Of particular interest is the study of the body of a modern child from the point of view of the influence of hormonal status on the rate of puberty. The key ones are the period of second childhood and adolescence, during which intense somatic and sexual maturation occurs during hormonal regulation. The data discussed in the scientific literature of recent years on the peculiarities of individual development of representatives of the Middle Paleolithic can contribute to solving actual problems of studying the final stage of anthropogenesis.

Evolutionary trends in the development of Homo sapiens

Researchers of the evolutionary aspects of ontogenesis have emphasized that individual human development is characterized by a longer period of childhood and a delayed pubertal spurt of the hormone testosterone, which leads to a "stretch" in the time of puberty compared to non-hominid primates [Khrisanfova, 2004, p.24]. Lengthening the period of childhood can be considered as a selectively beneficial process from the point of view of social adaptation of hominids. In the course of evolution, the learning time required for the transfer of complex skills increased, in addition, infantile individuals caused less aggression on the part of adult members of society and in the long run had a better chance of survival, leaving their gene pool to their descendants [Bogin, 1997].

A recent study by M. Gurven and R. Walker [Gurven and Walker, 2006] discusses the energy aspects of the phenomenon of "slow human growth".

The authors analyze the hypothesis that the slow growth of a Homo sapiens child in the period between weaning and puberty helps to reduce the energy costs of parents for maintaining non-independent offspring. If a human child grew faster at an early age, then this, according to M. Garven and R. Walker, would lead to a dramatic expenditure of energy for adult hunters and gatherers. A slow increase in size in childhood, followed by a rapid adolescent spurt, may have contributed to an increase in fertility and socialization.

According to B. Bogin's classification (Bogin, 1997), the ontogenesis of Homo sapiens is divided into five main periods: infancy, childhood, adolescence, adolescence, and adulthood. A detailed description of each of them helps to assess the complexity of implementing a unique growth and development program typical of modern people. The advantages of B. Bogin's scheme, in our opinion, consist in an attempt to link the most important periods in the life of each person with objective behavioral, physiological and morphological features, the formation of which was undoubtedly of evolutionary significance.

Infancy is a period when a very young human being is inextricably linked to his mother and needs to be breastfed. The growth rate of the body, especially the increase in brain volume, at this stage of human life is the highest. Childhood is the stage at which a young individual receives nutrition and protection from adults. At this stage, puberty is not reached, although the brain continues to grow quite rapidly. The juvenile, or adolescent, period, according to B. Bogin, precedes the time of sexual development.

page 145

It is characterized by slow growth of the brain, reaching the size of an adult by the end of the stages. The adolescent or adolescent period begins with the growth spurt of puberty and ends with the cessation of the longitudinal increase in body size after the growth of the epiphysis of long bones. The main behavioral feature of this period is dictated by the achievement of puberty and adaptation to the" adult " way of acting.

Features of growth and maturation of modern children: the role of sex hormones

The process of participation in the growth rate of steroid hormones seems to be extremely important, although it is not fully understood. In the course of surveys of modern children and adolescents, the concentration levels of sex hormones - estradiol (E), testosterone (T) and their ratio (E/T) are actively studied. For example, the relationship between androgen production and somatic characteristics in children and adolescents at different points of puberty was studied in an urbanized population (see, for example, Betz and Younes, 2006).

In boys, the level of the "male" hormone T rises statistically significantly with age, especially during adolescence. The peak of the increase in the concentration of the" female " hormone E also occurs during adolescence; the E/T ratio significantly decreases over time [Ibid., p. 212].

In girls, by the end of the second childhood, the E level practically does not increase, although there is a growing trend in this direction. E activity increases significantly only by the age of 15. The level of T increases statistically significantly in 11-year-old girls compared to 8-year-olds and in 15-year-olds compared to 11-year-olds. The E / T index increases by the end of this period. In addition, even in 8-year-old modern girls, there is a significant relationship between the level of secretion of both sex hormones and body length. Indicators of bone mass and musculature development in female representatives are also determined by the concentration of both sex hormones.

In 8-year-old boys, there is no reliable association of somatic signs with any sex hormone yet. At this age, the amount of E. produced is crucial for them. By the age of 11 in girls and by the age of 12 in boys, the relationship between the secretion of sex hormones and somatic signs becomes more pronounced. This applies, in particular, to the size of the chest, which largely determines the shape of the trunk and in modern humans primarily reflect sexual dimorphism. Boys have clearly expressed correlations on this feature, especially the relationship of sagittal diameter and breast circumference with the level of androgen saturation of the body. An increased concentration of T, which has an anabolic effect, stimulates protein synthesis in muscle tissue and "building up" muscle volume starting from the period of second childhood, and especially in adolescence.

