Biomechanical comparison of the middle femur between the Tuchengzi agricultural people and the Jinggouzi nomadic people from Inner Mongolia
Received date: 2020-09-10
Revised date: 2020-12-15
Online published: 2022-04-13
The morphological structure of limb bones can reflect important information, i.e. human evolution, adaptive behavior of ancient populations and living environment, and vice versa. Most of these studies are based on “Bone Functional Adaptation” and “Beam Model”. Based on these, physical anthropologists have done a lot of research on femora of ancient populations with different lifestyle. However, there have been no related published studies about the femoral differences between agricultural and nomadic populations. Here, we provided detailed comparative assessment of femora from two archaeological sites, i.e. Tuchengzi and Jinggouzi from Inner Mongolia, with agricultural and nomadic lifestyle separately. Specifically, we analyzed diaphyseal structure of femoral three-dimensional visual digital model using methods of cross-sectional geometry. There was significant difference between Tuchengzi and Jinggouzi population. The mean level of femoral robusticity of Tuchengzi agricultural population was found to be larger than that of Jinggouzi nomadic population. The Jinggouzi female sample was significantly less robust than other groups, which should be correlated with the habitual riding behavior. The soldier status of Tuchengzi male sample may lead to the relatively larger variation range of femoral biomechanical index than that of Jinggouzi. It also indicated that the behavior information reflected by Tuchengzi male did not represent the typical agricultural population, but a mixture activity pattern. In terms of gender division of labor, the habitual riding behavior made the mechanical loading on bilateral femora relatively symmetry and similar cross-sectional shape of femoral midshaft, which led to little gender difference of femoral bilateral asymmetry in Jinggouzi sample. However, the males from nomadic population are involved in hunting behavior, which induces the significantly more robust femora that that of female. Compared to the slender femora of females in nomadic population, females in Tuchengzi sample, as the representative of the typical agricultural population, had almost the same robusticity as males of the same group, meaning that the agricultural females were more active in daily life. This also led to the relatively small gender difference of femoral robusticity within Tuchengzi sample. However, there is distinct difference of cross-sectional shape on femoral midshaft between Tuchengzi males and females, which suggesting that the activity pattern is significantly different between males and females of Tuchengzi sample.
Key words: Agricultural people; Nomadic people; Femoral diaphysis; Biomechanics
Pianpian WEI , Quanchao ZHANG . Biomechanical comparison of the middle femur between the Tuchengzi agricultural people and the Jinggouzi nomadic people from Inner Mongolia[J]. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 2022 , 41(02) : 238 -247 . DOI: 10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2021.0014
[1] | Roux W. Der zuchtende Kampf der Teile, oder die ‘‘Teilauslee’’ im Organismus (Theorie der ‘‘funktionellen Anpassung’’)[M]. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann, 1881 |
[2] | Wolff J. Das Gesetz der Transformation der Knochen[M]. Berlin: A. Hirchwild, 1892 |
[3] | Wolff J. The law of bone remodeling[M]. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1986 |
[4] | Roesler H. The history of some fundamental concepts in bone biomechanics. Journal of Biomechanics[J], 1987, 20:1025-1034 |
[5] | Martin RB, Burr DB, Sharkey NA. Skeletal tissue mechanics[M]. New York: Springer, 1998 |
[6] | Cowin SC. The false premis in Wolff ’s law[A]. In: SC Cowin (Ed.). Bone biomechanics handbook (2nd edition)[M]. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2001 |
[7] | Ruff CB, Holt BH, Trinkaus E. Who’s afraid of the big bad Wolff? Wolff’s Law and bone functional adaptation[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2006, 129:484-498 |
[8] | Lanyon E, Goodship AE, Pye CJ, et al. Mechanically adaptive bone remodeling[J]. Journal of Biomechanics, 1982, 15:141-154 |
