The Human Skeletal Remains from Hotu Cave, Iran

Author(s): J. Lawrence Angel

Source: Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 96, No. 3 (Jun. 20, 1952), pp.
258-269
Published by: American Philosophical Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3143835 .
Accessed: 06/12/2013 23:00
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Philosophical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 67.115.155.19 on Fri, 6 Dec 2013 23:00:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE HUMAN SKELETAL REMAINS FROM HOTU CAVE, IRAN

J. LAWRENCE ANGEL
AssociateProfessor
ofAnatomyand PhysicalAnthropology,
Jefferson
MedicalCollege
(Read November8, 1951)
THREE
skeletons plus scraps of two other
skulls excavated by ProfessorCarleton S. Coon
of the UniversityMuseum last spring fromthe
4th glacial gravel layer about 30 feet below the
presentsurfaceof Hotu Cave are a big haul for
theirUpper Palaeolithicdate. But theyare not
a large enough sample for certaintythat they
resembledtheirhuntingcousinsin Upper PalaeolithicEurope (Morant, 1926, 1929; von Bonin,
1935: sample size about 40) more closely than
their possible descendantsin northernIran, the
farmingand copper-usingvillagersof 4th millennium B.C. Sialk and Hasan (Vallois, 1939, and
Morant, 1938: about 27 skulls available), whose
connectionswill be furtherclarifiedwhen study
of the Mesolithic (Coon, 1951) and Neolithic
skeletonsfromBelt Cave can be completed. But
the Hotu hunterswere certainlylarge-brained
and
of Homo sapiens.
fullydevelopedrepresentatives
They show no visibleNeanderthaltraits. Except
for stronglyworn teeth and certain functional
details of the skeletonthey could be duplicated
individuallytodayhereor in the Near East.
Reconstruction
of the remainsis stillin process,
withconsiderableworkstillto be done on theless
completecrania,numbers1 and 3. But withthe
ingenioushelp of Mr. AlbertJehle,of the UniversityMuseum,it has been possibleto complete
the skull of number2, to take endocranialand
externalcasts of it, and also to restorethe entire
pelvisand vertebralcolumn,hands,and longbones
of thissame person. The burialtogetherof numbers 2 and 3 complicatedthe whole process of
mendingtheskeletons. It is easy now to separate
thecompletebones of thesetwo skeletonsby their
in morphologyand in color or patinadifferences
tion. But the originalsortingout of small fragmentstookmorethanthreetimesthetimeneeded
for a single skeleton (each long bone fragment
had to be triedin fourpossiblelimbs,each axial
in two possibleplaces).
skeletonfragment
Dr. Coon has honoredme deeplyby givingme
the task of describingthese remains,and I am
in his debtformanykeensuggestionsboth
further
PROCEEDINGS

OF THE AMERICAN

PHILOSOPHICAL

SOCIETY,

as to restorationand interpretation.I wxishto

thankDr. W. M. Krogmanand his colleagueDr.
A. C. Henriques of the PhiladelphiaCenter for
Research in Child Growthfor carefullyoriented
x-rayphotographs
of skulland teeth,and to thank
my colleagueDr. J. E. Healey of the Baugh Instituteof Anatomyof the Jefferson
Medical Collegeforexcellentradiographsoftheskulland postcranial skeletons. Most of the daylightphotographs of the remains (all the good ones) were
takenby Mr. Reuben Goldbergof the University
Museum,who also assisted withassemblyof the
illustrations. Miss JaneGoodalehelpedbothwith
the original assembly of long bones and with
coordinating
therecordsas theyprogressed. Suggestionsof Dr. 0. V. Batson, Dr. K. S. Chouke,
Dr. C. W. Goff,Dr. W. M. Krogman,and Dr.
W. L. Straus are gratefully
acknowledged.
Numbers2 and 3 are theearlierskeletons,found
lyingpartlysupinewithheads togetherand lower
thantheirfootlesslegs at thebeginningof the 4th
gravels just above the underlyingsandy layer.
The positionsuggestscasual tumblingbackwards
and down froma higherlevel close to the cave
wall and does not negate the possibilityof accidentaldeath throughfall of rock disturbedby
these or other food-gatherers.Any possibility
that the corpses could have been buried froma
higherlevel is contradictedby the fact that the
thighsof number2 had been disarticulated(without shiftingthe shins or pelvis) and moved over
among the bones of number3. This could not
have happenedif the bodies had been coveredby
any greatamountof gravel. It suggeststhatthe
bodies largelydecomposedwhile lightlycovered
thoughweightedwith a few rocks,that mnenor
animals shiftedthe thighbones(and the lower
shins with feet ?), and that the ensuing burial
was throughnaturaldepositionof glacial gravels
beforedecompositionwas complete. Number 1,
on the other hand, was a deliberatesecondary
burial placed as a bundle at the top of the 4th
gravel layer, with some other skull fragments
lying nearby. The unusuallygood preservation

96, NO. 3, JUNE, 1952

258

VOL.

