19© 2008 The Anthropological Society of Nippon ANTHROPOLOGICAL SCIENCE Vol. 117(1), 19–31, 2009 A partial distal humerus from the Middle Pleistocene deposits at Bodo, Middle Awash, Ethiopia José Miguel CARRETERO 1,3*, Yohannes HAILE–SELASSIE2, Laura RODRIGUEZ 1, Juan Luis ARSUAGA 3,4 1Laboratorio de Evolución Humana, Departamento Ciencias Históricas y Geografía, Universidad de Burgos, Brugos 09001, Spain 2Department of Physical Anthropology, The Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA 3Centro UCM–ISCIII de Investigación sobre Evolución y Comportamiento Humanos, Madrid 28029, Spain 4Departamento de Paleontología, Facultad de Ciencias Geológicas, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid 28040, Spain Received 12 April 2007; accepted 1 May 2008 Abstract The Bodo partial distal humerus with an approximate age of 0.6 million years is one of the very few postcranial remains from the African Middle Pleistocene. Despite its fragmentary status, comparisons of the Bodo humerus with other fossil hominid and modern human samples reveal some insights into African hominids of this time period. The Bodo partial humerus displays distal humeral features very common in the European Middle and Late Pleistocene hominids, such as a relatively wide olecranon fossa and relatively thin lateral and medial pillars adjacent to the fossa. In Africa, the postcranial fossils from the Middle and Late Pleistocene exhibit a surprising amount of morphological diversity. The presence of ‘typically’ Neandertal traits in some, but not all, Homo ergaster, H. Rhod- esiensis, and early H. sapiens, together with the greater similarity of some African specimens than oth- ers to recent humans, highlights the problem of interpreting the anatomical variation that characterizes African fossil humans. An analysis of frequency–based patterning can help us understand this striking variation. Populations of Middle Pleistocene African hominids, such as the one represented by the Bodo specimen studied here, may have been variable, and their skeletons may have contained a mosaic of modern and non–modern human traits. Key words: Human evolution, postcranial skeleton, Middle Pleistocene, Africa Introduction The Bodo partial distal humerus (BOD–VP–1/2), one of the very few postcranial remains from the African Middle Pleistocene, was recovered in 1990 from the surface of the upper Bodo Sand Unit (Clark et al., 1994). It was found ap- proximately 100 m north of the original Bodo cranium dis- covery at approximately the same stratigraphic horizon. Ar/ Ar ages, biostratigraphy, and tephrochronology indicate that the Pleistocene Bodo hominids are approximately 0.6 mil- lion years old (Renne, 2000). The age, stratigraphy, and ar- chaeological assemblages of the site are discussed in Clark et al. (1994) and de Heinzelin et al. (2000). We present here a brief report based on work on the orig- inal specimen housed in the Paleoanthropology Laboratory at the National Museum of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa. Despite its fragmentary status, several relevant variables can be di- rectly measured on the specimen or can be reasonably esti- mated. Our comparisons of the Bodo humerus with African and European fossil hominid and modern human samples re- veal some insights into the variation and affinities of the Af- rican hominids of the Middle Pleistocene. Materials and Methods We compared the Bodo distal humerus with the available humeral specimens of Homo from the Early, Middle, and Late Pleistocene of Africa and Europe. The Asian fossil ev- idence for this anatomical region (distal humerus) is limited to the recently published H. georgicus postcranial elements from Dmanisi, Georgia (Lordkipanidze et al., 2007). Never- theless, the variables we use in this analysis are not available for the Dmanisi humeri, and our comparisons are based on the specimens and samples listed in Table 1. Among the fossil samples in our comparisons we included some original specimens from the Sima de los Huesos Mid- dle Pleistocene site, in the Sierra de Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain), with a very similar chronology to the Bodo homi- nids. New high–precision dates on the recently discovered speleothem overlaying the human bones within the Sima de los Huesos (SH) yielded finite dates ranging from 563 to 668 ka (average 600 ka) (Bischoff et al., 2007). A conserva- tive approach by the authors (Bischoff et al., 2007) was to consider the lower limit ages as the minimum age of the spe- leothem, a range from 513 to 571 ka (average 530 ka). This minimum age is consistent with the faunal analysis of the site. The SH rodent fauna suggest that the site would corre- spond to about Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 15/16 (500– * Correspondence to: José Miguel Carretero, Laboratorio de Evolu- ción Humana, Departamento Ciencias Históricas y Geografía, Universidad de Burgos, Edificio I + D + i, Plaza de Misael Bañuelos s/n, Burgos 09001, Spain. E-mail: jmcarre@ubu.es Published online 1 August 2008 in J-STAGE (www.jstage.jst.go.jp) DOI: 10.1537/ase.070413 20 J.M. CARRETERO ET AL. ANTHROPOLOGICAL SCIENCE T ab le 1 . C o m p ar at iv e sa m p le s S p ec im en /s am p le S it e S p ec ie s D at e R ef er en ce R ep o si to ry K N M -W T 1 5 0 0 0 ( ca st ) W es t T u rk an a (K en y a) H . er g a st er 1 .6 M a W al k er a n d L ea k ey , 1 9 9 3 L ab o ra to ry f o r H u m an E v o lu ti o n ar y S tu d ie s, B er k el ey , C A L , (U S A ) G o m b o re I B 7 5 9 4 M el k a K u n tu re G o m b o re I (E th io p ia ) H o m o s p . 1 .3 – 0 .7 8 M a C h av al li o n e t al ., 1 9 7 7 S en u t, 1 9 8 1 N at io n al M u se u m o f E th io p ia , A d d is A b ab a (E th io p ia ) S im a d e lo s H u es o s S im a d e lo s H u es o s (A ta p u er ca , S p ai n ) H . h ei d el b er g en si s 0 .5 3 M a A rs u ag a et a l. , 1 9 9 7 b , c U C M -I S C II I In st it u te f o r H u m an E v o lu ti o n a n d B eh av io r o f M ad ri d a n d L ab o ra to ry o f H u m an E v o lu ti o n , U n iv er si ty o f B u rg o s, ( S p ai n ) K ab w e K ab w e (Z am b ia ) H . rh o d es ie n si s 0 .3 M a P y cr af t et a l. , 1 9 2 8 N at u ra l H is to ry M u se u m o f L o n d o n ( U K ) N ea n d er ta l sa m p le V ar io u s si te s H . n ea n d er th a le n si s 0 .1 2 5 – 0 .0 4 M a C ar re te ro e t al ., 1 9 9 7 S ev er al s it es K H S 1 -3 0 a n d 1 -3 1 O m o K ib is h ( E th io p ia ) H . sa p ie n s 0 .1 M a D ay e t al ., 1 9 9 1 N at io n al M u se u m o f E th io p ia , A d d is A b ab a (E th io p ia ) S k h u l IV ( ca st ) S k h u l (I sr ae l) H . sa p ie n s 0 .1 M a M cC o w n a n d K ei th , 1 9 3 9 C as t at t h e I. P. H , P ar is ( F ra n ce ) S ep ú lv ed a p o o le d s ex ( n = 3 0 ) (a ) S ep ú lv ed a (S eg o v ia , S p ai n ) H . sa p ie n s M ed ie v al B y t h e A u th o rs C o m p lu te n se U n iv er si ty , M ad ri d ( S p ai n ) S an J o sé p o o le d s ex ( n = 4 5 ) (a ) B u rg o s (S p ai n ) H . sa p ie n s C o n te m p o ra ry B y t h e A u th o rs L ab o ra to ry o f H u m an E v o lu ti o n ( U n iv er si ty o f B u rg o s, S p ai n ) S an P ab lo M o n as te ry ( b ) (N = 1 1 0 ; 5 5 m al es , 5 5 f em al es ) B u rg o s (S p ai n ) H . sa p ie n s M ed ie v al B y t h e A u th o rs L ab o ra to ry o f H u m an E v o lu ti o n ( U n iv er si ty o f B u rg o s, S p ai n ) H am an n T o d d A fr o am er ic an s (c ) (N = 6 3 ; 3 8 m al es , 2 5 f em al es ) C le v el an d , O h io ( U S A ) H . sa p ie n s C o n te m p o ra ry B y t h e A u th o rs T h e C le v el an d M u se u m o f N at u ra l H is to ry ( O h io , U S A ) A ra n d a d e D u er o m al es ( n = 8 0 ) B u rg o s (S p ai n ) H . sa p ie n s C o n te m p o ra ry B y t h e A u th o rs L ab o ra to ry o f H u m an E v o lu ti o n ( U n iv er si ty o f B u rg o s, S p ai n ) C o im b ra P o rt u g u es e (c ) (N = 4 1 6 ; 2 0 8 m al es , 2 0 8 f em al es ) C o im b ra ( P o rt u g al ) H . sa p ie n