[9] | Carter DR. Mechanical loading histories and cortical bone remodeling[J]. Calcified Tissue International, 1984, 36:19-24 |
[10] | Frost HM. Bone ‘‘mass’’ and the ‘‘mechanostat’’: a proposal[J]. Anatomical Record, 1987, 219:1-9 |
[11] | Turner CH. Three rules for bone adaptation to mechanical stimuli[J]. Bone, 1998, 23:399-407 |
[12] | Lieberman DE, Polk JD, Demes B. Predicting long bone loading from cross-sectional geometry[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2004, 123:156-171 |
[13] | Pearson OM, Lieberman DE. The aging of Wolff’s ‘‘law:’’ ontogeny and responses to mechanical loading in cortical bone[J]. Year book Physical Anthropology, 2004, 47:63-99 |
[14] | Ruff CB. Biomechanical analyses of archaeological human skeletons[A]. In: Katzenberg MA, Saunders SR (Eds.). Biological Anthropology of the Human Skeleton (2nd edition)[M]. Hoboken. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2008, 183-206 |
[15] | Martin R, Saller K. Lehrbuch der Anthropologie in systematischer Darstellung. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag. 1959 |
[16] | Bräuer G. Anthropologie[A]. In: Knussman R (Ed.). Anthropologie[M]. Stuttgart: Fischer Verlag, 1988, 160-232 |
[17] | Huiskes R. On the modelling of long bones in structural analyses[J]. Journal of Biomechanics, 1982, 15:65-69 |
[18] | Lovejoy CO, Burstein AH, Heiple KG. The biomechanical analysis of bone strength: a method and its application to platycnemia[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1976, 44:489-506 |
[19] | Ruff CB, Hayes WC. Cross-sectional geometry of Pecos Pueblo femora and tibiae—a biomechanical investigation. I. Method and general patterns of variation[J]. American Physical Anthropology, 1983, 60:359-381 |
[20] | Ruff CB. Biomechanics of the hip and birth in early Homo[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropological, 1995, 98:527-574 |
[21] | Ruff CB. Long bone articular and diaphyseal structure in Old World monkeys and apes, I: locomotor effects[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2002, 119:305-342 |
[22] | Ruff CB, Larsen CS, Hayes WC. Structural changes in the femur with the transition to agriculture on the Georgia coast[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1984, 64:125-136 |
[23] | Stock JT, Pfeiffer SK. Long bone robusticity and subsistence behaviour among Later Stone Age foragers of the forest and fynbos biomes of South Africa[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2004, 31(7):999-1013 |
[24] | 李法军. 鲤鱼墩遗址史前人类行为模式的骨骼生物力学分析[J]. 人类学学报, 36(2):193-215 |
[25] | 何嘉宁. 军都山古代人群运动模式及生活方式的时序性变化[J]. 人类学学报, 35(2):238-245 |
[26] | 张全超. 内蒙古和林格尔县新店子墓地人骨研究[D]. 长春:吉林大学, 2005 |
[27] | 顾玉才. 内蒙古和林格尔县土城子遗址战国时期人骨研究[D]. 长春:吉林大学, 2007 |
[28] | 魏偏偏. 周口店田园洞古人类股骨形态功能分析[D]. 北京:中国科学院古脊椎动物与古人类研究所, 2016, 93-96 |
[29] | Macintosh AA, Davies TG, Ryan TM, et al. Periosteal versus true cross-sectional geometry: A comparison along humeral, femoral, and tibial diaphysis[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2013, 150:442-452 |
[30] | Ruff CB, Scott WW, Liu AYC. Articular and diaphyseal remodeling of the proximal femur with changes in body mass in adults[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1991, 86:397-413 |
[31] | Ruff CB, Holt BM, Niskanen M, et al. Stature and body mass estimation from skeletal remains in the European Holocene[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2012, 148:601-617 |
[32] | McHenry HM. Body size and proportions in early Hominids[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1992, 87:407-431 |
[33] | Grine FE, Jungers WL, Tobias PV, et al. Fossil Homo femur from Berg Aukas, northern Namibia[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1995, 26:67-78 |
[34] | Auerbach BM, Ruff CB. Limb bone bilateral asymmetry: variability and commonality among modern humans[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2006, 50:203-218 |
[35] | Alexander G, Robling P, Felicia MH, et al. Improved Bone Structure and Strength After Long-Term Mechanical Loading is Greatest if Loading is Separated into Short Bouts[J]. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 2002, 17(8):1545-1554 |
/
〈 | 〉 |