This content downloaded from 67.115.155.19 on Fri, 6 Dec 2013 23:00:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

VOL. 96, NO. 3, 19521

HUMAN SKELETAL REMAINS FROM HOTU CAVE

of the bony tissue is probablya result of their

remainingcontinuouslywet down to the time of
excavation:any extremealternationof dryingand
wettingwouldhave leachedaway thebones,which
were in any case both softand broken.
Thoughprobablyseparatedin timeby a number
of generationsall theHotu remainscan be treated
as one populationsample,in the same sense that
Morant (1929) and von Bonin (1935) have
groupedUpper PalaeolithicEuropeans. In both
cases identification
of actual huntingbands has
not been possible except to the extent that as
also at Hotu single cave groups may represent
breedingunitstied to one localityformanygenerations.
Number2 was a personabout 5' 6" tall (167.4
cm. staturereconstruction)with a muscularbut
slenderbuild indicatedby robustbonyridgesplus
a femoralrobusticity
indexof 11.9 showinga bone
with slender shaft. A sharp lumbarcurve (index 94.3) combineswitha tiltedsacrum (33 degrees for the upper 5 vertebraecompared to
modernnorm of 46 degrees). But the femoral
necksare also directedforward(29 degrees) more
thanusual (13 degrees),a featureunexpectedwith
a pelvic brim tilt as near verticalas 68 degrees
(57 degrees norm). Though the depth of the
pelvis would tend to place the acetabula in front
of the line of gravity,the extra degreeof femoral
neck torsionshould be linked with postural dynamics ratherthan statics. The upper surfaces
of the tibiae are tiltedmore than usual and the
laterallycompressedshaftsof the shinboneshave
a diamond-shape
crosssection. Fibulae are deeply
fluted. The femoraare distinctlyplatymericor
in the upper shaftas if to
thickenedtransversely
take stress fromstrongabductorand lateral rotator muscles. The deep gluteal fossae adjacent
to markedcrests,the strongadductortubercles,
thestressedoriginareas forgastrocnemius,
and on
the tibiae the increased origin area for deep
musclessupportingthe arches of the feetconfirm
the suggestionthat muscles involved in roughcountrytravel were well-developed. The hands
are long and narrow (ca. 187 x 69?), the shouldersprobablynotbroad (clavicle 142? and scapula
breadth94), and the hips narrow (256 bi-iliac).
The presacralvertebratemeasureabout 570 mm.,
includingestimatesfor intervertebral
disks, with
an additional138 anteriorarc forthe 6-vertebrae
sacrum. Though these are not far fromlanky
modernmale dimensionsand the skull makes a
male firstimpressionthe pelvis is clearlyfemale,

FIG.

259

1. Hotu No. 2, pelvis,lateral radiograph.

with deep "anthropoid"inlet (area 113.1) and

wide open outlet(area 106.3,interspinous
breadth
104?, and sub-pubic angle 88 degrees). The
sacro-sciaticnotches are large (37 x 61 with
posteriorsegment23 by Letterman'stechnique).
Pubic and ischial lengthsof 77 and 86, measured
externally(Washburn, 1948), are just on the
borderlineof the female categoryfor the white
race. But theextremely
deep and sharp-bordered
pre-auricular
sulciand theroughenedligamentand
rectusabdominisand aponeurosisattachments
on
the symphysial
area of pubic bones suggeststress,
perhapsfromcarryingchildren. Pubic symphysis
is earlyPhase V.
Thus this woman of about twenty-seven
years
was a real Amazon,stronger,taller,and slenderer
than average of ancient Greek, Medieval Norwegian,or modernAmericanwomen.
The pentagonoidskull vault is 75 to 100 cc.
larger than the 1,325 cc. modern average in
capacity,and is long and high withmarkedpostcoronal depression and concave and sinuous
temporalplanes,as if the infantilesharp curve of
the parietalbone had not been fullycorrectedby
laterperipheralremodelling. The cerebellararea
bulgesdownward,and theendocranialcast stresses
this vertical developmentand a somewhat ill-