Another important indicator of sexual dimorphism is the relative and absolute width of the pelvis. As many studies show, the width of the pelvis in girls increases slightly at 8 years and noticeably at 11 years. According to L. V. Betz (1970), the level of total estrogens in 15-year-old girls and young women shows a high correlation with the crest width of the pelvis.

Relationship of constitution to hormonal status

In the context of problems of evolutionary anthropology, special attention should be paid to the data of anthropology describing the characteristics of the muscular constitutional type, which, judging by the preserved skeletal remains, can be recognized as dominant among adult "classical" Neanderthals.

Modern children of the muscular type show a greater length and body weight, a larger chest circumference (the latter has a cylindrical shape), increased fat deposition and muscle development, and a powerful backbone. The antagonist of the muscular type is the asthenic type, whose representatives, among other things, are characterized by a dolichomorphic physique. Let us recall that the linear proportionality that accompanies dolichomorphy is a distinctive feature of the early Cro-Magnon population of Europe.

In modern urban groups, the lowest concentrations of sex hormones in combination with an increased E/T index correspond to the asthenoid type at the age of 8 years. Their muscle-type male counterparts have a very high level of T secretion, the highest level of E secretion, and a relatively high E/T ratio. This trend continues for 12 and 15 years. Girls of the muscular type at 8 years of age are distinguished by a significant level of increased E secretion, the highest level of T, and the "optimal" E/T ratio. Thus, the relationship between the level of androgen secretion and the formation of a certain type of constitution can be considered proven on modern materials [Betz and Younes, 2006]. At the same time, adolescents of the muscular type (both male and female) due to the high concentration of sex hormones fall into the category of rapidly maturing.

page 146

E. N. Khrisanfova was one of the founders of paleoendocrinological research, and was the first to raise the question of the correlation between the skeletal constitution and the hormonal status of fossil hominids. One of her most recent publications is devoted to this topic. The researcher [Khrisanfova, 2004, p.27] emphasized that the biological nature of archaic man was formed at least several hundred thousand years ago as the nature of a primitive hunter-gatherer, who inherited and developed many features of the oldest hominid complex. According to E. N. Khrisanfova, the male Neanderthal morphotype is a classic example of a Paleolithic hunter formed on the path of force adaptation, which is usually associated with extreme conditions of existence (climate, economic strategy, etc.). It is assumed that the Neanderthal variant of existence in comparison with the Mousterian (meaning the Middle East region). it required a lot of physical effort and was less profitable energetically. On the scale of modern values of these traits, Neanderthal males were emphatically andromorphous: their short stature combined with a large shoulder width, and their strong musculature combined with presumably accelerated maturation. The Neanderthal skeleton was maturized. The structure is relatively dense, brachymorphic, which in modern Europeans is associated with an increased level of male sex hormones during puberty [Ibid., p. 28].

The individual development of Neanderthal children has been studied by a number of specialists. Usually, scientists focused on determining the dental age of individual individuals or on comparing size indicators, shape characteristics and massiveness with modern standards, as well as determining the age of appearance of adult morphological features. We highlight the works of A.-M. Tillier (Tillier, 1986), which compare the level of development of immature Neanderthals and archaic hominids and use primary morphological descriptions. Some studies have used morphometric and qualitative analyses of craniofacial features in under-adult representatives of the Middle-Upper Pleistocene (Minugh-Purvis, 1995).

Little is known about Neanderthal infancy. It was suggested that this period coincided in its features in the life of paleoanthropes and modern humans (Mann et al., 1996). However, the adolescent and juvenile phases of Neanderthal development were not known at all until very recently. Only recently have research data been published that may contribute to the elucidation of paleoauxological aspects. These materials should be compared with the characteristics of the Cro-Magnon population of Europe, studied in more detail.

Let us consider the available data on individuals of peripubertal age in the Middle and Upper Paleolithic epochs.

Le Moustier-1: the problem of determining biological age

The unique discovery of a Neanderthal adolescent made by Swiss archaeologist O. Hauser in the lower grotto of Le Moustier (Dordogne department, France) almost 100 years AGO has again attracted the attention of specialists in recent years. The remains stored in Berlin were scattered and partially destroyed during World War II. It was only in the 1990s that the combined storage and study of the skull and bones of the postcranial skeleton became possible. Modern views on the archaeological and anthropological features of the Mousterian find were presented in a collective monograph prepared by an international team of authors [The Neandertal..., 2005].

