Cited by 30Pleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesEvolution and Paleontology Studies

Differences between Neandertal and modern human infant and child growth models

Martín-González, Jesús A., Mateos, Ana, Goikoetxea, Idoia, Leonard, William R., Rodríguez, Jesús·2012·Journal of Human Evolution

Abstract

Studying the emergence of distinctive human growth patterns is essential to understanding the evolution of our species. The large number of Neandertal fossils makes this species the best candidate for a comparative study of growth patterns in archaic and modern humans. Here, Neandertal height growth during infancy and early childhood is described using a mathematical model. Height growth velocities for individuals five years old or younger are modelled as age functions based on different estimates of height and age for a set of ten Neandertal infants and children. The estimated heights of each Neandertal individual are compared with those of two modern human populations based on longitudinal and cross-sectional data. The model highlights differences in growth velocity during infancy (from the age of five months onward). We find that statural growth in Neandertal infants is much slower than that seen in modern humans, Neandertal growth is similar to modern humans at birth, but decreases around the third or fourth month. The markedly slower growth rates of Neandertal infants may be attributable to ontogenetic constraints or to metabolic stress, and contribute to short achieved adult stature relative to modern humans.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jhevol.2012.04.005

Cites

130 of 130 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 134 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Martín-González, J. A., Mateos, A., Goikoetxea, I., Leonard, W. R., & Rodríguez, J.
Affiliations
  • Centro Nacional de Investigación sobre la Evolución Humana (ES)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Mateos, Ana
Venue
Journal of Human Evolution
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-07
Volume
63
Issue
1
Pages
140-149
ISSN
0047-2484 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2006682237
Cited by
30
References
134
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
13.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Human Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
Keywords
Neanderthals, human growth, infant growth, child growth, growth models, comparative growth, modern human populations, adult height, metabolic stress, human evolution
MeSH terms
Animals, Body Height, Child Development, Child, Preschool, Europe, Female, Fossils, Humans, Infant, Male, Models, Biological, Siberia, Neanderthals

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