This content downloaded from 67.115.155.19 on Fri, 6 Dec 2013 23:00:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

J. LAWRENCE ANGEL

260

FIG.

aspectof leftmaxilla.
2. Hotu No. 2, supero-medial

filledappearance. These linearvault featuresare

typicalof peoples foundacross the desertzone of
Africaand the Near East. But the broad skull
base (bi-auricular116), the relativelywide and
squat face (height105 withoutallowanceforteeth
but drooping
wear), the notablylow, rectangular,
(10 degrees) orbits,thesmallnose,and thealmost
horizontalchewingplane (2 degrees) combined
withsquare jaw angles and markedprotrusionof
chin are Cro-Magnon-likeand quite unlike the
deep, convex, beaky, sloping-jawed,and narrow
laterIranianface. Molar teethare nottaurodont.
Number 3 is the skeletonof a small, stocky,
overworkedwoman, about thirty-seven(pubic
Phase VII), and about 5' 2" tall (156.9
symphysis
cm.). She has relativelythickand bowedfemora,
and extra stresson the intertrochanteric
line and
insertionof the ilio-tibialband on the tibiae.
Otherwiseshe shows the same featuresof muscle
dynamicsas number2. The olecranonfossa of
the humerus is perforated,forearmbones are
bowed and wider set than number2's, the hands
are stubby(ca. 176 x 78), and thepelvisprobably
small and broad.

The bones seem slightlythinner

in cortexand less heavilytrabeculatedthanthose

[PROC. AMER. PHIL.

SOC.

arthritis
appearsin
of number2, and hypertrophic
the lumbar vertebralbodies, pelvic joints, and
hands. Both greater multangular-metacarpal
worn
jointsshowmarkedexostosesand eburnation
by excessive use of thumbsfor motionsof oppositionratherthan extension-flexion.And the
with
fifth
leftmetacarpaldistalshaftwas fractured
littledisplacementin healingbut markedflanging
of ligamentattachments.
The skullhas a strikingly
capaciousvault (14201460 cc.), ovoid, broad, well-filledwith wide-set
base (129 mm.) and approachingthe "squarehead" minorityamong Upper Palaeolithic and
laterEuropeans. The facehas wide cheeks,wide
nose, and a protrudingchin, and probably resemblednumber2.
skeleton of a
Number 1 is the fragmentary
massivemale, betweenthirtyand fortyyears old,
verymuscularand tall: over5' 9" (175.7 cm.based
on radius lengthof 261). In body build he was
probablythe male matchof number2. The skull
has strongand sharplycut browridges,sloping
forehead,flat temporalregion,arched nose profile,and exceedinglyheavymouth(palate 59 x 64,
chin35) withthe usual prominentHotu chinand
square-profiled
jaw angles. The lower toothrow
is wider than the upper. It is possible that this
skull fits directlybetween the modes of Upper
PalaeolithicEurope and ChalcolithicIran.
Number 4 is a left maxillaryfragmentof a
female ( ?) of about fifteenor sixteen,probably
witha widepalate and widernose and moreprognathismthannumber2.
Number 5 is a vault fragmentperhaps like
number3.
Thus the Hotu sample does show sharp variafound
tion, P)robal)lyequalling the heterogeneity
eitheramongEuropeanUpper Palaeolithichunters
or metalage Iraniansas wholes. Morantfindsthe
formerless variablethan seventeenth
centuryinhabitantsof London (1929: 135) in spite of the
slightsplitbetweenlinearand lateralskullformtendencies (cf. von Bonin,1935). And we need not
expectto findin eitherPalaeolithicor Chalcolithic
seen
North Iranians the degree of heterogeneity
in the Bronze Age and later in the Aegean area
(Angel, 1951). But a sharp contrastis suggested at Hotu betweena desert body built as
seen in number2 and a temperateor cold climate
stockybuild as seen in number3. This contrast
between linearityand large surface relative to
mass in desertenvironments
and the oppositein
cold climates though proven only for animals

This content downloaded from 67.115.155.19 on Fri, 6 Dec 2013 23:00:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

VOL. 96, NO. 3, 1952]