In our opinion, one of the most important results of the re-examination of the skeleton from Le Moustier-1 was the appearance of a new estimate of the biological age of this individual. The biological age of this "classic" Neanderthal was determined by many well-known scientists, who can hardly be blamed for their lack of qualifications. Nevertheless, the diagnostic results were too different from each other (although most of the definitions were based on the description of the degree of calcification of the teeth and the development of the lower jaw)*. The latest publication was preceded by 25 papers discussing the age of death of an individual from Le Moustier-1. The experts ' opinions ranged from rather vague: "young age" (V. Kvenstedt) or "youthful" (J. Kvenstedt). Piveto, K. Stringer, K. Gamble, E. Trinkaus, P. Shipman) to specific: called age 20 (G. H. R. von Koenigswald), 18 (J. M. Coles, E. Higgs, G. Heberer, A.-V. Vallois, H. L. Movius), 16-18 (O. Hauser), 15-18 (K. P. Oakley et al.), 16,5 (N. Minho-Purvis), 16 (A. Kizs and A. Grdlichka), 15-16 (V. Gieseler) years old. The most numerous group consisted of specialists who estimated the age of the individual from Le Mustier-1 at 15 years (B. Vandermeersch, H. Klaach, K. Schuchardt, H. Weinert, R. Gramann, H. Muller-Beck, as well as M. Buhl and A.-V. Vallois). According to Herman-

* Sex determination, although there are methodological problems here, did not raise any questions for the find from Le Moustier-1. It is unanimously recognized as male.

page 147

The Neanderthal is 14-15 years old.M. Wolpof, K. Stringer and co-authors believed that he was 13 years old. And finally, there were scientists who cautiously attributed the individual to a wider age category, among them X. Hesse and H. Ulrich was 12-18 years old, and Skinner was 13.9-19.9 years old (see Hermann, 1977; Nelson and Thompson, 2005).

I wonder what definitions of Western experts were accepted by Russian scientists. For example, Yu. A. Smirnov, based on the opinion of J.-L. Heim [Heim, 1981], indicates the age of 16-18 years [Smirnov, 1991, p. 243].A. A. Zubov names the age of 16-17 years [2004, p. 253].

E. Nelson and D. Thompson used the new data to comprehensively characterize the features of Neanderthal ontogenesis (Nelson and Thompson, 2005). It was determined that the remains from Le Moustier-1 do not belong to a child, but to a representative of an older age category. For this discovery, it was possible to combine the elements of the skull and postcranial skeleton, while other Neanderthal individuals of juvenile age are known to us from more fragmentary remains. The age of the Neanderthal from Le Moustier-1 was re-examined taking into account the degree of deterioration of the dentition, tooth cutting and calcification, growth of epiphyses of tubular bones, and parameters of the postcranial skeleton.

As a result, a paradoxical result was obtained: the dental age of the individual from Le Moustier-1 was 15.5 ± 1.25 years. However, the branches of the sciatic and pubic bones have not yet fused (in modern humans, the process of accretion of these elements is usually completed by the age of 9, although there are exceptions). In addition, the individual's body size corresponds to the parameters of a 10-year-old Homo sapiens * child.

As emphasized by E. Nelson and D. Thompson [Thompson, Nelson, 2005, p. 216], in modern humans, the age of epiphyseal growth usually correlates with puberty and adolescent growth spurt. Indeed, in modern adolescent boys, the growth spurt begins at 14-16 and ends at 15.5 - 19.5 years due to the growth of epiphyses of tubular bones. The Neanderthal from Le Moustier-1 did not have epiphyses attached, which means that he did not reach puberty or was in the initial stage of the growth process. In any case, he did not overcome the youthful growth spurt, assuming that there was such a stage in the ontogenesis of European Neanderthals.

Based on the data obtained, the authors concluded that the growth curve of European Neanderthals is fundamentally different from the development parameters characteristic of Homo sapiens. This is an important conclusion, which, in our opinion, needs a comprehensive discussion and justification, primarily in the context of information about Cro-Magnon children and adolescents.

Comparative aspects of adult development rates: Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons

To compare the features of growth processes in the European population of the Middle and early Upper Paleolithic epochs, we used various indicators. E. Nelson and D. Thompson, discussing the problem of reconstructing the body length of the Neanderthal from Le Moustier-1, turned to the method of proportions proposed by M. Feldesman for studying individuals aged 12-18 years (Feldesman, 1992). According to M. Feldesman, this method is more correct in comparison with the known Trotter and Glaser methods, although it significantly underestimates the results. We used the Feldesmann formula to calculate the body length of a Sungir adolescent, and also used data on the body length of a juvenile individual who was at a much earlier stage of evolutionary development. As you can see, the individual from Le Moustier-1 is inferior in body length to the oldest 15-year-old pithecanthropus (Homo erectus from Nariokotome), and even a younger representative of the Upper Paleolithic Cro-Magnon population (a boy from Sungir-2) (Figure 1).