s C o n te m p o ra ry T h em id o , 1 9 2 6 In st it u to d e A n tr o p o lo g ia o f th e C o im b ra U n iv er si ty (P o rt u g al ) A ll f o ss il s p ec im en s w er e m ea su re d b y t h e au th o rs . (a ) S ep ú lv ed a an d S an J o sé C em et er y s am p le s ar e o f u n k n o w n s ex . (b ) S an P ab lo i s an a rc h ae o lo g ic al s am p le o f v er y c o m p le te s k el et o n s se x ed i n t h e L E H o f B u rg o s b as ed o n c ra n ia l, d en ta l an d p o st cr an ia l ev id en ce . (c ) H am an n -T o d d a n d C o im b ra P o rt u g u es e sa m p le s ar e k o w n s ex s am p le s. PARTIAL HUMERUS FROM UPPER BODO SANDS, ETHIOPIA 21Vol. 117, 2009 600 ka). Among the larger fauna, the SH population of Ur- sus deningeri and Panthera leo fossilis resembles more closely the specimens from Mauer, Mosbach, or Arago (MIS 12–16) which approximately date to between 450 and 600 ka based on faunal and radiometric criteria (García et al., 1997; García, 2003). This compatibility between the new age estimates determined for the speleothem and the bios- tratigraphic indicators from the site provides strong evidence that the radiometric results should be considered conclusive for a minimum age of 530 ka (MIS 14) for the SH sediments (Bischoff et al., 2007). Description and reconstruction of the BOD–VP–1/2 humerus The Bodo humeral fragment comprises approximately the distal third of the diaphysis (Figure 1). From a descriptive point of view, humeral length can be divided into percentag- es from distal (0%) to proximal (100%) following Trinkaus et al. (1994). By direct anatomical comparison with com- plete humeri, the Bodo specimen approximately represents the segment between the 35% level proximally (mid–distal shaft) and midway between the 10% and 5% levels distally (mid–olecranon fossa) (Figure 2). The maximum preserved length of BOD–VP–1/2 is 94.0 mm and its maximum preserved breadth at the distal break is 51.0 mm. Although the distal articular surface is missing, the proximal half of the olecranon fossa and the medial and lateral pillars adjacent to the fossa are well pre- served. Therefore, the olecranon fossa breadth and the thick- nesses of the medial and lateral pillars can be measured with precision (Figure 2). The proximal fracture of the diaphysis is irregular in shape along the first 25 mm where only the posterior wall and small portion of the medial wall of the shaft are pre- served (Figure 1). No measurement can be taken along this short segment. Distal to this, the section of the diaphysis is complete and can be measured accurately. We have named this second position the proximal section level, to distin- guish this position from the most proximal preserved point, 25 mm above (Figure 2). The cross–sectional shape at the proximal section level is subtriangular (Figure 1), the shaft’s anteroposterior diameter is 19.6 mm, the mediolateral diam- eter is 21.0 mm, and the perimeter is 65 mm. The shaft index is 93.3%. For our comparative analysis, it is important to exactly lo- cate the position of the proximal section level of BOD–VP– 1/2 following the terminology of Trinkaus et al. (1994), and more specifically to determine the minimum shaft perimeter (MSP) of the specimen. Anatomically, the proximal section level is for certain included between the 25% and 35% lev- els. In our experience with measuring complete humeri, the MSP is always included between the 30% and 40% levels, and in the majority of specimens the MSP position coincides with the 35% level. Nevertheless, along this segment, and in general along the distal shaft, the diameters and perimeter vary very little given the absence of significant muscular markings. Normally, an evenly tapering diaphysis is seen distal to the deltoid tuberosity. For example, it was assumed that the 43% values for areas and second moments of area are the average of the 35% and 50% values (Trinkaus and Churchill, 1999). Following these morphological observations, we can con- sider the perimeter of the Bodo proximal fracture level (65 mm) as a maximum value for the MSP, since the real value would be equal or slightly smaller, and would be locat- ed somewhat higher in the shaft. The lack of shaft variation between the 25% and 40% levels in normal modern humeri suggests that in no case would the real MSP of the Bodo Figure 1. Anterior (A), posterior (B), superior (C), lateral (D) and distal (E) views of the BOD–VP–1/2 humerus. Anterior and posterior views taken on the original. Superior, lateral and distal views taken on cast. For the superior view (cross–section), anterior is up and lateral is to the left. Scales in cm. Figure 2. (I) Sketch of the rough position of Bodo specimen in a silhouette of a complete humerus divided in percentages of length from distal to proximal following Trinkaus et al. (1994). (II) Sketch of Bodo humerus showing the position of the most proximally preserved point (1) and proximal section level (2) were the cross–section was studied. (III) Sketch of Bodo humerus showing the variables taken in the distal region: LPT, lateral pillar thickness; MPT, medial pillar thickness; OFB, olecranon fossa breatdth. 22 J.M. CARRETERO ET AL. ANTHROPOLOGICAL SCIENCE specimen be much less than 65 mm, perhaps 64 or 63 mm at the least. Therefore, in our analysis, we adopted this range of variation (63–65 mm) for the MSP of the Bodo humerus. Another important variable for our comparative purposes is the biepicondylar breadth (BB). As the distal end is miss- ing, we estimated the BB breadth of BOD–VP–1/2 based on preserved shaft dimensions, specifically on the MSP taken at the proximal section level (63–65 mm). Humeral shaft di- mensions are to some degree developmentally and environ- mentally plastic, so they may not be the best dimensions to estimate distal epiphyseal size or to standardize for overall bone size. Nevertheless, in the Bodo specimen, the shaft is the only preserved region. Due to the importance of this es- timation for our comparative purposes, linear regression equations of BB (dependent variable) on MSP (independent variable) were computed using two chronologically differ- ent recent human samples of balanced sex: the San Pablo Monastery and the Coimbra modern human collections (Table 1). Furthermore, we computed a linear regression from the seven distal humeri of SH (Table 2). Based on the three different regression equations, we esti- mated the BB of BOD–VP–1/2 using our accepted minimum (63 mm) and maximum (65 mm) values of MSP (Table 3). The two modern human–based regression lines produced close results for both shaft perimeter estimates (Table 3). The average of all predicted values was 60.2 mm and the range of 95% confidence limits for all estimations was 58.2– 62.4 mm. On the other hand, the SH regression line predict- ed 61.9 and 63.0 mm for the minimum and maximum MSP values, respectively (mean 62.5 mm), as well as wider con- fidence limits that taken together range between 59.6 and 65.6 mm (Table 3). The average of the modern (60.2) and SH (62.5) predicted means was 61.4 mm. To further evaluate to some degree the validity of the two modern human–based equations, we estimated the known BBs of seven humeri from the SH collection that include male and female specimens. As seen by the residuals in Table 4, the two modern linear regressions underestimated virtually all the SH specimens, and the mean residual of both was 2.6 mm (1.6 mm for San Pablo and 3.6 mm for Coim- bra). Therefore, compared with the Coimbra and San Pablo specimens, the seven distal humeri from SH have a larger BB than expected for a modern human with the same mid– distal shaft perimeters. The question arises as to whether, by using the Coimbra and San Pablo regression lines, we are also underestimating the BB of the Bodo specimen (2.6 mm in average), and whether the predicted values based on the fossil sample (SH regression line) are better than the predic- tions based on recent European samples. The Bodo homi- nids