1 Marta P. Alfonso-Durrruty1, Flavia Morello2Body Height and Body Mass Estimations for prehistoric Maritime and Terrestrial Hunter-Gatherers of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego, Chile. Marta P. Alfonso-Durrruty1, Flavia Morello2 1 Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work, Kansas State University, 2 Instituto de la Patagonia, Universidad de Magallanes, Punta Arenas, Chile Background Fuego-Patagonia (47˚-56˚S; Fig. 1) has a long history of human occupation that extends from the Late Pleistocene (c BP) to modern times. The region can be characterized by the presence of two contrasting environmental zones. Located on the Western slopes of the Andes, the Patagonian archipelago (46-56˚ southern latitude) is dominated by humidity (5,000mm precipitation per year), dense forests and peat bogs. The second geographic band on the eastern slopes of the Andes is a semi-arid desert, which is characterized by steppe and shrub vegetation on its plains and plateaus (Fig 1)1. The earliest archaeological evidence in the region (c. 10,500 BP) corresponds to terrestrial hunter-gatherers, who lived on the pampas (eastern slopes). These sites feature lithic and bone tools, and hearth features that are found in association with extinct fauna (Fig. 2) 2–12. During the Pleistocene-Holocene transition and the Early Holocene (10,000-7,000 BP), the gradual rise in sea level and a quick shoreline modification resulted in the establishment of modern marine environments 5,9,11,13. During the Middle Holocene (7,000-4,000BP), the earliest evidence of marine hunter-gatherers appears (6,500-5,000BP) at sites along the Otway Sea-Strait of Magellan and Beagle-Channel (Fig. 1). Even these early marine adaptations featured highly specialized tool-kits, as demonstrated by the presence of detachable harpoons, grooved and notched fishing weights, and lithic tools made of green obsidian (Englefield tradition; Fig. 3)1. Inland and Marine economic specialization, c. 6,000 years BP, led to two divergent human adaptations: nomad canoe/marine hunter-gatherers and pedestrian terrestrial hunters1 that relied on guanaco (Lama guanicoe) as the mayor available game. There are, however, sites located near interior seas, fjords and channels, that have mixed cultural and economic assemblages1,5,6,11,14–18. During the Late Holocene period (4,000-0 BP), there is a significant increase in the number of sites for both marine and terrestrial groups, which demonstrates that local populations underwent a demographic expansion, without ever reaching spatial saturation19. Overall, the archaeological assemblages –likely because of functional requirements- remained stable. Technological, economic and morphological changes are best explained as resulting from the emergence of different cultural traditions, based on variation in information circulation, social interaction and spatial distribution 11,20. In Fuego-Patagonia, the coexistent marine and inland hunter-gatherers assemblages pre-echoes the culturally distinctive groups encountered by Europeans and Criollos 11. In historic times (19th and 20th centuries), European and Criollos identified ethnic groups characterized by economic specialization (marine and terrestrial) and their studies describe these groups as phenotypically distinct. While terrestrial groups were tall and robust, maritime groups were short and gracile21,22. Given these phenotypic, technological, adaptive, and cultural differences, two main hypotheses have been proposed to account for the origin of maritime populations in Fuego-Patagonia: 1) Maritime populations emerged from terrestrial hunter-gatherer groups and developed specialized technologies (e.g. harpoons) and transport media (canoes), or; 2) Maritime populations descend from already specialized northern groups that moved into the region through the Pacific coastal route. This Middle-Holocene migration would account for the high degree of technological specialization observed in the earliest Maritime sites 1. Phenotypic differences between these groups, however, have been used to perpetuate early European characterizations. However, these phenotypic differences still need to be systematically assessed at the regional level 20. Accordingly, this study assesses the height, body mass and midfacial morphometry of prehistoric Maritime and Terrestrial hunter-gatherers from Fuego-Patagonia, Chile. Results The distributions of statures, body masses, and cranial dimensions are presented in Figs. 4 and 5. Among females, comparisons regarding stature and body mass were hindered by incomplete remains and the low number of female skeletons among THG. The available data only permitted comparisons based on Allbrook’s estimation, which unlike the other formula is solely based on the tibia. The results of these analyses revealed no statistically significant differences in height or body mass between the females of the different groups. Among males, THG were comparatively taller and heavier, and showed statistically significant differences in stature and body mass from the MGH in all, but one, estimation (Table 2). Stature and body mass comparison between MHG and IHG revealed significant differences in all stature estimations that include (or are based on) the femur (Table 2). Likewise, while some stature estimations showed statistically significant differences between THG and IHG, others did not. Body mass estimations for THG and IHG were not significantly different (Table 2). Craniometric measurements revealed a limited number of statistically significant differences between MHG and THG females. These differences correspond to the nasal height (50.62 vs ; p<.05), and the frontal chord ( vs respectively; p<.05). In all cases, THG showed larger cranial dimensions. However, given the low number of females among THG, these differences should be considered cautiously. Comparisons between MHG and IHG females, revealed that the minimum frontal breadth was the only statistically significant difference between these two groups. The upper facial height was statistically larger in IHG than MHG females (76.79 vs respectively; p<.05), as was the nasal height (54.15 vs ; p<.05) and the frontal chord ( vs ; p<.05). Comparisons between THG and IHG females only showed statistically significant differences in bifrontal breadth (97.65 vs respectively; p<.05). Among males, comparisons between MHG and THG showed that the biauricular breadth ( and respectively; p<.05) was the only measurement significantly different between both groups. No statistically significant differences were identified for MHG and IHG or between THG and IHG males. Figure 1. Location of the sites. 1. Estrecho Trinidad; 2. Caverna 1-3 Pto. Natales (n=2); 3. Isla Madre de Dios; 4. Yekchal; 5 Estancia Morro Chico; 6. Patagonia; 7. Cerro Johnny; 8. Juni Aike 6; 9. Pta. Delgada (n=3); 10. Bahía Santiago (n=3); 11. Posesión; 12. Posesión Olimpia (n=2); 13. Daniel; 14. San Gregorio-12 (n=2); 15. Punta Satelite (n=2); 16. Puerto Zenteno; 17. Punta Dirección; 18. Estancia Lola; 19. Ponsonby; 20. Punta Santa Ana 1; 21. Rey Felipe; 22. Punta Santa María; 23. Bahia Gente Grande (n=2); 24. Bahía Felipe (n=2); 25. Faro Méndez; 26. Cerro Sombrero; 27. Bahía Chilota; 28. Est. Silvana María; 29. Laguna Verde; 30. Myren-1; 31. Tres Arroyos 1; 32. Rio San Martin; 33. Cabo Nose; 34. Tierra del Fuego (n=3); 35. Lengua de Vaca; 36. Discordia; 37. Laguna Flamenco; 38. Río Santa María; 39. China Creek; 40. Punta Cameron (Timaukel); 41. Canal Maule; 42. Caleta Lenox (n=2); 43. Puerto Luisa; 44. Caleta Virginia (n=2); 45. Isla Navarino); 46. Lauta 2. Figure 2. Terrestrial hunter-gatherers lithic tool kit: a) boleadoras, spheroid bolas from Marazzi-1, Middle Holocene levels; b) ovoid bola from the same site level; c) ethnographic arrow, glass projectile point, Ona type and Tres Arroyos-1 Ona type projectile point - Late Holocene (silex rock); d) spheroid bolas from Myren-2 site; e) fishtail proyectile points from Cueva del Medio site Pleistocene-Holocene transition (modified from Morello et al. 2012). Figure 3. Lithic and bone artifact assemblage from marine hunter-gatherers: a) harpoon points, one-two barbs and cruciform base from Middle Holocene Englefield Tradition; b) bone harpoon points dating from the last years BP (up to ethnographic times); c) green obsidian bifacial knife; d) subtriangular projectile points (green obsidian); e) fishing-line weights; f) lithic pedunculated projectile points (cherty rocks; modified from San Roman 2014). Conclusions The results confirm the observations made by early ethnographers and indicate the existence of a West-East phenotype gradient in the region. While the archipelago, maritime, groups were shorter and lighter, the terrestrial hunter-gatherers of Austral Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego were consistently larger and heavier. Craniometric analyses confirm that certain dimensions, included in this study were larger in terrestrial groups, specially the nasal height. The differences in phenotype can be interpreted as adaptations to a cold and harsh environment, but they may also have genetic basis. Thus, on one hand, some of these differences may be the end product of adaptations to environments that, although close, present significant differences in both temperature and humidity. On the other, phenotypic differences can be the result of genetics, so further modern and aDNA studies must be conducted in this region if we are to fully understand the peopling of Fuego-Patagonia. Materials and Methods A total of 31 adult individuals, from archaeological 46 archaeological sites (c. 6,500-1,000BP), were identified as suitable for inclusion in this study. Individuals were classified as Marine hunter-gatherers (MHG), Terrestrial hunter-gatherers (THG), or Indeterminate hunter-gatherers (IHG) based on their archaeological and geographic context. Sex and age estimations were based on standard macroscopic methods23. Nine individuals were classified as MHG (♂= 5; ♀=4). Fourteen were regarded as THG (♂=12; ♀=1; Indeterminate sex=1), and the remaining 8 were considered IHG (♂= 4; ♀=3; Indeterminate sex=1). The maximum length of the femur and tibia (including the malleoulus), the antero-posterior breadth of the femoral head, and the femoral bicondylar length were measured in each individual. These measurements were used in the calculation of stature and body mass24 (Table 1). Formulae were applied to both left and right osteological elements when present. Final comparisons were based on the average obtained based on left and right elements for stature and body mass (respectively) when applicable. Given that stature and body mass result from both genetic and environmental factors25, we further assessed the effects of climatic differences in the phenotype of prehistoric Fuego-Patagonia hunter-gatherers, by analyzing cranial measurements. Cranial, and particularly midfacial, measurements were selected due to the nasal cavity’s well documented morphological and functional adaptive response to climate26. Based on this and previous studies26,27 we included in this analysis the: 1) Glabello-occipital length; 2) Biauricular breadth; 3) Facial height; 4) Nasal height; 5) Minimum frontal breadth; 6) Frontal chord, and; 7) Parietal chord. All measurements were taken following standard recommendations23. Normality was tested with Kolmogorov-Smirnoff tests. No violations of normality were identified in the samples. T-tests were applied to compare the means in stature, body mass and cranial measurements, between groups. All statistical analyses were conducted in SPSS21®. References Cited 1. San Román, M. in Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology (Springer, 2014); 2. Bird, J. in Handbook of South American Indians 1, 17–24 (Smithsonian Institution, 1946); 3. Massone, M. in Culturas de Chile. Desde sus orígenes hasta los albores de la conquista 349–366 (Editorial Andrés Bello, 1989); 4. Bird, J. Viajes y Arqueología de Chile Austral. (Universidad de Magallanes, 1993); 5. Borrero, L. in Archaeological and anthropological perspective on the native people s of Pampa, Patagonia, and Tierra del Fuego to the Nineteenth Century 47–55 (Bergin & Garvey, 2002); 6.Lanata, J. L. in Archaeological and anthropological perspective on the native people s of Pampa, Patagonia, and Tierra del Fuego to the Nineteenth Century 57–73 (Bergin & Garvey, 2002); 7. Politis, G. in Archaeological and anthropological perspective on the native peoples of Pampa, Patagonia, and Tierra del Fuego to the Nineteenth Century (eds. Briones, C. & Lanata, J. L.) 31–45 (Bergin & Garvey, 2002); 8. Massone, M. Los cazadores después del hielo. (Museo de Historia Natural, 2004); 9.McCulloch, R. & Morello, F. in Arqueología de Patagonia: una mirada desde el último confín 119–136 (Editorail Utopías, 2005); 10. Borrero, L. A. & Martin, F. M. Ground sloths and humans in southern Fuego-Patagonia: taphonomy and archaeology. World Archaeol. 44, 102–117 (2012); 11.Morello, F. et al. Hunter-gatherers, biogregraphic barriers and the development of human settlement in Tierra del Fuego. Antiquity 86, 71–87 (2012); 12.Martin, F. M. et al. Nuevas excavaciones en la Cueva del Medio. Resultados Preliminares. Magallania 42 (In Press, 2015); 13. Borrero, L. A. The Prehistoric Exploration and Colonization of Fuego-Patagonia. J. World Prehistory 13, 321–355 (1999); 14. Laming-Emperaire, A., Lavallée, D. & Humber, R. Le Site de Marazzi en Terre de Fue. Objects Mondes 12, 225–244 (1972); 15. Ortiz-Troncoso, O. Los yacimientos de Punta Santa Ana y Bahía Buena (Patagonia Austral). Excavaciones y fechados radiocarbónicos. An. Inst. Patagon. Ser. Cs Humanas 7, 93–122 (1975); 16. Legoupil, D. Cazadores-Recolectores de Ponsonby (Patagonia austral) y su paleoambiente desde VI al III milenio A.C. (Universidad de Magallanes ed.). Punta Arenas: Universidad de Magallanes, Magallania Vol. 31, número especial. Magallania Punta Arenas 31, 360p. (2003); 17. Salemme, M., Bujalesky, G. & Santiago, F. in Arqueología de Fuego-Patagonia. Levantando piedras, desenterrando huesos, y develando arcanos 723–736 (Ediciones CEQUA, 2007); 18. Orquera, L. A., Legoupil, D. & Piana, E. L. Littoral adaptation at the southern end of South America. Quat. Int. 239, 61–69 (2011); 19. Borrero, L. A. Evolucion cultural divergente en la Patagonia Austral. An. Inst. Patagon. Ser. Cienc. Humanas 19, 133–140 (1989); 20. Borrero, L. A., Martin, F. M. & Barbarena, R. in Information and its Role in Hunter-Gatherer Bands (eds. Whallon, R., Lovis, W. & Hitchcock, R.) 249–265 (Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, 2011); 21. Martial, L., Hyades, P., Deniker, J., Legoupil, D. (ed) & Prieto, A. (ed). Etnografía de los indios Yhagan en la misión científica del Cabo de Hornos (Editorial Universidad de Magallanes & Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos, 2007); 22. Gusinde, M. Los indios de Tierra del Fuego - Tomo 4 Antropologia Fisica, vol. 1. (Zagier & Urruty Pubns, 2012); 23.Buikstra, J. E. & Ubelaker, D. H. Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains: Proceedings of a Seminar at the Field Museum of Natural History. (Arkansas Archeological Survey, 1994); 24.Auerbach, B. M. & Ruff, C. B. Human body mass estimation: a comparison of ‘morphometric’ and ‘mechanical’ methods. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 125, 331–342 (2004): 25. B, B. The growth of humanity. N. Y. Wiley Liss Inc 336, (2001); 26. Evteev, A., Cardini, A. L., Morozova, I. & O’Higgins, P. Extreme climate, rather than population history, explains mid-facial morphology of Northern Asians. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 153, 449–462 (2014); 27. Hernández, M., Fox, C. L. & García-Moro, C. Fueguian cranial morphology: the adaptation to a cold, harsh environment. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 103, 103–117 (1997).