D. Thompson and E. Nelson used the Feldesman body length to correlate with the average body length of Neanderthal males (162.8 cm). According to this reconstruction, the size of individual Le Moustier-1 is 85.1% of the body size of an adult Neanderthal male.

In our opinion, it is important to take into account the ratio of the absolute longitudinal dimensions of the femur and individual data on adult male Neanderthals when assessing the degree of reaching the size of an adult form. This approach, on the one hand, helps to minimize the statistical error that inevitably occurs when using reconstructed average values of indicators similar to body length, and on the other hand, it helps to take into account the individual and territorial variability of the Neanderthal population of Europe. After all, when compared with the" German "Neanderthal-1, the" French " men of Spi-2 and La Chapelle-au-Seine are more miniature. If you take into account

* The results of histological examination of the age of the Neanderthal from Le Moustier-1 are so specific that they deserve a separate analysis. We'll address them later.

page 148

Figure 1. Comparative characteristics of the body length of adolescent and juvenile hominid fossils determined by the Feldesmann method.

Homo erectus: WT-15000-15 years (according to [Feldesman, 1992]).

Homo neandhertalensis: Le Moustier-1-15.25 years old (from Thompson and Nelson, 2005);

Homo sapiens: Sungir-2 - 12 - 14 years old, Dolni Vestonice-14 - 16 - 17 years old, Dolni Vestonice-13 - 17 - 19 Dolni Vestonice-15-20 years (our calculations).

pay attention to the territorial proximity of a teenager (or a young man?) from Le Mustier-1 to the latter, it may be more correct to talk about a more complete implementation of the program for achieving the size of an adult form (see the table). However, among the Neanderthals in France, there were also larger specimens, similar to the man from La Ferracy-1. It is possible that it was in this morphotype that the genetic program of "Neanderthal growth"was more fully implemented.

How do similar indicators compare with age in Cro-Magnons? Sungir finds, including children's, adolescent and adult forms, serve as a unique comparative material. Remarkable preservation allows us to compare the sizes of different segments of the postcranial skeleton of Sungir children with the size of an adult male from Sungir-1 and get an idea of the growth rates in a specific group of the Upper Paleolithic population (Mednikova, 2000, pp. 371-372).

Analysis of X-ray images of long bones and standard osteological measurements showed that a 12-to 14-year-old boy from Sungir-2 was in the process of active onset of pubertal growth spurt. Judging by the degree of differentiation of the postcranial skeleton (unfortunately destroyed during World War II), the Neanderthal from Le Moustier-1 does not show the intensification of growth rates characteristic of the adolescent spurt. However, the adult size of the Sungirtz is comparable to the corresponding indicators of the young Mousterian, obtained when correlating with the smallest adult Neanderthal individuals (see the table).

Upper Paleolithic youths from the Vestonice Dolnia show that they have reached the size of an adult form by the age of 16-17. Thus, we can assume that the most intense longitudinal growth in length occurred in Upper Paleolithic males at 14-15 years of age (in principle, this corresponds to the development standards of modern boys).

The "classic" Neanderthal from Le Moustier-1 has not yet reached puberty at more than 15 years of age.

E. Nelson and D. Thompson emphasize that the features of somatic growth in Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans largely coincide. But some features of development were unique and characteristic only for this group of hominids. The most fundamental difference lies in the significant discrepancy between the level of maturity of the dental system and the postcranial skeleton characteristic of the Mousterian. The development of teeth outstripped the growth of the body in length by years. (Note that the advanced formation of the dental system in the light of data on the exceptional carnivory of the Neanderthal population was selectively beneficial to the phenome-

Comparative characteristics of the rate of reaching adult size in Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons (hip length), %

Le Moustier-1 (dental age 15, 25 years)

Sungir-2 (12-14 years old)

Dolni Vestonice-14 (16-17 years old)

Dolni Vestonice-13 (17-19 years old)

89,31*

84.03*4 (with epiphyses)

102,27*5

91,73*5

92,23**

75.85 (without epiphysis)

110,74*6

99,33*6

85,97***

Note. As an "adult form", we used data on: * Spi-2, * * La Chapelle-au-Seine, ***Neanderthal-1, *4 Sungir-1 (an amendment was introduced to eliminate the consequences of distortion of the longitudinal dimensions of the X-ray image), *5 the tallest adult representative of the Moravian Cro-Magnon Przedm -3, *6 to the shortest-Pshedmosti-9.

page 149

2. Correlation of biological age determinations in the Neanderthal from Le Moustier-1 and Cro-Magnon children from Sungir.

nom* (for a detailed review of the food specialization of Neanderthals, see [Dobrovolskaya, 2005]).