could be much closer in body size and skeletal robustic- ity to other Middle Pleistocene humans than to recent Europeans (Grine et al., 1995; Arsuaga et al., 1999; Pearson, 2000), as is the case, for example, with the Bodo cranium, which exceeds modern humans in facial size and vault ro- busticity. If we accept this possibility, probably 62 or 63 mm rather than 60 mm is a better estimate for the BB of the Bodo humerus. Finally, we made comparisons of overall size and shape by superimposing the Bodo humerus outline with that of the SH specimens. This indicates that the shaft dimensions at the proximal section level, the olecranon fossa breadth, and the medial and lateral pillar thicknesses of the Bodo humerus are slightly larger than in H–VI and H–XV (BB is 61 and 61.1 mm, respectively) and slightly smaller than in H–III, H–II and H–X (BB is 66, 65 and 63 mm, respectively) (Figure 3). The mean BB of these five SH specimens is 63.3 mm with a range of 61–66 mm (Table 4). We excluded H–XI and H–XIV from the SH mean calculation because they are clearly smaller than Bodo. Here, we have to remem- ber that distally, the maximum preserved breadth of the Bodo specimen is 51 mm, and in no case is the BB of the specimen going to be lower than 60 mm (virtually the mean Table 2. Basic statistics of linear regression formulae computed to estimate the biepicondylar breadth of BOD-VP-1/2 (in mm) Samplesa Valid cases MSP (Mean ± SD) BB (Mean ± SD) R Regression equation R2 Std.err. Coimbra 416 61.8 ± 5.5 57.7 ± 5.3 0.78 BB = 11.301 + 0.749 × MSP 0.61 3.268 San Pablo 96 60.8 ± 5.5 59.1 ± 4.6 0.83 BB = 17.195 + 0.685 × MSP 0.68 2.584 Sima de Los Huesos 7 61.9 ± 5.4 61.3 ± 3.5 0.83 BB = 27.986 + 0.539 × MSP 0.62 2.352 a Samples of balanced sex, except for Sima de los Huesos sample where sex of the specimens is undetermined. All formulae were derived from the pooled-sex sample. MSP, minimum shaft perimeter; BB, biepicondylar breadth; R, Pearson’s correlation coefficient; R2, coefficient of determination; Std. err., stan- dard error of the estimate. Table 3. Estimated biepicondylar breadth of the Bodo humerus derived from three different linear regression formulae and using the minimum and maximum values of the independent variable (MSP) accepted for the specimen Regression MSP = 63 mm MSP = 65 mm Predicted BB 95% CL Prediced BB 95% CL Coimbra sample 58.5 58.2–58.9 60.0 59.7–60.4 San Pablo sample 60.4 59.8–60.9 61.7 61.1–62.4 Mean of estimated values 59.5 — 60.9 — Sima de Los Huesos sample 61.9 59.6–64.2 63.0 60.4–65.6 MSP, minimum shaft perimeter; BB, biepicondylar breadth; CL, confidence interval for the mean BB at a given MSP (in this case, at 63 and 65 mm). PARTIAL HUMERUS FROM UPPER BODO SANDS, ETHIOPIA 23Vol. 117, 2009 predicted value with the two modern regression lines). In conclusion, due to the difficulty in adopting a single value for the BB of Bodo, and taking into account the possi- ble variation in the MSP of the specimen, as well as the re- sults of the three regression lines and the metric comparisons with the SH humeri, a range of 60–66 mm for the BB of the Bodo humerus is considered reasonable. We strongly sus- pect that the BB of BOD–VP–1/2 was probably between 62 and 63 mm. Nevertheless, to be cautious, we adopted the broader range of 60–66 mm in our comparative analysis. Finally, to aid in the evaluation of the sex of the fossil specimen, we compared the MSP and estimated BB of the Bodo humerus with large European and American samples of known sex—most of them measured by us (Table 5). Both the MSP and the accepted range of BB are clearly co- incident with the male and well above the female values (Table 5). This sexual diagnosis is also suggested by the cross–sectional geometrical parameters, all of them well within the male ranges (see below). Therefore, based on our comparative analysis, BOD–VP–1/2 is more likely attribut- ed to a male than to a female individual. Of course, we do not know the humeral size distribution as it relates to sex in a 600,000–year–old human population in the Horn of Africa, so these results must be interpreted carefully. This is be- cause, as we noted above, some contemporary individuals presumably from the same population, such as the Bodo cra- nium which is unassociated with postcranial elements, ex- ceed modern humans in facial size and vault robusticity. Comparative Analysis Few standard measurements can be measured on this specimen. Apart from the estimated BB, three more vari- ables can be directly measured in the distal region, namely olecranon fossa breadth and medial and lateral pillar thick- nesses (Figure 2, Table 6, Table 7). These three variables are of some evolutionary interest. In the distal humeral samples of SH (H. heidelbergensis) and the Neandertals (H. neander- thalensis), a high frequency of a relatively wide olecranon fossa and thin lateral and medial pillars adjacent to the fossa were found (Carretero et al., 1997). In our observation, al- though these morphological characters are also found in modern human humeri, in all the samples that we have stud- ied they appear in a significantly low frequency (Table 6). With caution, these two traits can be examined in the Bodo humeral fragment. Using our estimated range for the BB of the Bodo humerus (60–66 mm), the minimum and maximum olecranon fossa index values of this specimen are high (47.0–51.0). This range is very similar to the SH and Neandertal sample means (Table 7). At the same time, com- pared to our modern human samples, the medial pillar is nar- row both as a proportion of the olecranon fossa breadth Table 4. Mimimum shaft perimeter and biepicondylar breadth of the SH humeri and raw residuals of their estimated BB using San Pablo and Coimbra regression lines (in mm) SH specimen MSP BB San Pablo residuals Coimbra residuals Mean residuals H-XI 51 56.7 4.6 7.2 5.8 H-XIV 59 56.2 −1.4 0.7 −0.4 H-XV 60 61.1 2.8 4.8 3.8 H-VI 63.5 61 0.3 2.1 1.2 H-III 65 66 4.3 6.0 5.1 H-II 67 65 1.1 3.5 2.3 H-X 68 63.4 −0.4 1.1 0.3 Mean 61.9 61.3 1.6 3.6 2.6 SD 5.4 3.5 Residual: difference between the observed and expected values. Positive residual means underestimated real observation. MSP, minimum shaft perimeter; BB, biepicondylar breadth. Figure 3. Outline of the Bodo humerus silhouetted over the humeri from Sima de los Huesos (SH) to compare its general dimen- sions. Dark line indicates the 35% level in the three SH complete spec- imens. Biepicondylar breadths of the SH specimens are as given in Table 4. Scale in cm. Table 5. Male and female distal humerus epiphyseal dimensions in several human samples of known sex Biepicondylar breadth Minimum shaft permiter Males Females Males Females Coimbra (Themido, 1926) 61.9 ± 3.2 (207) 53.4 ± 2.9 (209) 65.9 ± 3.7 (207) 57.7 ± 3.5 (209) Aranda de Duero Males 60.3 ± 4.1 (80) — 66.8 ± 3.1 (65) — Native Americansa 60.6 ± 3.6 (113) 54.2 ± 3.4 (88) — — Hamann-Todd Afroamericans 64.9 ± 3.6 (42) 54.7 ± 3.0 (19) 68.3 ± 3.9 (27) 57.4 ± 4.0 (5) San Pablo Monastery 61.4 ± 3.9 (52) 56.0 ± 3.3 (41) 63.5 ± 5.0 (56) 57.6 ± 4.2 (47) BOD-VP-1/2 estimated range Between 60 and 66 mm Between 63 and 65 mm a Native American sample from Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley (USA), measured by Yohannes Haile-Selassie. Numbers in parentheses indicate sample sizes. 