HUMAN SKELETAL REMAINS FROM HOTU CAVE

(Bergmann's and Allen's rules examined by

Rensch, 1936) fits roughlythe body build differencesseen in maps 5, 6, and 7 of Coon (1939:
251-279): Europeans as a whole are more massive and less dolichocephalicthan inhabitantsof
thewholedesertstripsouthof the Mediterranean.
Coon, Garn, and Birdsell (1950: 36-45) have
greatlyextendedthistheorybeyondthesuggestions
of Geyer (1932). And I have tried to show
(1949: 443) the probabilitythat Upper PalaeolithicEuropeanswereactuallyverymassivepeople
as suggested in exaggerated form by various
figurines(Burkitt,1939: 162-166; Martin,1928:
237-241). The experimentsof Ogle (1934) and
of MacArthurand Chiasson (1945) show how
boththe directeffectof climateand strongselection can produce through heterogonymarked
changes in adult body build. But where,as at
Hotu, we are dealingwitha singlepopulationwe
are more
may assume thatbody build differences
in origin.
likelyto be geneticthan environmental
On the otherhand such featuresas the Hotu
mouth and chin combination,the Cro-Magnonlike low orbits,the Iranian full cerebellum,and
perhapstrendstowardsacralhiatusand firstmolar
abscesspointto a certaingeneticunity,and plausibly "inbreeding." One would expect a small
and inbred population to show just such disin contrastto the
continuitiesand uniformities
"blended" variationof a large pan-mixedpopulation. This situation plus the double resemblances of the Hotu skeletonsto massive CroMagnons and to linear Iranians (cf. von Bonin,
1935 and Morant,1926, 1929 vs. Vallois, 1939 and
Morant, 1938) shows the kind of evolutionary
plasticityexpectedat thisdate in a peri-glaciallocality. There is even a possible resemblanceto
the old man and the large woman (Nos. 101 and
102) fromthe late Upper Palaeolithic at Chou
Kou Tien (Weidenreich, 1939). The changes
and connectionsimplied by these comparisons
would be a necessaryresultof geneticdriftplus
mixtureplus climaticselectionin a more or less
continuous chain of occasionally mixing small
breedinggroups. The theoriesworked out and
tested by Wright (1931, 1948), Dobzhansky
(1941, 1947), Huxley (1942: 40-44), and others
clearly apply here. I hope that the Hotu data
and comparisonsin the lightof these theoriesof
populationchange deal the coup de grace to the
outmodedhypothesis
ofracialoriginswhichsought
sources for later racial types (often imaginary)

FIG.

261

3. Hotu No. 2, top viewof lowerjaw.

fromsmall, "pure" inbredgroups in the distant

past. These sourcesjust do not exist.
In this cursoryanalysis I am using functional
unitslike the constrictedskullvault of the desert
zone or theunstressednasalia seen wherepalate is
horizontaland chewingthrustalmost verticalin
may turn
the hope thattheirgeneticdeterminants
out to be simple. We could then eliminatethe
measconfusionof arbitrary
presentcontradictory
urements,isolated details of form, and vague
types. To make any list of such units,however,
we need not only a deeper knowledgeof human
genetics but also to know betterhow far one
mechanicallydominantregionof the body affects
adjacent regionsand how plastic the body is in
adaptingto all kindsof stressduringgrowth. In
the presentinstancemost of the multipleIranian
versus Cro-Magnonfacial contrastseems to depend directlyon verticalgrowthat nose-forehead
junction versus jaw condyle,in relationto the
anteriorskull base: in Hotu number2 both the
anteriorskull base and the occlusal plane come
closer than usual to paralleling the Frankfort
plane whereas in the later Iranians, with their
buttressingnoses, the chewingplane, and probably also the anteriorskull base, slope forward
sharplyaway fromthe Frankfortplane as also in
Neanderthalman and the Eskimo. The Hotupeople seem to have been adequately nourished
(tall statureand deep pelvis), but have flattened
shaftsof long bones and extra ridgesto increase
surfacefor muscle origins,as seen in almost all
prehistoricand manyprimitivepeoples. To test
how much the facial patternis geneticand will
respondto genic loss and selectionand how far

This content downloaded from 67.115.155.19 on Fri, 6 Dec 2013 23:00:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

262

J. LAWRENCE

ANGEL

[PROC. AMER. PHIL. SOC.

_l.I
l

Iil
-

Wark_
..

' t '' ;.d'

,',' '
! .

t,7,
''

'

'

,,
'

,
.

,,'

................

as

0'- ,' ' I_

t
.

,-

'
'

'

.:

'^,
'.