This thesis is confirmed when we compare the biological age determinations made from the teeth and postcranial skeletons of Mousterian and Sungir children (Figure 2). Unlike the Neanderthal youth, the Sungir children have largely identical character definitions from the teeth and skeletal bones. Moreover, in terms of size, Sungir children are noticeably ahead of children of similar age from different paleopopulations of modern humans (Mednikova, 2000). The size of the Sungir-3 backbone corresponds to that of 14-16 - year-old modern adolescents, and the parameters of the Sungir-2 backbone coincide with the skeletal development of 15-20 - year-old young people. Thus, it can be assumed that the growth rates of Sungir children are more likely to correspond to the trends characteristic of the acceleration process, which was studied in detail on the basis of surveys of children and adolescents over the past 100 years. It is noteworthy that in terms of morphology, the Sungiris were closest to their peers (according to the criteria of dental age) - urbanized and accelerated children of the XX century of Caucasian origin. It is thanks to this coincidence that we can speak about the exact correspondence of the degree of development of the dental and postcranial systems in the Sungir people to the growth rates of modern representatives of our species, which are distinguished by their large body size. In addition, unlike the European Mousterian, children of Homo sapiens of the Upper Paleolithic era showed rather the opposite trend: the growth of the body in length outstripped the development of the dental system.

The material for correlating dental and skeletal age in Homo sapiens adolescents who lived in the Paleolithic era is small, so information revealing the features of a much later, Neolithic population may be of interest. A child sample from the German Vandersleben burial ground was described by P. Carli-Thiele (1996, pp. 149-150, Abb. 7). Considering this series as a whole, the researcher draws attention to the advanced characteristics of somatic development in comparison with dental age (i.e., there is a trend that we previously noted for Cro-Magnon children). This pattern is most clearly expressed in children aged 5-12 years of the Neolithic period. But we also note that, according to some individual data provided by P. Karli-Thiele, at 13 and 14 years of age, the degree of dental development could slightly outstrip the development of the postcranial skeleton. However, this difference was not as large as that of the Neanderthal from Le Moustier-1. However, data on the duration of adolescence in European Neanderthals are not yet available, and it is not known how quickly such a gap between skeletal and dental age could have been overcome. What is clear is that the increase in body length in the Le Moustier-1 individual occurred at a later age than in the Cro-Magnons.

So, the reconstructed picture of the somatic development of a Neanderthal youth (judging by the dental maturity) of 15 years looks rather contradictory. However, it seems to us that the miniature size of the skeleton from Le Moustier-1 is unnecessarily confusing to researchers. It was noted above that the length of its femur is 92.23 % of the size of the adult Neanderthal La Chapelle-au-Seine, so the lag in the rate of increase in the body size of the individual from Le Moustier-1 may be exaggerated (see table). However, the absence of signs of synostosis, epiphysis accretion, and delayed fusion of pelvic girdle elements are unusual for this age.

Previously, based on the morphological features of adult Neanderthals with pronounced signs of andromorphy, researchers assumed that Paleoanthropes had faster maturation, including sexual maturation, compared to Cro-Magnons. But such a set of indicators, as in the Neanderthal from Le Moustier-1, means a very special hormonal status.

We have mentioned data on modern boys of the muscular constitutional variant, the region of-

* According to H. Bosheren et al., the late Neanderthal from the Marillac Cave resembled a hyena in terms of carnivory (Bocherens et al., 2001). Researchers have noted that as early as 4 years of age, the Neanderthal child's diet structure corresponded to that of an adult (Thompson and Nelson, 2000). According to M. V. Dobrovolskaya (2005), the energy expenditure of Neanderthals engaged in heavy physical labor was higher than that of Eskimos, the people with the highest energy expenditure among modern humanity. Therefore, Neanderthals from an early age needed high-calorie meat food. As can be assumed, the timely or even somewhat advanced formation of elements of the dentition was thus one of the most important factors for the successful survival of Neanderthal individuals.

page 150

have a high level of the male sex hormone T and the highest possible level of E at the age of 15. These masculinized adolescents belong to the fast-maturing category of boys. The young individual from Le Moustier-1, despite some andromorphous features (broad shoulders, like all Neanderthals), was still too far from puberty in the postcranial system.

If we had to rely only on the determination of biological age from visual descriptions of its skeleton, Neanderthals would appear as a hypersapient group, which for a very long time preserved childhood morphological features. After all, contrary to expectations, sexual maturation of the Neanderthal individual was delayed, not accelerated.

