. In addition, their manual phalanges are similar in having a gracile base but robust midshaft. Contrary to earlier studies, the fossils are not differentiable from each other statistically with respect to all features listed above. On the other hand, they differ in robusticity of the scapular spine and relative length of the radial neck. An exact randomization test suggests only a very low probability of finding a similar degree of difference within a single species of extant hominoids. In contrast to the consensus view, we conclude that A.L. 288-1 had a short, human-like forearm, whereas KNM-ER 3735 possessed a distinctly longer forearm and more powerful shoulder girdle. This interpretation fits with earlier conclusions that suggested human-like humerofemoral proportions but chimpanzee-like brachial proportions for Homo habilis. Thus, the scenario of a unidirectional, progressive change in limb proportions within the hominid lineage is not supported by our work.     

What's Your Angle? Size Correction and Bar–Glenoid Orientation in “Lucy” (A.L. 288-1)

There has been much debate as to the locomotor repertoire of Lucy (A.L. 288-1) and other specimens of Australopithecus afarensis, ranging from fully committed bipeds to species that spent a significant time in the trees as well as on the ground. We examined the bar–glenoid angle, a character purported to indicate arboreal propensities, and its implications for this specific debate and the more general challenge of extracting behavioral information from fossils. We examined the bar–glenoid angle in ontogenetic samples of Pan paniscus, Pan troglodytes, Gorilla gorilla gorilla, Gorilla gorilla beringei, Pongo pygmaeus, Homo sapiens, and A.L. 288-1 (Lucy). We found that there is no allometry in the bar–glenoid angle for the great apes, but a weak correlation for humans. Moreover, the data scatters for the African apes and humans converge at the smaller size ranges, and Lucy's value for bar–glenoid angle falls precisely in this area of overlap. Therefore, we conclude that the bar–glenoid angle is not tightly correlated with function and, as such, cannot be used as a morphological signal of arboreal behavior, especially in the smaller size ranges, at which arboreal and nonarboreal species overlap. Our work does not resolve issues concerning Lucy's precise locomotor repertoire but adds new information to consider. The total morphological pattern, plus an appreciation of the underlying variance in morphological and behavioral characters in extant species, is key for making functional inferences from the morphology of fossils.     

Evolutionary trends of stature in upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europe

Long bone lengths of all available European Upper Paleolithic (41 males, 25 females) and Mesolithic (171 males, 118 females) remains have been transformed into stature estimates by means of new regression equations derived from Early Holocene skeletal samples using "Fully's anatomical stature" and the major axis regression technique (Formicola & Franceschi, 1996). Statistical analysis of the data, with reference both to time and space parameters, indicates that: (1) Early Upper Paleolithic samples (pre-Glacial Maximum) are very tall; (2) Late Upper Paleolithic groups (post-Glacial Maximum) from Western Europe, compared to their ancestors, show a marked decrease in height; (3) a further, although not significant, reduction of stature affects Western Mesolithics; (4) no regional differences have been observed during both phases of the Upper Paleolithic; (5) a high level of homogeneity has also been found in the Mesolithic, both in Western and Eastern Europe; (6) the internal homogeneity found during the Mesolithic in Western and Eastern Europe is associated with marked inter-regional variability, with populations of the latter region showing systematically significantly greater stature than their Western contemporaries. Evaluation of possible causes for the great stature of the Early Upper Paleolithic samples points to high nutritional standards as the most important factor. Results obtained on later groups clearly indicate that the Last Glacial Maximum, rather than the Mesolithic transition, is the critical phase in the negative trend affecting Western European populations. While changes in the quality of the diet, and in particular decreased protein intake, provide a likely explanation for that trend, variations in levels of gene flow probably also played a role. Reasons for the West-East Mesolithic dichotomy remain unclear and lack of information for the Late Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Europe prevents insight into the remote origins of this phenomenon. Analysis of regional differentiation of stature, particularly well supported by data from Mesolithic sites, points to the absence of today's latitudinal gradients and suggests a relative homogeneity in dietary, cultural and biodemographic patterns for the last hunter-gatherer populations of Western Europe.