_d

000
0OFFIG.4. HotuNo. 2, right
profile,
front,
andbackviewsofskull.

This content downloaded from 67.115.155.19 on Fri, 6 Dec 2013 23:00:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

en7

VOL. 96, NO. 3, 1952]

HUMAN SKELETAL

REMAINS

FROM HOTU CAVE

FIG. 5. Hotu No. 2, leftprofile,

basal,and topviewsof skull.

This content downloaded from 67.115.155.19 on Fri, 6 Dec 2013 23:00:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

263

J. LAW;RENCE ANGEL

264

FIG06.

HouN
.

3,. letpoie

akadtpvesofsulbfr

[PROC. AMER. PHIL. SOC.

fP;I
aersoain

This content downloaded from 67.115.155.19 on Fri, 6 Dec 2013 23:00:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

VOL. 96, NO. 3, 1952]

HUMAN SKELETAL REMAINS FROM HOTU CAVE

265

FIG. 7. Hotu No. 1, upper and lower jaws with teeth, before furtherrestoration.

muscle use is environmentaland only weakly

responsiveto selection demands animal experiments.
Furtherspeculationsin the social biologyof the
Hotu group are interesting.All threeyoungish
adults describedhave sufferedfrom peri-apical
abscesses of the upper firstmolar alveolae extensive enough to invade the maxillary sinus.
This is clearlyseen on the leftside of the palate
of number2, in whoma secondarydrainagepathway openedin the caninefossa 11 mm.below the

infraorbital
foramenafterthewall ofthemaxillary
sinus had been thickenedto 1.5 mm. by the inflamedmucoperiosteum.Though some inherited
factoraffectingdentine reaction may be partly
responsible,this abscess formationis chieflya
resultof excessiveteethwear,amountingto about
1 mm. every five years in the molar region of
number2. Dietary conditionsmust have been
trulyeskimoidto produce such abscesses mechanicallyratherthan throughtoothdecay.
Femoral necktorsion,tibialhead tilting,gluteal

This content downloaded from 67.115.155.19 on Fri, 6 Dec 2013 23:00:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

J. LAWRENCE ANGEL

266

TABLE

[PROC. AMER. PHIL. SOC.

MEASUREMENTS OF HOTU FEMALE SKULLS COMPARED WITH MEANS OF OTHER GROUPS

Area....................................

Iran

Cultureperiod...........................

Upper Palaeolithic

Chalcolithicand
Copper Age

Upper Palaeolithic

Medieval

Hotu

Sialk, Hasan

West and Central

Oslo, Norway

Coon and Angel

Vallois, Morant

V. Bonin, Morant

Schreiner

Site.....................................
Authorities
..............................

No. 2

Cranial capacity (seed)

Horizontal circumference
Transverse arc
Sagittal arc (total)
Frontal arc
Parietal arc
Occipital arc

Europe

No. 3

1,404cc. 1,440?
520
505
309
309
388
382
127
135
137
129
114
118

1,293
502.2
296.0
372.3
125.5
129.9
116.3

(calc.)
8
3
6
4
4
3

186
(104)
(139)
120
135
116+
116?
116
93+
129?
99+?

184
(95)
(138)
120143
128+
123??
118
97
138??
(99)

179.7
95.5
129.2
111.5 +
132.7
(narrow)
113.0
113.0
92.6
122.7
94.2

3
10
10
5
4

Face height (total)

Chin height
Upper face ht. (na.-pr.)
Nose height
Nose breadth
Interorbitalbreadth
Orbit breadth (dacryon)
Orbit height
Palate length (external)
Palate breadth (external)
Ramus heightjaw
Least ramus breadth

105
34
65
4621+
20
38
28
56
62
65?
35

(103)
33??
61?
44.5?
26?
(23)
40?
31+?
53-?
63?
(65)
30

116.5
(34.5)
66.5
49.0
24.3
18.0
39.5
32.6

2
2
5
4
4
2
5
5

Jaw angle
Facial profileangle
Nasal bones profile

110
88
(65)

(112)
88?

110.7
84.5

Cranial length (gl.-occ.)

Base length (bas.-nas.)
Basion-bregma height
Auricular-vertexht.
Maximum vault breadth
Base breadth (bi-auric.)
Bicondylar breadth jaw
Maximum frontalbreadth
Minimum frontalbreadth
Face breadth (bizygomatic)
Jowl breadth (bigonial)

Cranial 1-br.index
Mean auric. ht. index
Frontal-parietal br.
Cranio-facial br. index
Upper face ht.-br. index
Nasal ht.-br. index
Orbital index (dacryon)

72.6
74.8
68.9
95.6?
50.4?
45.7
73.7

77.7
73.9
67.8
96.5??
44.2?
58.4?
77.5?