But given the opportunity to study the skull, the biological age of the Neanderthal from Le Moustier-1 can be estimated much higher. Moreover, even the authors of the latest collective monograph [The Neandertal..., 2005] do not have a single point of view on the age determined by the skull. A special opinion was expressed by experts. Tattersall and Schwartz [Tattersall and Schwartz, 2005, p. 350]; they believe that the remains from Le Moustier-1 do not belong to a young man, but to an adult at the age of approx. 20 years. According to these experts, the determining factor should be taken suture closure, and not dental maturity. I would like to add that modern sapiens are ready for reproduction at this age, but the individual from Le Moustier-1 does not seem to have reached this state.

What could have caused such a strong imbalance of different systems and parts of the body, an obvious slowdown in the rate of puberty? The answer to this question lies, perhaps, in the stunning results of the histological examination performed by X. Ramsey, D. Weaver, and H. Seidler [Ramsay, Weaver, and Seidler, 2005].

Histological sections were taken from tubular bones (humerus and femur). The average age for humerus section N 4 was obtained using the Yoshino regression formula and was 41.58 years (!) for the number of osteons and 10.02 for the number of osteon fragments. Similar results were obtained by applying the Stout regression equation-42.24 years (!), the age for section N 3 of the humerus is 52.27 and 10.47 years, respectively (according to Stout, 49.63 is the number of intact osteons). On the section of the femoral diaphysis, the number of osteons corresponds to 14.64 years, while the number of fragments of osteons corresponds to 6.08 years. So, the number of intact osteons in the humerus increases the age of the Neanderthal from Le Moustier-1 by almost 4 times, turning him from a child into a real old man (in relation to the Stone age, of course). Having obtained such unusual data, the authors paid special attention to checking the methodological foundations of their research and the taphonomic state of the samples. They consistently excluded these factors from the list of causes of the rare phenomenon.

Disease and biomechanical stress factors remained plausible explanations. Secondary hyperparathyroidism, or hyperthyroidism, could theoretically be responsible for accelerated osteon remodeling. However, if the individual from Le Moustier-1 suffered from a systemic disease, the traces of the latter should have been distributed evenly on the skeleton, affecting both the upper and lower extremities. Thus, biomechanical stress is the main cause of bone tissue rearrangements. The increased number of undisturbed osteons could be the result of excessive physical exertion on the humerus. Histologists suggest that there was a constantly repeated movement that affected the upper part of the trunk. Another first researcher finds from Le Moustier-1 X. Klaatsch drew attention to the strong development of deltoid tuberosity of the humerus [Klaatsch, 1909], so we can assume that we are talking about intensive elevator loads.

The lower limb did not experience such loads, so its "biological age" is closer to most definitions. The same can be said about the counts of most destroyed osteons -the remnants of rearranged old cells displaced by new structural units. The age of 10.2-10.47 years is very close to macroscopically determined by morphological criteria of the postcranial skeleton.

Features of the juvenile period in the European Neanderthal: taxonomic differences or environmental influence

Data on the features of the Neanderthal skeleton from Le Moustier-1 can be correlated with the scheme of B. Bogin. The analysis allows us to draw the following conclusions:

1) the growth of the brain, as well as the differentiation of teeth (corresponding to the juvenile or adolescent period of modern man), are apparently completed;

2) the growth spurt of puberty has not yet begun (corresponding to the juvenile or, judging by the differentiation of the skeleton, even the infantile stage of modern man);

3) hypertrophy of the musculoskeletal relief and" wear and tear " of the skeleton, revealed by histological method, indicate that the individual obtained his own food (as opposed to "modern" childhood, a juvenile or adolescent characteristic);

page 151

3. Correlation of biological age determinations in Neanderthals from Le Moutier-1 and Teshik-Tash.

Refer to Figure 2 for the technical description.

4) the intensity of biomechanical loads could contribute to the premature development of aging processes(!) bone tissue (as opposed to the modern period of childhood?).

How specific is this pattern to Neanderthals? Will a representative of modern Homo sapiens, finding himself in unfavorable conditions that require him to exert long-term physical strength, demonstrate a similar inconsistency in the rate of age-related changes in different body systems?

This question is partly answered by referring to the characteristics of a Teshik-Tash child. The physiological bone age of this young Neanderthal was studied in detail by such a prominent specialist as D. G. Rokhlin [1949, pp. 109-111]. His observations have not lost their scientific significance even after half a century.

The identity of the Teshik-tash skeleton to a child was determined by the size of the bones, the state of ossification of the skeleton, and the nature of the dental system. D. G. Rokhlin initially assumed that the norms for determining age developed in relation to modern humans could not be unconditionally applied to the Neanderthal. The rate of development of the skeleton and dental system, as well as the nature of differentiation and the ratio of individual elements could differ significantly from modern ones.