24 J.M. CARRETERO ET AL. ANTHROPOLOGICAL SCIENCE (Figure 4) and relative to the estimated BB (Figure 5, Table 7). Therefore, in these features, the Bodo distal hu- merus is more similar to the SH hominids and the Neander- tals than to our modern human samples. On the contrary, the Kabwe distal humerus displays the same olecranon fossa and pillar proportions that characterize the majority of mod- ern humans (Carretero et al., 1997) (Table 7). The KNM– WT 15000F West Turkana juvenile humerus displays a small olecranon fossa relative to BB, as well as modern hu- man–like medial and lateral pillar proportions. Finally, the distal humerus from Melka Kunture, Gombore IB, attributed to Homo (Chavallion et al., 1977; Senut, 1981) also displays modern human proportions in these two traits. As we are working with trait frequencies in Middle Pleis- tocene populations, the significance of the morphology of an isolated African specimen is not obvious relative to the Eu- ropean samples. Three out of the four African Homo distal humeri (KNM–WT 15000, Gomboré IB, and Kabwe) rang- ing in age from 1.5 to 0.2 Ma (Table 1) display humeral dis- tal proportions more common in modern humans, while only Bodo shows the pattern more common in the European Mid- dle Pleistocene hominids and the Neandertals. Besides the AP and ML shaft diameters and the perimeter (see above), cross–sectional parameters can also be studied at the proximal section level (Table 8, Table 9). Generalized thickening of cortical bone is a well–known cranial and postcranial characteristic of all representatives of Pleis- tocene Homo, except H. sapiens, in which this trait is not re- flected on the entire skeleton. The great cortical thickness of the Bodo humerus was noted by Clark et al. (1994) as one of Table 6. Comparisons of the linear dimensions of the distal Bodo humerus BB MPThick. LPThick. OFB KNM-WT 15000F 55.0a 11.8 17.3 21.0 Gombore IB-7594 68.7 11.6 15.6 28.0 BOD-VP-1/2 60–66b 9.0 18.0 31.0 Kabwe 62.0 11.9 18.4 26.1 Skhul IV 65.4 14.2 18.6 30.4 Omo Kibish I-r (KHS-1-30) — 11.5 19.9 28.5 Omo Kibish I-l (KHS-1-31) 62.6 12.0 20.6 30.0 Cro-Magnon 1 63.4 14.0 20.7 27.4 Sima de los Huesos 60.0 ± 4.8 (8) 8.6 ± 1.3 (9) 15.7 ± 2.0 (6) 29.4 ± 1.7 (9) Neandertals 63.2 ± 3.7 (17) 7.7 ± 1.8 (23) 15.6 ± 2.2 (21) 29.4 ± 2.2 (21) Sepúlveda pooled sex (n = 30) 67.3 ± 3.3 12.7 ± 1.7 18.1 ± 1.6 25.9 ± 2.4 Aranda de Duero males (n = 71) 60.3 ± 4.1 12.2 ± 1.9 17.7 ± 2.3 23.8 ± 2.4 San José Cemetery pooled sex (n = 45) 59.3 ± 5.2 11.1 ± 1.8 16.6 ± 1.9 24.4 ± 2.3 San Pablo Monastery (n = 96) 59.1 ± 4.6 11.0 ± 2.3 17.2 ± 2.0 24.4 ± 2.5 Hamann-Todd (n = 62) 63.4 ± 5.1 11.2 ± 2.2 18.3 ± 2.5 25.3 ± 3.0 BB, biepicondylar breadth; MSP, minimum shaft perimeter; MPThick., medial pillar thickness; LPThick., lateral pillar thickness; OFB, olecra- non fossa breadth. Numbers in parentheses indicates sample sizes. a Estimated value from Walker and Leakey (1993). b Estimated range by the authors. Table 7. Comparisons of some indices of the distal epiphysis of the humerus Pillar Index Medial Pillar Thickness/O FB Index Medial Pillar Thickness/BB Lateral Pillar Thickness/BB OFB/BB KNM-WT 15000F 68.2 56.2 21.4a 31.4a 38.2a Gombore IB – 7594 74.3 41.4 16.9 22.7 42.7 BOD-VP-1/2 50.0 29.0 13.6–15.0 27.3–30.0 47.0–51.7 Kabwe 64.7 45.6 19.2 29.7 42.1 Skul IV 78.5 46.7 21.6 28.3 46.5 Omo Kibish I 58.2 40.0 19.1 32.9 47.9 Cro-Magnon 1 57.5 51.1 18.8 32.6 43.2 Sima de los Huesos 54.9 ± 10 (6) 29.0 ± 3.8 (8) 14.0 ± 1.7 (7) 25.8 ± 1.9 (6) 48.7 ± 3.7 (8) Neandertal sample 51.0 ± 10.0 (20) 26.9 ± 5.5 (21) 12.0 ± 2.5 (14) 25.4 ± 2.2 (13) 46.1 ± 2.7 (16) Sepúlveda (n = 30) 70.8 ± 10.6 50.1 ± 9.4 20.0 ± 2.6 28.3 ± 2.1 40.8 ± 3.6 Aranda males (n = 71) 69.4 ± 9.7 47.4 ± 8.7 20.3 ± 3.4 29.5 ± 4.4 39.7 ± 5.7 San José (n = 45) 67.1 ± 9.6 — 18.7 ± 2.1 28.0 ± 2.6 41.2 ± 3.4 San Pablo (n = 107) 63.4 ± 9.9 45.3 ± 11.1 18.5 ± 2.9 29.1 ± 2.6 41.4 ± 3.9 Hamann Todd (n = 63) 61.4 ± 9.6 44.6 ± 8.9 18.0 ± 2.5 29.7 ± 2.5 41.2 ± 3.8 All indices multiplied by 100. Number in parenthesis indicates sample size. Pillar Index = Medial Pillar Thickness/Lateral Pillar Thickness. OFB, Olecranon Fossa Breadth. BB, Biepicondylar Breadth. a Estimated values. PARTIAL HUMERUS FROM UPPER BODO SANDS, ETHIOPIA 25Vol. 117, 2009 its remarkable characteristics. As stated above, the proximal section level of BOD–VP–1/2 approximately corresponds with the 35% position (or somewhat below this) from the distal end of a complete humerus, so we can compare the cortical area of the cross–section at this level. The Bodo hu- merus was found to be very similar to the SH and Neandertal humeri in its cortical bone proportion, with a cortical area that is 80% of total cross–sectional area. This value is well above the means of some recent human samples studied by Trinkaus et al. (1994) (Table 8). The relatively thick cortical bone demonstrates the greater resistance of all these archaic humeri to axial loading in comparison with some recent hu- mans (Trinkaus et al., 1994, 1999; Trinkaus and Churchill, 1999). According to Trinkaus et al. (1999), at both the 35% and 65% levels, Neandertals generally have a higher relative cortical area than that of early modern humans. Other cross–sectional geometric properties measure the distribution of skeletal tissue in bone sections that are related to biomechanically relevant measurements, and reflect load- ing modes, structural adaptation, and activity patterns (e.g. Larsen, 1997; Ruff, 2000). At this point, it is necessary to re- member that the Bodo humerus is from the left arm, which tends to be the non–dominant limb. Given the plasticity of long bone diaphyses and the high degree of humeral bilateral asymmetry in Pleistocene humans (Trinkaus et al., 1994; Churchill and Formicola, 1997), a considerably greater level of variation in cross–sectional measures exists in the left hu- merus, and most individuals exhibit greater cross–sectional properties on the right side (Trinkaus and Churchill, 1999). The polar moment of area (J) was examined as an overall measure of diaphyseal rigidity, since it approximates tor- sional rigidity and sums the perpendicular measures of bend- ing rigidity (Trinkaus et al., 1999). In order to compare the biomechanical properties of long bones of different individ- uals or samples, it is necessary to incorporate some kind of size standardization. This is usually done by dividing cross– sectional properties by powers of bone length (Ruff, 2000), a variable that is not available for the Bodo specimen. Al- though we could attempt to estimate the maximum and bio- mechanical lengths of the Bodo humerus, based on the al- ready estimated BB, a simple and less speculative procedure for at least partially controlling for differences in body size (not limb length) is to compare cross–sectional diaphyseal properties relative to articular size (Ruff, 2000), in our case with the estimated BB (60–66 mm). We remember again that Bodo humerus is from the left side, hence may reflect base–line rather than dominant activity levels. In absolute values, the polar moment of area (J) and the rest of the cross–sectional parameters of the Bodo humerus at the proximal section level are very similar to those of the SH H–XV, Saint–Césaire Neandertal, and the Skhul IV and V early modern humans. In the Bodo humerus, the J value is clearly larger than in Tabún 1, Shanidar 6, and Skhul II fe- males, giving support to the sexual diagnosis mentioned above, but it is much lower than in Kebara 2, SH H–III, and Shanidar 1 males (Table 9, Figure 6a). Figure 4. Medial pillar thickness vs. olecranon fossa breadth in several fossil specimens. The 90% equiprobability ellipse for a pooled modern human sample that includes the Aranda, San Pablo, and Hamann–Todd individuals (n = 275) is outlined. Dark triangles, Neanderthal; dark squares, Sima de los Huesos specimens. 26 J.M. CARRETERO ET AL. ANTHROPOLOGICAL SCIENCE Relative to the BB used as a proxy of body size (Table 9, Figure 6b), the Bodo humerus does not show a very robust diaphyseal rigidity either, if we assume the maximum BB value of the proposed range (66 mm). Using the mid–range value of the BB of 63 mm, Bodo has the least robust section of the four archaic males in the sample (Table 9). In this comparison, Bodo was similar to the Tabun 1 female but far from the robustness exhibited by Shanidar 1, SH H–III, and Kebara 2 males. Interestingly, in this case the shaft rigidity of the Bodo humerus is above that of the Skhul IV and V modern human males. Using a BB value of 60 mm, the shaft rigidity of the Bodo humerus reaches the values exhibited by other archaic male left humeri such as those of Shanidar 1 and SH H–XV (Figure 6b). Discussion The taxonomy and evolutionary relationships of Middle Pleistocene African and European populations are currently a matter of debate (Smith et al., 1989; Arsuaga et al., 1997; Hublin, 1998, 2000; Rightmire, 1998; Stringer and Hublin, 1999; Tattersall, 2000; Hawks and Wolpoff, 2001; Bermúdez de Castro et al., 2004). Whatever the taxonomic and phylogenetic frameworks adopted, comparison of the Bodo humerus with the European samples reveals some insights into the African fossil hominids of the Middle Pleis- Figure 5. Medial pillar index (medial pillar thickness/biepicondylar breadth) × 100 calculated for the fossil humeri, two human fossil samples, and five recent human samples. Neanderthal sample as in Carretero et al. (1997; Table 18, p. 400). SH, Sima de los Huesos; SJ, San José; SP, San Pablo; HTH, Hamann–Todd, Numbers in parentheses indicate sample sizes. Vertical bars for recent human samples represent 1.5 standard devia- tions around the sample mean. Vertical bar for Bodo indicates the maximum, mid–range and minimum values of the pillar index for biepicondylar breadths of 60, 63, and 66 mm, respectively. Table 8. Cortical thickness at 35% position cross-section of bone total length Total area (mm2) TA Cortical area (mm2) CA % cortical area (CA/TA) × 100 Bodo (BOD-VP-1/2) 263.47 212.57 80.7 Sima de los Huesos (n = 5) 318.82 ± 35.98 254.96 ± 45.43 79.5 ± 8.0 Neandertals (n = 10)a 300.16 ± 52.72 240.70 ± 45.43 80.0 ± 5.0 Euroamerican (n = 38)a 279.20 181.6 ± 7.0 65.0 Amerindians Georgia coast (n = 37)a 271.90 182.0 ± 8.0 66.9 Amerindian California (n = 71)a 258.80 189.6 ± 5.3 73.3 Jomon Japanese (n = 25)a 271.40 167.40 ± 8.7 61.7 Tennis players (n = 45)a 437.90 365.80 ± 10.6 83.5 a Data from Trinkaus et al. (1994). TA for these samples was computed by the authors as the cortical area plus medullary area given in Table 4 of Trinkaus et al. (1994). PARTIAL HUMERUS FROM UPPER BODO SANDS, ETHIOPIA 27Vol. 117, 2009 tocene. In our view, H. heidelbergensis is an exclusively Europe- an species and is ancestral only to the Neandertals (Arsuaga et al., 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997; Rosas and Bermúdez de Castro, 1998). For the African Middle Pleistocene specimens, the specific name H. rhodesiensis is preferred and is gen- erally held to represent the ancestral lineage that eventually gave rise to modern humans. Finally, the recent definition of the species H. antecessor in the European terminal Early Pleistocene (c. 800 ka) (Carbonell et al., 1995; Bermúdez de Castro et al., 1997) raises the question of its evolutionary re- lationship with the near contemporaneous African speci- mens (Carbonell et al., 2005), including the Bodo remains. As mentioned previously, a relatively wide olecranon fos- sa and the relatively thin medial and lateral pillars adjacent to the fossa (or the high frequency of this pattern) represent a distinctive or typical morphological pattern of the Middle and Late Pleistocene European Neandertal lineage (Carretero et al., 1997). The admittedly scarce African evi- dence, including the new Bodo specimen, highlights the mor- phological variation of these traits. Nevertheless, as a group, the modern human pattern of a narrower olecranon fossa and relatively thicker medial and lateral pillars is the most common condition of the available Early and Middle Pleisto- cene African distal humeri. Some Neandertal postcranial traits are primitive features within the genus Homo, but other aspects appear to be de- rived, or specialized, rather than merely being primitive retentions (Trinkaus, 1977, 1983, 1995; Ruff, 1994; Villemeur, 1994; Carretero et al., 1997; Holliday, 1997; Arsuaga et al., 1999). Of these derived Neandertal features in the 500–600 ka fossils of H. heidelbergensis from the Sima de los Huesos in Atapuerca, some are present in a mosaic fashion and in lower frequencies (Carretero et al., 1997, 2005). What we find in Europe during the Middle Pleisto- cene are morphological traits that are variable within the H. heidelbegensis populations, until the final fixation (very high frequency) of one morphotype in the Late Pleistocene Table 9. Comparison of cross-sectional parameters of BOD-VP-1/2 with other left fossil humeri Sex BB Ix Iy Imax Imin J Relative J (J/BB4 × 1000) BOD-VP-1/2 M 60 6001.6 4882.6 6003.9 4880.3 10884.2 0.84 63 0.69 66 0.57 H-XV M 61.1 6060.2 4867.1 6615.2 4312.0 10927.3 0.78 H-III M 66 8055.6 8365.8 8871.3 7550.1 16926.9 0.89 Shanidar 6 F 56 — — 3328.8 2162.7 5491.5 0.56 Tabun 1 F 55.8 3981.5 2810.3 4032.2 2760.2 6792.4 0.77 Kebara 2 M 60.4 9086.2 7186.0 9397.3 6874.8 16272.1 1.2 Shanidar 1 M 64.5 7761.1 6584.8 8765.1 5580.7 14345.8 0.8 Saint-Césaire M — 5144 4076 5386 3832 9218 — Skhul II F — 2609 2336 3769 2176 5945 — Skhul VII F — 2314 1778 2349 1743 4093 — Skhul IV M 65 5692 4712 5799 4605 10404 0.58 Skhul V M 65 5076 6072 6073 5075 11148 0.62 Ix and Iy, second moments of area about x and y axes (mm4). These values are approximate given the uncertainty in the axial orientation of the piece. Imax and Imin, máximum and minimum second moments of area (mm4). J, polar second moment of area (mm4). Data for Shanidar, Kebara, and the Skhul specimens were taken from Trinkaus and Churchill (1999) and McCown and Keith (1939). Data of Saint-Césaire were taken from Trinkaus et al. (1999) Figure 6. (a) Absolute polar moment of area for Bodo and other left fossil humeri at the 35% level calculated as in Table 9. (b) Relative polar moment of area of the same specimens. Vertical bar for Bodo indicates the maximum, mid–range, and minimum values of the index for biepicondylar breadths of 60, 63, and 66 mm, respectively. 28 J.M. CARRETERO ET AL. ANTHROPOLOGICAL SCIENCE Neandertals that was well established by 200 ka. This model has been formally named the ‘accretion model of Neandertal evolution’ (Arsuaga et al., 1997; Martínez and Arsuaga, 1997; Dean et al., 1998; Hublin, 1998, 2000; Stringer and Hublin, 1999). Although the Neandertals show numerous derived charac- ters in their postcranial skeleton, this is not the case for early modern humans. Unfortunately, the Early and Middle Pleis- tocene African fossil record is characterized by a paucity of postcranial specimens and this complicates our understand- ing of when and how the modern human morphology emerged. The postcranial morphology of H. ergaster is known from the remains of KNM–WT 15000 (Walker and Leakey, 1993) and numerous fragmentary postcranial remains from Koobi Fora and Olduvai (Day, 1986). Morphological diversity is present in H. ergaster in some features that are very frequent and phylogenetically relevant in Neandertals. For example, the morphology of the scapula is well known in Neandertals (Trinkaus, 1977, 1995) and the SH hominids (Carretero et al., 1997), and in both species there is a high frequency of an axillary sulcus dorsally placed along the lateral margin. Ear- ly anatomically modern humans (the Skhul–Qafzeh sample), Upper Palaeolithic people, and modern populations tend to have either a ventrally positioned sulcus (ventral sulcus) or an intermediate morphology (bisulcate pattern) (McCown and Keith, 1939; Trinkaus, 1977; Vandermeersch, 1981). The KNM–WT 15000 partial skeleton exhibits a ventral ax- illary sulcus on the scapulae (Walker and Leakey, 1993), but the specimen KNM–ER 1808 displays a clear axillary sulcus in a dorsal position (Trinkaus, 1995; Carretero et al., 1997 and personal observation). At least with regard to this postc- ranial trait H. ergaster seems to be very variable. In Africa, the few human postcranial fossils postdating H. ergaster from the period between roughly 800 and 300 ka (early Middle Pleistocene) also exhibit a surprising amount of morphological diversity, which includes specimens that do not differ substantially from modern humans, and other bones that are distinctly not modern (Pycraft et al., 1928; Stringer, 1986; Solan and Day, 1992; Trinkaus, 1993; Grine et al., 1995; Churchill et al., 1996; Bräuer et al., 1997; Stringer et al., 1998; McBrearty et al., 1999; Pearson, 1999, 2000; Churchill et al., 2000; Yokley and Churchill, 2006). Morphological variation is also present in specimens dating to the late Middle Pleistocene (c. 200–120 ka) such as the ra- dius of the Cave of Hearths, which display a radial tuberosi- ty oriented anteriomedially as in modern humans as well as a long radial neck and small radial head as in the Neandertals (Tobias, 1971; Pearson and Grine, 1997). Human postcranial fossils dating from the African Late Pleistocene also show that the earliest modern humans from Africa and the Levant displayed a considerable amount of morphological heterogeneity, and that the postcranial skele- tons of these hominids differed from those of recent humans as well as from European Neandertals (McCown and Keith, 1939; Day, 1969; Vandermeersch, 1981; Day et al., 1991; Churchill et al., 1996; Pearson and Grine, 1996, 1997; Grine et al., 1998; Pearson et al., 1998; Pearson, 1999, 2000). For example, modern human pelvic shape constitutes a genuine novelty of our species (Arsuaga et al., 1999; Carretero et al., 2004), but some of the earliest modern humans, such as Skhul IX, retain plesiomorphic details of pelvic anatomy such as a relatively long pubic ramus (Rak and Arensburg, 1987). This is a primitive trait (Arsuaga and Carretero, 1994; Rosenberg, 1998; Arsuaga et al., 1999) retained in some of the Skhul–Qafzeh specimens, but subsequently lost in the modern human lineage (Pearson, 1999, 2000). It seems that the anatomically modern form as represented by living humans was not entirely complete in the Skhul– Qafzeh hominids; many minor features had yet to change to their modern frequencies. Furthermore, different individuals from these African and Levantine samples often display dif- ferent sets of features that distinguish them from studied col- lections of recent humans. A parallel situation is seen between European Middle Pleistocene humans and Neandertals. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, almost all of their distinctive features, when considered sin- gly, can be found in one or more groups of recent humans, but the entire suite of distinctive features cannot be found in any single group of modern humans. Regarding the cranial evidence, the Bodo cranium, for ex- ample, has an extraordinarily broad face but its morphology recalls that of the European Middle Pleistocene fossils such as Arago 21 and Petralona, although in the latter two speci- mens there could be some Neandertal traits (such as the raised and sharp lower rim of the nasal margin of Arago 21). The Sima de los Huesos site has an age which is probably similar to that of the Arago human sample (that of the Petral- ona skull is unknown) but it is more Neandertal–derived in the midfacial prognathism (but not in the lower nasal mar- gin). The Bodo skull does not show any Neandertal charac- ter, and in fact could represent the primitive morphotype of the European and African Middle Pleistocene populations, just before the split between the European and African lin- eages. There are however some possible instances of poly- morphism in African Middle Pleistocene specimens. In ad- dition to the facial contrasts between Bodo and Broken Hill, the mastoid region of Laetoli hominid 18 is reminiscent of Neanderthals (Arsuaga et al., 1997). In his study of the Pe- tralona skull, Stringer (1983) also stated that supposed Ne- andertal apomorphies do occur sporadically in specimens which are clearly not otherwise Neandertal (e.g. Laetoli hominid 18 has a large occipitomastoid crest; Broken Hill has a Neandertal–like forward position of the first upper mo- lar alveolus). The presence of Neandertal traits in some, but not all, specimens of H. ergaster, H. Rhodesiensis, and early H. sa- piens, together with the greater similarity of only some Afri- can specimens, but not others, to modern humans highlights the problem of anatomical variation in African hominids of the early Middle Pleistocene. At least two possible explana- tions for this variation can be proposed (Pearson, 2000). Some of the more modern–like postcranial fossils may rep- resent populations that were, in fact, either ancestral to mod- ern humans or more closely related to our ancestors than the populations represented by the specimens such as Berg Au- kas. Alternatively, populations of early Middle Pleistocene African humans may have simply been physically diverse and their skeletons may have contained mosaics of modern and non–modern traits (Pearson, 2000). PARTIAL HUMERUS FROM UPPER BODO SANDS, ETHIOPIA 29Vol. 117, 2009 The distal humerus from Bodo points out, once again, the presence of variability in the postcranial skeleton of African Middle Pleistocene hominids. We think that an analysis of frequency–based patterning can help us interpret this varia- tion. Taking into account the within–species (sample) varia- tion we see in the fossil record (see above), the explanation that there was polymorphism in several skeletal traits in the Middle Pleistocene of Europe and Africa is quite plausible. Some specimens on both continents would show the Nean- dertal condition. Through time this morphology became fixed in the classic European Neandertals but lost in Africa. We draw this conclusion with the support of corroborative observations. This is exactly the case in the Middle Pleis- tocene hominids from Europe in cranial (Arsuaga et al., 1997; Martínez and Arsuaga, 1997) and postcranial mor- phology (Carretero et al., 1997, 2005). Conclusions In the present work the Bodo partial distal humerus from Ethiopia with an approximate age of 0.6 million years is de- scribed and compared. Despite its fragmentary status, sever- al relevant variables—such as the MSP, olecranon fossa breadth, and thicknesses of the medial and lateral pillars ad- jacent to the olecranon fossa—can be directly measured on the specimen. Furthermore, based on regression analysis in two large modern human samples and in the European Mid- dle Pleistocene sample from the Sima de los Huesos (SH) site we estimated the BB of the Bodo specimen to be around 62–63 mm (with a range of 60–66 mm). Cross–sectional properties at the 35% level do not indicate an especially ro- bust shaft compared with other fossil humeri, although the relative cortical area is large in comparison with some mod- ern human samples. Sexual diagnosis is only approximate, but the Bodo humerus more probably comes from a male. Comparisons of the Bodo humerus with African and Eu- ropean fossil and modern hominid samples revealed that the Bodo specimen displays distal humeral features very com- mon in the European Middle Pleistocene humans from SH and the Late Pleistocene Neandertals, such as the relatively thin lateral and medial pillars and the relatively wide olecra- non fossa (Carretero et al., 1997). Three out of the four Afri- can Homo distal humeri (KNM–WT 15000, Gomboré IB and Kabwe) ranging in age from 1.5 to 0.2 Ma (Table 1) dis- play the distal humeral proportions more common in modern humans, while only Bodo shows the pattern more common in the European Middle Pleistocene hominids and the Nean- dertals. In Africa, the postcranial fossils from the Middle and Late Pleistocene exhibit a surprising amount of morphological di- versity (Pearson, 2000). The presence of Neandertal traits in some, but not all, specimens of H. ergaster, H. rhodesiensis and early H. sapiens, together with the greater similarity of only some African specimens, but not others, to modern hu- mans, indicates that populations of early Middle Pleistocene African humans may have been physically diverse and that their skeletons may have contained a mosaic of modern and non–modern traits (Pearson, 2000). Moreover, different in- dividuals from the African and Levantine samples often dis- play different sets of features that distinguish them from studied collections of recent humans, a parallel situation seen in European Middle Pleistocene humans and Neander- tals (Arsuaga et al., 1997). The Neandertal–like morphology of the Bodo distal humerus fits the explanation that there was polymorphism in several skeletal traits in the Middle Pleistocene of Africa, as was the case in European Middle Pleistocene humans. Some specimens on both continents would show the Neandertal condition. Through time this morphology became fixed in the classic European Neander- tals but was lost in Africa. The recurrent nature of most postcranial traits we study can help us understand the striking variation we encounter in the fossil record. More fossils are needed, particularly post- cranial remains of Middle and early Late Pleistocene Afri- can hominids. The Bodo partial humerus is quite relevant in the context of these discussions. Acknowledgments We thank Middle Awash Research Project, funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, for allowing us to study the Bodo humerus. We thank the Ethiopian gov- ernment and the National Museum of Ethiopia for access to original fossil materials. We thank the Human Evolution Re- search Center at the University of California at Berkeley for facilities and support. We derived much benefit from the dis- cussions with our colleagues Tim White from the Human Evolution Research Center at the University of California at Berkeley, Nuria García, Rolf M. Quam, Ignacio Martínez and Ana Gracia from the Centro UCM–ISCIII de Investi- gación sobre Evolución y Comportamiento Humanos of Madrid, and Berhane Asfaw from the Rift Valley Research Service of Ethiopia. Tim White kindly supplied photographs and background on the discovery of the Bodo humeral spec- imen. We thank Bruce Latimer and Lyman Jellema from the CMNH for providing assistance and helpful access to the Hamann Todd skeletal collection. We especially thank Rebeca García, from the Laboratory of Human Evolution of the University of Burgos (LEH), who measured the Hamann Todd sample in the CMNH. Elena Santos and Ciaran Brew- ster (LEH) gave us general assistance with the preparation of manuscript. We are very grateful to the Anthropological Sci- ence editors, and especially to Dr Gen Suwa, for their help with the text. Laura Rodriguez was funded by a grant from Fundación Siglo para las Artes de Castilla y León. Financial support was obtained from the Dirección General de Investi- gación Científica y Técnicia of Spain (project CGL 2006– 13532–C03–02) and from Junta de Castilla y León (project BU032A06). References Arsuaga J.L. and Carretero J.M. (1994) Multivariate analysis of the sexual dimorphism of the hip bone in a modern population and in early hominids. American Journal of Physical Anthro- pology, 93: 241–257. Arsuaga J.L., Carretero J.M., Martínez I., and Gracia A. (1991) Cranial remains and long bones from Atapuerca/Ibeas (Spain). Journal of Human Evolution, 20: 191–230. Arsuaga J.L., Martínez I., Gracia A., Carretero J.M., and Carbonell E. (1993) Three new human skulls from the Sima de los Hue- 30 J.M. CARRETERO ET AL. ANTHROPOLOGICAL SCIENCE sos Middle Pleistocene site in Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain. Nature, 362: 534–537. Arsuaga J.L., Martínez I., Gracia A., and Carretero J.M. (1995) Cranial and postcranial remains at the Sima de los Huesos (Sierra de Atapuerca) and human evolution during the Middle Pleistocene. In: J.M. Bermúdez de Castro, J.L. Arsuaga and E. Carbonell (eds.), Human evolution in Europe and the Ata- puerca Evidence. Junta de Castilla y León, Valladolid, pp. 283–303. Arsuaga J.L., Martinez I., Gracia A., and Lorenzo C. (1997) The Sima de los Huesos crania (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain). A comparative study. Journal of Human Evolution, 33: 219– 281. Arsuaga J.L., Lorenzo C., Carretero J.M., Gracia A., Martínez I., García N., Bermúdez de Castro J.M., and Carbonell E. (1999) A complete human pelvis from the Middle Pleistocene of Spain. Nature, 399: 255–258. Bermúdez de Castro J.M., Arsuaga J.L., Carbonell E., Rosas A., Martínez I., and Mosquera M. (1997) A hominid from the Lower Pleistocene of Atapuerca, Spain: possible ancestor to neandertals and modern humans. Science, 276: 1392–1395. Bermúdez de Castro J.M., Martinón-Torres M., Carbonell E., Sarmiento S., Rosas A., Van der Made J., and Lozano M. (2004) The Atapuerca sites and their contribution to the knowledge of human evolution in Europe. Evolutionary Anthropology, 13: 25–41. Bischoff J.L., Williams R.W., Rosenbauer R.J., Aramburu A., Arsuaga J.L., Gracía N., and Cuenca-Bescós G. (2007) High– resolution U–series dates from the Sima de los Huesos homi- nids yields 600 + 8 − 66 kyrs: implications for the evolution of the early Neanderthal lineage. Journal of Archaeological Science, 34: 763–770. Bräuer G., Yokoyama Y., Falguerès C., and Mbua E. (1997) Mod- ern human origins backdated. Nature, 386: 337–338. Carbonell E., Bermúdez de Castro J.M., Arsuaga J.L., Díez J.C., Rosas A., Cuenca-Bescós G., Sala R., Mosquera M., and Rodríguez X.P. (1995) Lower Pleistocene hominids and arte- facts from Atapuerca–TD6 (Spain). Science, 269: 826–830. Carbonell E., Bermúdez de Castro J.M., Arsuaga J.L., Allué E., Bastir M., Benito A., Cáceres I., Canals T., Díez J.C., Van der Made J., Mosquera M., Ollé A., Pérez-González A., Rodríguez J., Rodríguez X.P., Rosas A., Rosell J., Sala R., Vallverdú J., and Vergés J.M. (2005) An early Pleistocene hominin mandible from Atapuerca–TD6, Spain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 102: 5674–5678. Carretero J.M., Arsuaga J.L., and Lorenzo C. (1997) Clavicles, scapulae and humeri from the Sima de los Huesos Site (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain). Journal of Human Evolution, 33: 357– 408. Carretero J.M., Arsuaga J.L., Martínez I., Quam R., Lorenzo C., Gracia A., and Ortega A.I. (2004) Los humanos de la Sima de los Huesos (Sierra de Atapuerca) y la evolución del cuerpo en el género Homo. In: E. Baquedano and S. Rubio (eds.), Mis- celánea en homenaje a Emiliano Aguirre. Volumen III. Pale- oantropología. Museo arqueológico regional, Alcalá de Henares, pp. 120–135. Carretero J.M., Rodríguez L., García R., Gómez A., and Arsuaga J.L. (2005) Upper limb bones from Sima de los Huesos site (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain). American Journal of Physical Anthropology (Suppl), 40: 84. Chavallion J., Chavallion N., Coppens Y., and Senut B. (1977) Présence d’hominide dans le site Oldowayen de Gomboré I a Melka Kunturé, Ethiopie. Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences Paris, 285: 961–963. Churchill S.E. and Formicola V. (1997) A case of marked bilateral asymmetry in the upper limbs of an upper palaeolithic male from Barma Grande (Liguria), Italy. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 7: 18–38. Churchill S.E., Pearson O.M., Grine F.E., Trinkaus E., and Holli- day T.W. (1996) Morphological affinities of the proximal ulna from Klasies River main site: archaic or modern? Journal of Human Evolution, 31: 213–237. Churchill S.E., Berger L.R., and Parkington J.E. (2000) Middle Pleistocene human tibia from Hoedjiespunt, Western Cape, South Africa. South African Journal of Science, 96: 367–368. Clark J.D., Heinzelin J., Schick K.D., Hart W.K., White T.D., WoldeGabriel G., Walter R.C., Suwa G., Asfaw B., Vrba E., and Haile-Selassie Y. (1994) African Homo erectus: old radi- ometric ages and young Oldowan assemblages in the Middle Awash Valley, Ethiopia. Science, 264: 1907–1910. Day M.H. (1969) Omo human skeletal remains. Nature, 222: 1135–1138. Day M.H. (1986) Guide to Fossil Man. Cassell, Eastbourne. Day M.H., Twist M.H.C., and Ward S. (1991) Les vestiges post– crâniens d’Omo I (Kibish). L’Anthropologie (Paris), 95: 595– 609. de Heinzelin J., Clark J.D., Schick K.D., and Gilbert W.H. (2000) The Acheulian and Plio–Pleistocene deposits of the Middle Awash Valley, Ethiopia. Annals Sciences Géologiques. Royal Museum of Central Africa, Tervuren, Belgium. Dean D., Hublin J.J., Holloway R.L., and Ziegler R. (1998) On the phylogenetic position of the pre–Neandertal specimen fron Reilingen, Germany. Journal of Human Evolution, 34: 485– 508. García N. (2003) Osos y otros carnívoros de la Sierra de Atapu- erca. Fundación Oso de Asturias, Oviedo. García N., Arsuaga J.L., and Torres T. (1997) The carnivore remains from the Sima de los Huesos Middle Pleistocene site (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain). Journal of Human Evolution, 33: 155–174. Grine F.E., Jungers W.L., Tobias P.V., and Pearson O.M. (1995) Fossil homo femur from Berg Aukas, Northern Namibia. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 97: 151–185. Grine F.E., Pearson O.M., Klein R.G., and Rightmire G.P. (1998) Additional human fossils from Klasies River Mouth, South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution, 35: 95–107. Hawks J.D. and Wolpoff M.H. (2001) The accretion model of Neandertal evolution. Evolution, 55: 1474–1485. Holliday T.W. (1997) Body proportions in Late Pleistocene Europe and modern human origins. Journal of Human Evolu- tion, 32: 423–447. Hublin J.J. (1998) Climatic changes, paleogeography, and the evo- lution of Neandertals. In: T. Akazawa, K. Aoki, and O. Bar- Yosef (eds.), Neanderthals and Modern Humans in Western Asia. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 295–310. Hublin J.J. (2000) Modern–nonmodern hominid interactions: a Mediterranean perspective. In: O. Bar–Yosef and D. Pilbeam (eds.), The Geography of Neandertals and Modern Humans in Europe and the Greater Mediterranean. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology/Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, pp. 157–182. Larsen C.S. (1997) Bioarchaeology: Interpreting Behavior from the Human Skeleton. Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge. Lordkipanidze D., Jashashvili T., Vekua A., Ponce de León M., Zollikofer Ch., Rightmire Ph.G., Pontzer H., Ferring R., Oms O., Tappen M., Bukhsianidze M., Agusti J., Kahlke R., Kiladze G., Martinez–Navarro B., Mouskhelishvili A., Nio- radze M., and Rook L. (2007) Postcranial evidence from early Homo from Dmanisi, Georgia. Nature, 449(7160): 305–310. Martínez I. and Arsuaga J.L. (1997) The temporal bones from Sima de los Huesos Middle Pleistocene site (Sierra de Atapu- erca, Spain). A phylogenetic approach. Journal of Human Evolution, 33: 283–318. McBrearty S., Brown B., Deino A., Kingston J., and Ward S. (1999) Anatomy, context, age and affinities of hominids from the Kapthurin Formation, Baringo, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution, 36: A12. McCown T.D. and Keith A. (1939) The stone age of Mount Car- mel. The fossil human remains from the levalloiso–mouste- PARTIAL HUMERUS FROM UPPER BODO SANDS, ETHIOPIA 31Vol. 117, 2009 rian. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Pearson O.M. (1999) Postcranial differences between the earliest modern humans and recent people. Journal of Human Evolu- tion, 36: A16–A17. Pearson O.M. (2000) Postcranial remains and the origin of modern humans. Evolutionary Anthropology, 9: 229–247. Pearson O.M. and Grine F.E. (1996) Morphology of the Border Cave hominid ulna and humerus. South African Journal of Science, 92: 231–236. Pearson O.M. and Grine F.E. (1997) Re–analysis of the hominid radii from Cave of Hearths and Klasies River Mouth, South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution, 34: 577–592. Pearson O.M., Churchill S.E., Grine F.E., Trinkaus E., and Holli- day T.W. (1998) Multivariate analyses of the hominid ulna from Klasies River Mouth. Journal of Human Evolution, 34: 653–656. Pycraft W.P., Smith G.E., Yearsley M., Carter J.T., Smith R.A., Hopwood A.T., Bate D.M.A., and Swinton W.E. (1928) Rho- desian man and associated remains. British Museum of Natu- ral History, London. Rak Y. and Arensburg B. (1987) Kebara 2 Neanderthal pelvis: first look at a complete inlet. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 73: 227–231. Renne P. (2000) The Acheulian and Plio–Pleistocene deposits of the Middle Awash Valley, Ethiopia. Chap. 4: Geochronology. Annals Sciences Géologiques (Royal Museum of Central Africa, Belgium), 104: 47–50. Rightmire P.G. (1998) Human evolution in the middle Pleistocene: the role of Homo heidelbergensis. Evolutionary Anthropol- ogy, 6: 218–227. Rosas A. and Bermúdez de Castro J.M. (1998) The Mauer mandi- ble and the evolutionary significance of Homo heidelbergen- sis. Geobios, 31: 687–697. Rosenberg K.R. (1998) Morphological variation in west Asian postcrania. Implications for obstetric and locomotor behavior. In: T. Akazawa, K. Aoki and O. Bar–Yosef (eds.), Neander- tals and Modern Humans in Western Asia. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 367–379. Ruff C.B. (1994) Morphological adaptation to climate in modern and fossil hominids. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 37: 65–107. Ruff C.B. (2000) Biomechanical Analyses of Archaeological Human Skeletons. In Katzenberg, M.A. and Saunders, S.R. (eds.): Biological Anthropology of the Human Skeleton. Wiley-Liss, New York, pp. 71–102. Senut B. (1981) L’humérus et ses articulations chez les hominidés Plio–Pléistocènes. CNRS, Paris. Smith F.H., Falsetti A.B., and Donnelly S.M. (1989) Modern human origins. American Journal of Physical Anthropology (Suppl), 32: 35–68. Solan M. and Day M.H. (1992) The Baringo (Kapthurin) ulna. Journal of Human Evolution, 22: 307–313. Stringer C. (1983) Some further notes on the morphology and dat- ing of the Petralona hominid. Journal of Human Evolution, 12: 731–742. Stringer C.B. (1986) An archaic character in the Broken Hill innominate E.719. American Journal of Physical Anthroplogy, 71: 115–120. Stringer C.B. and Hublin J.J. (1999) New age estimates for the Swanscombe hominid and their significance for human evo- lution. Journal of Human Evolution, 37: 873–877. Stringer C.B., Trinkaus E., Roberts M.B., Parfitt S.A., and Macphail R.I. (1998) The Middle Pleistocene human tibia from Boxgrove. Journal of Human Evolution, 34: 509–547. Tattersall I. (2000) Paleoanthropology: the last half century. Evo- lutionary Anthopology, 4: 2–16. Themido A.A. (1926) Sôbre alguns caracteres sexuais dos húmeros portugueses. Revista da Universidade de Coimbra, X: 104–173. Tobias P.V. (1971) Human skeletal remains from the Cave of Hearths, Makapansgat, Northern Transvaal. American Jour- nal of Physical Anthropology, 34: 335–368. Trinkaus E. (1977) A functional interpretation of the axillary bor- der of the Neandertal scapula. Journal of Human Evolution, 6: 231–234. Trinkaus E. (1983) The Shanidar Neandertals. Academic Press, New York. Trinkaus E. (1993) A note on the KNM–ER 999 hominid femur. Journal of Human Evolution, 24: 493–504. Trinkaus E. (1995) Brains and bodies: mosaic trends in Middle Pleistocene Archaic Homo morphology. In: J.M. Bermúdez de Castro, J.L. Arsuaga, and E. Carbonell (eds.), Human evo- lution in Europe and the Atapuerca Evidence. Junta de Castilla y León, Valladolid, pp. 202–228. Trinkaus E. and Churchill S.E. (1999) Diaphyseal cross–sectional geometry of Near Eastern Middle Palaeolithic humans: the humerus. Journal of Archaeological Science, 26: 173–184. Trinkaus E., Churchill S.E., and Ruff C.B. (1994) Postcranial robusticity in Homo. II: Humeral asymmetry and bone plas- ticity. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 93: 1–34. Trinkaus E., Churchill S.E., and Ruff C.B. (1999). Long bone shaft robusticity and body proportions of the Saint–Césaire 1 Châtelperronian Neanderthal. Journal of Archaeological Sci- ence, 26: 753–773. Vandermeersch B. (1981) Les hommes fossiles de Qafzeh (Isräel). CNRS, Paris. Villemeur I. (1994) La main des Néandertaliens. Comparaison avec la main des hommes de type moderne morphologie et mécanique. CNRS, Paris. Walker A. and Leakey R.E.F. (1993) The Nariokotome Homo erectus skeleton. Springer Verlag, Berlin. Yokley, T.R. and Churchill, S.E. (2006) Archaic and modern human distal humeral morphology. Journal of Human Evolu- tion, 51: 603–661.