Two Late Pleistocene human femora from Trinil, Indonesia: Implications for body size and behavior in Southeast Asia.

Late Pleistocene hominin postcranial specimens from Southeast Asia are relatively rare. Here we describe and place into temporal and geographic context two partial femora from the site of Trinil, Indonesia, which are dated stratigraphically and via Uranium-series direct dating to ca. 37-32 ka. The specimens, designated Trinil 9 and 10, include most of the diaphysis, with Trinil 9 being much better preserved. Microcomputed tomography is used to determine cross-sectional diaphyseal properties, with an emphasis on midshaft anteroposterior to mediolateral bending rigidity (Ix/Iy), which has been shown to relate to both body shape and activity level in modern humans. The body mass of Trinil 9 is estimated from cortical area and reconstructed length using new equations based on a Pleistocene reference sample. Comparisons are carried out with a large sample of Pleistocene and Holocene East Asian, African, and European/West Asian femora. Our results show that Trinil 9 has a high Ix/Iy ratio, most consistent with a relatively narrow-bodied male from a mobile hunting-gathering population. It has an estimated body mass of 55.4 kg and a stature of 156 cm, which are small relative to Late Pleistocene males worldwide, but larger than the penecontemporaneous Deep Skull femur from Niah Cave, Malaysia, which is very likely female. This suggests the presence of small-bodied active hunter-gatherers in Southeast Asia during the later Late Pleistocene. Trinil 9 also contrasts strongly in morphology with earlier partial femora from Trinil dating to the late Early-early Middle Pleistocene (Femora II-V), and to a lesser extent with the well-known complete Femur I, most likely dating to the terminal Middle-early Late Pleistocene. Temporal changes in morphology among femoral specimens from Trinil parallel those observed in Homo throughout the Old World during the Pleistocene and document these differences within a single site.

A multidisciplinary reconstruction of Palaeolithic nutrition that holds promise for the prevention and treatment of diseases of civilisation.

Evolutionary medicine acknowledges that many chronic degenerative diseases result from conflicts between our rapidly changing environment, our dietary habits included, and our genome, which has remained virtually unchanged since the Palaeolithic era. Reconstruction of the diet before the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions is therefore indicated, but hampered by the ongoing debate on our ancestors' ecological niche. Arguments and their counterarguments regarding evolutionary medicine are updated and the evidence for the long-reigning hypothesis of human evolution on the arid savanna is weighed against the hypothesis that man evolved in the proximity of water. Evidence from various disciplines is discussed, including the study of palaeo-environments, comparative anatomy, biogeochemistry, archaeology, anthropology, (patho)physiology and epidemiology. Although our ancestors had much lower life expectancies, the current evidence does neither support the misconception that during the Palaeolithic there were no elderly nor that they had poor health. Rather than rejecting the possibility of 'healthy ageing', the default assumption should be that healthy ageing posed an evolutionary advantage for human survival. There is ample evidence that our ancestors lived in a land-water ecosystem and extracted a substantial part of their diets from both terrestrial and aquatic resources. Rather than rejecting this possibility by lack of evidence, the default assumption should be that hominins, living in coastal ecosystems with catchable aquatic resources, consumed these resources. Finally, the composition and merits of so-called 'Palaeolithic diets', based on different hominin niche-reconstructions, are evaluated. The benefits of these diets illustrate that it is time to incorporate this knowledge into dietary recommendations.

Preformed dietary DHA: The answer to a scientific question may in practice become translated to its opposite.

In a previous issue of AJHB, Carlson and Kingston ([2007]: Am J Hum Biol 19:132-141) raised the question whether modern humans need preformed docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) from the aquatic food chain in their diet. The authors concluded that at the moment, there is not sufficient hard evidence to answer this scientific question in a positive way. In our comment on their review, we argue that because results from various studies and trials strongly indicate a positive correlation between preformed dietary DHA and human health and development, it may be a risky strategy to await the ultimate evidence before recommending the inclusion of sufficient seafood or fish oil supplements in the modern human diet.