According to the state of ossification of the Atlas, according to modern criteria, teshik-tash was 7-9 years old (the anterior and posterior arches shortly fused with the lateral masses). Examination of the bone ring around the obturator orifice, more precisely, the place of convergence of the pubic and sciatic bones, allowed us to establish that synostosis ended here about a year before the child's death. D. G. Rokhlin described the microstructure in the synostosis area, characterized by a large number of bone plates. Such a phase of "physiological callus" is typical for normal modern children aged 7-9 years. (It is noteworthy that synostosis of pelvic elements has not yet occurred in the Neanderthal from Le Moustier-1.)

The Teshik-Tash child already had an ossification point for the small femoral mound (the part of the small mound that ossifies due to the diaphysis is scalloped); this ossification phase begins at the age of 8. Pneumatization of the frontal sinus and temporal bone system also corresponds to the current age of 7-9 years.

The Teshik-Tash baby was in the phase of replacing its baby teeth with permanent ones. Both first molars and all four incisors emerged from the permanent teeth in the lower jaw. The roots of the first milk molar are resorbed under the pressure of a growing tooth of a new generation, as are the roots of milk canines. The changes in the upper jaw are similar.

D. G. Rokhlin concluded that the condition of the teeth corresponds to the current age of 9 years or slightly older. According to him, the condition of already erupted permanent teeth corresponds to the bone age, and the condition of still untried teeth indicates that in the next age period, the loss of milk teeth and the appearance of permanent teeth should have occurred earlier than in modern adolescents. According to the condition of untreated permanent teeth, the Teshik-Tash child corresponded to a modern child of 9-10 years. The main conclusion of D. G. Rokhlin is that the Neanderthal individual from the Teshik-Tash grotto showed the same parallelism between bone and dental age as in modern children of the corresponding age.

Thus, a comparison of the biological age indicators of two immature Neanderthal forms allows us to make sure that the uneven development characteristic of the individual from Le Moustier-1 is most likely not a reflection of its taxonomic rank (Figure 3). The disharmonious maturation of this European Neanderthal could be due to the specifics of its lifestyle, extremely harsh pressure external conditions. However, a weak advance in the rate of tooth development is also observed in Teshik-tash, which does not exclude the presence of some common genetic prerequisites for the implementation of such a pattern of development in Neanderthals (see Figure 2).

Conclusion

A summary review of the results of the survey of the most complete juvenile Neanderthal skeleton from Le Moustier-1 suggests that it has a very specific hormonal profile compared to modern adolescents of the same age. The marked delay in growth spurt and puberty, as well as the inconsistency of estimates of biological age in different parts of the skeleton, indicate an intense increase in the growth rate of the skeleton.

page 152

the impact on the body of the external environment, which inhibited the implementation of the genetic program of accelerated somatic development, which is generally characteristic of muscular constitutional variants, to which, according to experts, European Neanderthals belonged.

Without any exaggeration, "classical" Neanderthals in the late period of their existence in Europe (in this case, ca. 40 thousand years AGO) survived at the limit of their physical capabilities. Their children aged (if we understand the accelerated transformation of osteons under the influence of a huge biomechanical load as the beginning of aging) before reaching the stage of puberty. In this respect, they probably differed from the representatives of Asian Neanderthals (Teshik-Tash), who demonstrate quite modern rates of differentiation of the dental and skeletal systems.

It seems probable, and this assumption is not so hypothetical, that the intensive mode of existence of late European Neanderthals, which adversely affected the growth and development characteristics of adolescents and young men characteristic of this group, could have been the main reason for their disappearance.

List of literature

Betz L. V. Estrogenic activity of the body and the state of some morphological signs in children in normal and pathological conditions: Dis. ... cand. biol. nauk, Moscow, 1970, 187 p.

Betz L. V., Yunes V. V. Morphohormonal relationships in the peripubertal period of human ontogenesis // Bulletin of Anthropology: Almanac, Moscow: Orgservis2000, 2006. 14. - p. 211-216.

Dobrovolskaya M. V. Chelovek i ego pishchiya [Man and his food], Moscow: Nauch. mir Publ., 2005, 368 p.

Zubov A. A. Paleoanthropological pedigree of man. Moscow: Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2004, 551 p.

Mednikova M. B. Sravnitel'nyj analiz roentgenostrukturnykh osobennostei sungirtsev: paleoekologicheskie aspekty [Comparative analysis of X-ray structural features of the Sungir people: paleoecological aspects]. Verkhnepaleoliticheskiy chelovek: ekologicheskie i evolyutsionnye aspekty issledovaniya [Upper Paleolithic man: ecological and evolutionary aspects of research].