74.0
71.4+
70.2
90.1
53.3
49.9
82.4

12
3
3
6
12

1,374
524.6
306.2
372.9
125.2
127.7
121.0

(calc.)
11
7
10
13
14
10

185.6
100.1
132.4
112.1
138.2
(wide)

12
9
9
5
13

117.6
97.3
129.4

13
13
5

(34 ca.)
65.9
48.5
25.6

7
8
10

(40.5)
29.9

8
10

4
4

84.8

12
6
10
5
4
4
5

74.9
69.2?
70.3
93.6
50.9
53.3
(73.8)

11
*

12
*
*

7
*

1,302.6
506.3
301.0
360.0
123.8
121.9
114.6

326
538
495
536
561
567
544

179.3
96.5
126.2
108.9+
135.8
119.0
113.0
114.8
93.5
124.5
94.6

572
479
489
500
555
496
109
434
546
284
97

110.7
30.2
67.2
48.8
23.5
20.6
(38.4)
33.4
50.2
60.3
58.4
31.6

109
101
325
335
311
326
345
346
254
248
113
113

121.3
84.4
56.2

1ll
l
1 281
211

75.8
69.1?
69.0
91.7
54.1
48.1
(87.0)

553

531
276
262
302
338

Note: Presumably 1 mm. should be added to the auricular height (OH) of Chalcolithic Iranians and almost 1.5
mm. added to the auricular-bregmaheightsof the European series to equate the porion-vertexdimension used for Hotu.
An attempt has been made to correctthe European series orbital breadths to equate dacryon-ectoconchion. Figures in
parenthesesare estimatesand not reliable forstatisticalpurposes. 5 mm. have probablybeen lost fromtotal facial height
throughincisor teeth wear of Hotu No. 2. and No. 3: the amount of compensatoryalveolar growthis not determinable.

This content downloaded from 67.115.155.19 on Fri, 6 Dec 2013 23:00:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

VOL. 96, NO. 3, 1952]

HUMAN SKELETAL REMAINS FROM HOTU CAVE

TABLE

267

MEASUREMENTS OF HOTU FEMALE SKELETONS COMPARED WITH MEANS OF OTHER GROUPS

Site.............................................

Hotu
No. 2

U.S.A. Modern
No. 3

320.3

Humerus, Max. length

Max. midshaftthickness
Min. midshaftthickness
Bi-epicondylar br.
Radius, Max. length
Ulna, Max. length
Forearm max. breadth
Femur, Max. length
Bicondylar length
Max. diam. head
fA-post.
Subtrochanter )~Transv.

(315)
22
16
53238
260
42
461
455
43.5
25.5
31

(297?)
21
14
58
208
233
(44)
396391+
40.5
22.5
28.5

Midshaft A-post.
lTransv.
Distal epiphysis br.
Neck torsion angle
Tibia, L.c. length
Nt
for.level{A-post.
Nutr
fo. lvelTransv.
Retroversionangle
Pelvis
Innominate height
Innominate breadth
Bi-iliac breadth

27.5
26.5
74
29
(358?)
32.5
21
10.5

26
24
73
31
(305?)
33.5
21
13.5

Inlet
of true pelvis fA-post.
Inlet
Transv.
rAnt.-post.
Outlet of true pelvis Intertuberous
Interspinous
Pubic length
Ischial length
Sciatic notch breadth
Sciatic notch height
Sciatic notch post. segt.
Pelvic brim tilt
Sacral height
Sacral breadth
Lumbar Vertebrae Hts.
Anteriorheights
Posterior heights
Indices
Humeral flatness
Platymeric (femur)
Pilastric (femur)
Robusticity (femur)
Cnemic (tibia)
Pelvic inlet
Vertical lumbar (curve)
Stature reconstructed
(Dupertuis' general formula)

207
154
256

189
(136)

121
119
109, 120 at S5
125
104?
77?
(82)
86?
79?
61
55
37
33
23
24=
68
118, 108 for5
(111)

U. Pal. Europe
M

NorwayMed.
M

100

310.5
20.9
16.2

312
312
312

217.8

100

233.1
251.2

171
133

422.4
417.6

100

23.9
29.4

28
28

417.4
42.6
24.0
29.2

493
415
497
498

26.4
25.8

28
28

25.6
25.1

499
499

338.9

100

12.7
333.1

437
544

7.4

379

77.7
82.2
102.1
12.2

312
498
499

161.0

202.0
157.3
270.5

20
20
20

122.4
130.6
119.7
109.0
99.5
77.9
78.3
51.9
30.9
27.6
57.7
101.8
117.5

500
500
500
500
500
100
100
106
106
106
500
25
25

139?
133?
72.7
80.6
103.8
11.9
64.6
101.7
95.7?

66.7
79.0
108.3
12.7
62.7

79.3
770
81.1
28
101.7
28
12.5 ca.
(72) ca.
93.9
500
96.2
43
males

167.4 cm.

156.9

161.0

100

both sexes
74.5
116.0

16
8

64.6

16

females
155 ca.
5

Note: Authoritiesfor the composite series of modern white female data include: Dupertuis and Hadden, Hrdlicka,
Young and Ince, Letterman,Washburn, Todd and Pyle; Von Bonin recordsthe Upper Palaeolithic indices, and Wagner
the Norwegians.

This content downloaded from 67.115.155.19 on Fri, 6 Dec 2013 23:00:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

268

J. LAWRENCE ANGEL

[PROC. AMER.

PHIL.

SOC.

pressures. But life was certainlyhazardous, if

one follows the indicationthat the two Hotu
womenwere killed by a rock fall.
From the social standpointthis gives a picture
of a small band of gathererswith littleleisure,
where every one worked at top capacity,where
childrenwere treated well, fed as regularlyas
possible, and valued',where strangersmightbe
admitted,wherephysicalexuberancewas admired,
and where accident rather than disease might
cause death.
From thebiologicalstandpointtheHotu sample
places modernman definitely
on the edge of the
steppezone as well as in the caves and ambushes
of Europe,of China,and of NorthAmericaduring
theretreatofthelastglaciation. This raisesthree
FIG. 8. Radiographs
of hands. Hotu No. 3 (left) with questions: 'How wide, how rapid, and how
rightthumbadded; Hotu No. 2 (right) with leftfifth disastrous were migrationsof our huntinganmetacarpalsubstituted.Note pathologicchangesin No. cestors? How important
was individualinitiative
3 at head of fifth
metacarpaland firstmetacarpal-greaterin such groups? How old and how selected is
multangular
joint.
modernman?"
REFERENCES
crest development,platymeria,platycnernia,
and
stressed extensor and rotatormuscle insertions ANGEL, J. L. 1949. Constitution in female obesity.
forma complex (cf. Wagner, 1926: 115-117)
Amer Jour Phys. Anthrop.,n. s. 7: 433-458.
1951. Population size and microevolutionin
called the bent-kneegait, often misinterpreted.
Greece. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quant.
This appliesto use ofthelegs flexibly,
likea skier,
Biol. 15: 343-351.
and not a posture. Stress on the ilio-tibialband, BONIN, G. VON. 1935. European races of the
Upper
iliac crest, and lower and upper lumbar areas
Palaeolithic. Human Biology 7: 196-221.
(possibleherniationof lowestnucleuspulposusin BURKITT, M. C. 1933. The old stone age. A study of
Palaeolithic times. Cambridge,England, Univ. Press.
number2) suggestsfurther
thatthe Hotu women
may have done some standingand workingwith COON,C. S. 1939. The races of Europe. N. Y., Macmillan.
braced legs (as pullingon a fishnet) as well as
. 1951. Cave explorations in Iran 1949. Museum
muchclimbingin roughcountry,
carrying,
and digMonographs, The U;niversityMuseum, Philadelphia.
ging. The injuriesto the thumb-wrist
joints and COON, C. S., S. M. GARN, and J. B. BIRDSELL. 1950.
Races. A study of the problems of race formation
littlefingerof number3 suggestpossiblefighting
in man. Springfield,Ill., Thomas.
butmoreplausiblyhardmanualworkperhapsmore
DOBZIIANSKY, Tii., 1941. Genetics and the origin of
specializedthan diggingfor roots: flint-chipping, species. 2nd ed. N. Y., Columbia Univ. Press.
plaiting baskets, net-making,or possibly mid. 1947. Adaptive changes induced by natural selection in wild populations of Drosophila. Ezvolution1:
wiferyor shamanism. The pelves of the two
1-16.
womenshow enoughbone reactionat ligamentattachmentsand insertionof the abdominal wall DUPERTUIS, WV.C., and J. A. HADDEN, JR.,1951. On the
reconstructionof stature from long bones. Anmer.
muscles(rectusand externalobliqueaponeucosis)
Joztr.Phys. Winthrop.,
ii. s. 9: 15-53.
to hint that pregnancymay have been frequent GEYER, E. 1932. Die anthropologischenErgebnisse der
and withoutrest period. No lines of arrested
mit Uiiterstutzungder Akademie der Wissenschafteni
in Wien veranstaltetenLapplandexpedition 1913/14.
bone growthoccur,thoughone mightimaginethe
Mitt. d. Anthr. Ges. Wien 62: 163-209.
lack ofparietalremodelling
and a traceofoccipital HRDLICKA, A.
1916. Physical anthropologyof the Lenape
pittingin number2 as evidencesof a barelyadeor Delawares, and of the eastern Indians in general
Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull. 62.
quate diet. Perhaps it was a diet more than
adequate in toto but undergoingmarkedfluctua- HUXLEY, J. 1942. Evolution. The modern synthesis
London, Allen & Unwin.
tions with the game supply. At any rate life
LETTERMAN, G. S. 1941. The greater sciatic notch in
expectancymay not have been less than in NeoAmerican whites and negroes. .A4mer.Joker.Phys.
lithictimes in spite of these physicaland social
Anthrop.28: 99-116.

This content downloaded from 67.115.155.19 on Fri, 6 Dec 2013 23:00:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

VOL. 96, NO. 3, 1952]

HUMAN SKELETAL REMAINS FROM HOTU CAVE

MAcARTHUR,J. W., and L. P. CHIASSON. 1945. Relative growth in races of mice produced by selection.

Growth9: 303-315.

MARTIN, R.

1928. Lehrbuch der anthropologie. 3 v.

Jena, G. Fischer.
MORANT, G. M. 1926. Studies of Palaeolithic man. I.
The Chancelade skull and its relation to the modern
Eskimo skull. Annals of Eugenics 1: 257-276.
. 1929. Studies of Palaeolithic man. IV. A biometric study of the Upper Palaeolithic skulls of
Europe and of their relationshipsto earlier and later
types. Annals of Eugenics 4: 109-214.
. 1938. A description of nine human skulls from
Iran excavated by Sir Aurel Stein, K. C. I. E. Biometrika 30: 130-133.
OGLE, C. 1934. Climatic influenceon the growth of the
male albino mouse. Anmer.Jour. Physiol. 107: 635-

640.

B. 1936. Studien uber klimatische Paralleitat der Merkmalsauspragung bei V6geln und
Siugern. Archiv f. Naturgesch., n. f. 5: 317-363.
SCHREINER, K. E. 1939. Crania Norvegica. I. Inst. f.
Sammenl. Kulturf.,Ser. B. Skr. 36. Oslo.

RENSCH,

269

TODD, T. W., and S. I. PYLE. 1928. A quantitative

study of the vertebral column by direct and
roentgenographic methods. Amer. Jour. Phys.
Anthrop. 12: 321-338.
VALLOIS,H. V. 1939. Les ossements humains de Sialk.
In R. Ghirshman,Fouilles de Sialk 1933, 1934, 1937.
II. Louvre Dept. des Antiquitcs Orientales Serie
Archtologique 5: 113-192, Paris.
WAGNER,
K.
1926. Mittelalter-Knochen aus Oslo.
Skrifter Norske Videnskapsakademi i Oslo, I, MatNaturv. Ki. 2 (7).
WASHBURN,
S. L. 1948. Sex differencesin the pubic
bone. Anzer. Jour. Phys. Anthrop.,n. s. 6: 199-208.
WEIDENREICH,
F. 1939. On the earliest representatives
of modernmankindrecoveredon the soil of East Asia.
Peking Nat. Hist. Bull. 13: 163-174 (part 3).
WRIGHT,
S. 1931. Evolution in mendelian populations.
Genetics 16: 97-159.
1948. On the roles of direct and random changes
in frequencyin the genetics of populations. Evolution
2: 279-294.
YOUNG, M., and J. G. H. INCE.
1940. A radiographic
comparison of the male and female pelvis. Jour.
Anat. 74: 374-385.

This content downloaded from 67.115.155.19 on Fri, 6 Dec 2013 23:00:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions