The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Postcranial robusticity in Homo. I: Temporal trends and mechanical interpretation
Abstract
Temporal trends in postcranial robusticity within the genus Homo are explored by comparing cross‐sectional diaphyseal and articular properties of the femur, and to a more limited extent, the humerus, in samples of Recent and earlier Homo. Using both theoretical mechanical models and empirical observations within Recent humans, scaling relationships between structural properties and bone length are developed. The influence of body shape on these relationships is considered. These scaling factors are then used to standardize structural properties for comparisons with pre‐Recent Homo (Homo sp. and H. erectus, archaic H. sapiens, and early modern H. sapiens). Results of the comparisons lead to the following conclusions: 1) There has been a consistent, exponentially increasing decline in diaphyseal robusticity within Homo that has continued from the early Pleistocene through living humans. Early modern H. sapiens are closer in shaft robusticity to archaic H. sapiens than they are to Recent humans. The increase in diaphyseal robusticity in earlier Homo is a result of both medullary contraction and periosteal expansion relative to Recent humans. 2) There has been no similar temporal decline in articular robusticity within Homo–relative femoral head size is similar in all groups and time periods. Thus, articular to shaft proportions are different in pre‐Recent and Recent Homo. 3) These findings are most consistent with a mechanical explanation (declining mechanical loading of the postcranium), that acted primarily through developmental rather than genetic means. The environmental (behavioral) factors that brought about the decline in postcranial robusticity in Homo are ultimately linked to increases in brain size and cultural‐technological advances, although changes in robusticity lag behind changes in cognitive capabilities. © 1993 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Who’s afraid of the big bad Wolff?: “Wolff’s law” and bone functional adaptation
Ruff, C., Holt, B., & Trinkaus, E. (2006) · American Journal of Physical Anthropology · doi:10.1002/ajpa.20371 · Cited by 994
Self-citationThe aging of Wolff’s “law”: Ontogeny and responses to mechanical loading in cortical bone
Pearson, O. M., & Lieberman, D. E. (2004) · American Journal of Physical Anthropology · doi:10.1002/ajpa.20155 · Cited by 745
Body size, body shape, and long bone strength in modern humans
Ruff, C. B. (2000) · Journal of Human Evolution · doi:10.1006/jhev.1999.0322 · Cited by 382
Self-citationThe evolution of human skin and skin color
Jablonski, N. G. (2004) · Annual Review of Anthropology · doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.143955 · Cited by 367
Flaked stones and old bones: Biological and cultural evolution at the dawn of technology
Plummer, T. (2004) · American Journal of Physical Anthropology · doi:10.1002/ajpa.20157 · Cited by 359
Metadata
- Authors
- Ruff, C. B., Trinkaus, E., Walker, A., & Larsen, C. S.
- Venue
- American Journal of Physical Anthropology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1993-05
- Volume
- 91
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 21-53
- ISSN
- 0002-9483 (ISSN-L)
- 1096-8644
- OpenAlex
- W2167554741
- Cited by
- 581
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 74.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Postcranial robusticity in Homo. I: Temporal trends and mechanical interpretation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ajpa.1330910103
- The paper
- Ruff, C. B., Trinkaus, E., Walker, A., & Larsen, C. S. (1993). Postcranial robusticity in Homo. I: Temporal trends and mechanical interpretation. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330910103
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.