@article {310776,
	title = {Re-evaluation of Pleistocene and Holocene long bone robusticity trends with regards to age-at-death estimates and size standardization procedures},
	volume = {97},
	year = {2016},
	month = {08/2016},
	pages = {109 - 122},
	abstract = {<p>Long-term trends in robusticity of lower limb bones in the genus Homo through the Pleistocene until the present have been proposed, which have been interpreted as a consequence of decreasing levels of mobility and activity patterns, changes in lifestyle, and environmental factors. There has also long been evidence that skeletal strength increases over an individual{\textquoteright}s lifespan. This increase is caused by continuous bone remodeling that optimizes the structure of a bone to resist mechanical loadings and creates a balance between endosteal resorption and subperiosteal apposition. However, none of the previous studies of temporal trends in robusticity has considered both processes and analyzed how individual age-related robusticity might influence higher-level temporal trends. This paper therefore explores temporal trends in robusticity of lower limb long bones within the genus Homo and considers how individual ages-at-death can confound published evolutionary trends, given the fact that some aspects of relative bone strength tend to increase over individual lifespans. Cross-sectional diaphyseal properties of the midshaft and proximal femur and midshaft tibia of Pleistocene and early Holocene individuals, together with data on age-at-death are used to analyze changes in relative bone strength relative to individuals{\textquoteright} ages and evolutionary time. The results show increasing bone strength in adulthood until the fourth decade and then a slight decrease, an observation that conforms to previously published results on recent human populations. However, no significant impact of age-at-death on the trends along an evolutionary trajectory has been detected. The evolutionary trends in femoral and tibial relative strength can be described as fluctuating, probably as a consequence of changing mobility patterns, environmentally and technologically influenced behaviors, and demographic processes. The differences between evolutionary trends published in several studies are explained primarily as a result of different ways of standardizing cross-sectional parameters for size, and differences in sample composition.</p>
},
	keywords = {Aging, Femur, Lower limb, Postcranial robusticity, Temporal trends, Tibia},
	isbn = {0047-2484},
	doi = {10.1016/j.jhevol.2016.05.013},
	url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248416300483},
	author = {Friedl, L. and Eisov{\'a}, S. and Holliday, T. W.}
}