Rokhlin D. G. Nekotorye dannye roentgenologicheskogo issledovaniya detskogo skeleta iz grota Teshik-Tash, Yuzhny Uzbekistan [Some data from the X-ray study of a child's skeleton from the Teshik-Tash grotto, Southern Uzbekistan].

Smirnov Yu. A. Mousterian burials of Eurasia: The emergence of funeral practices and the basics of tafology, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1991, 341 p.

Khrisanfova E. N. Antropologo-endocrinologicheskie issledovaniya kak sposob znaniya biosotsialnoy prirody cheloveka (istoricheskaya phylogeniya) [Anthropological and endocrinological research as a way of cognizing the human biosocial nature (historical phylogeny)]. Moscow: Flinta; Nauka Publ., 2004, pp. 23-39.

Bogin B. Evolutionary hypothesis for human childhood // Yearbook of Physical Anthropology. - 1997. - Vol. 40. -P. 63 - 89.

Bocherens H., Billion D., Mariotti A., Toussant M. New isotopic evidence of dietary habits of Neandertals from Belgium // J. of Human Evolution. - 2001. - Vol. 40. - P. 497 - 505.

Carli-Thiele P. Spuren von Mangelerkrankungen an steinzeitlichen Kinderskeletten. - Goettingen: Verlag Erich Goltze, 1996. - 267 S.

Feldesman M.R. Femur/stature ratio and estimates of stature in children // American J. of Physical Anthropology. -1992. - Vol. 87. - P. 447 - 459.

Gurven M., Walker R. Energetic demand of multiple dependents and the evolution of slow human growth // Proceedings of the Royal Society. Ser. B. - 2006. - Vol. 273. -P. 835 - 841.

Heim J.-L. Le dimorphisme sexuel du crane des hommes de Neandertal // L'Anthropologic (Paris). - 1981. - Vol. 85, N 2. - P. 193 - 218; 1982. - Vol. 85/86, N 3. - P. 451 - 469.

Hermann B. Uber die Reste des postcranialen Skeletes des Neandertalers von Le Moustier // Zeitschrift fur Morphologie undAnthropologie. - 1977. - Vol. 68. - P. 129 - 149.

Klaatsch H. Diagnose des Skellets // Archiv fur Anthropologic. - 1909. - Vol. 35. - S. 293 - 297.

Mann A., Lampl M., Monge J.M. The evolution of childhood: dental evidence for the appearance of human maturation patterns (abstract) // American J. of Physical Anthropology. - 1996. - Suppl. 21. -P. 156.

Minugh-Purvis N. Odontogenetic patterning through childhood and adolescence in the mandible of the late Pleistocene Homo sapiens (abstract) // American J. of Physical Anthropology. - 1995. - Suppl. 20. - P. 55.

Nelson A. J., Thompson J.L. Le Moustier 1 and the interpretation of stages in Neandertal growths and development // The Neandertal Adolescent Le Moustier 1. New Aspects, New Results / Ed. H. Ullrich. - Berlin: [s.1.], 2005. - P. 328 - 338. -(Berliner Beitrage zur Vor- und Fruhgeschichte, N.F.; Bd. 12).

Ramsay H.L., Weaver D.S., Seidler H. Bone histology in the Le Moustier Neandertal child // The Neandertal Adolescent Le Moustier 1. New Aspects, New Results / Ed. H. Ullrich. -Berlin: [s.1.], 2005. - P. 282 - 292. - (Berliner Beitrage zur Vor- und Fruhgeschichte, N.F.; Bd. 12).

Tattersall I., Schwartz J. Le Moustier and Homo neanderthalensis // The Neandertal Adolescent Le Moustier 1. New Aspects, New Results / Ed. H. Ullrich. - Berlin: [s.1.], 2005. - P. 349 - 355. - (Berliner Beitrage zur Vor- und Friihgeschichte, N.F.; Bd. 12).

Thompson J.L., Nelson A.L. Estimated age at death and sex of Le Moustier 1 // The Neandertal Adolescent Le Moustier 1. New Aspects, New Results / Ed. H. Ullrich. -Berlin: [s.1.], 2005. - P. 208 - 222. - (Berliner Beitrage zur Vor- und Fruhgeschichte, N.F.; Bd. 12).

Tillier A.-M. Quelques aspects de l'ontogenese du squelette cranien des Neandertaliens // Anthropos. - Brno, 1986. -Vol. 23. -P. 207 - 216.

The Neandertal Adolescent Le Moustier-1. New Aspects, New Results / Ed. H. Ullrich. - Berlin: [s.1.], 2005. - 354 p. -(Berliner Beitrage zur Vor- und Fruhgeschichte, N.F.; Bd. 12).

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 26.02.07.

page 153

Permanent link to this publication: