Dietary Inferences for the Sunghir Humans

In addition to the functional, anatomical, and paleopathological reflections of the biology and behavior of the Sunghir humans, it has been possible to make indirect inferences regarding their average dietary profiles. These considerations derive from the mineral compositions of bone samples from Sunghir 1 to 4 (Kozlovskaya 2000d), carbon and nitrogen stable isotope data from the bone collagen of Sunghir 1 to 3 (Richards et al. 2001; Dobrovolskaya et al. 2012), and postcanine buccal microwear for Sunghir 1 to 3 (Pinilla 2012; Pinilla and Trinkaus in press). As noted in chapter 2, the site contained an abundance of large mammal remains, of which the bison, horse, saiga, and especially reindeer remains were undoubtedly brought to the site for human consumption. There was also an abundance of mammoth remains. There has been an ongoing debate as to the extent to which the mammoth remains, found at a number of central and eastern European and Siberian Mid Upper Paleolithic (MUP) sites, reflect human consumption, are largely incidental to the human presence having accumulating along the banks of gullies and streams, and/or were gathered from the landscape for use as raw material and even fuel (e.g., Soffer 1985; Derevianko et al. 2000; Svoboda et al. 2005; Wojtal and Wilczyński 2013). Systematic taphonomic analysis of the Sunghir faunal assemblage has not been undertaken, but Bader (1978) did notice the differential presence of mammoth skeletal elements at Sunghir, suggesting differential transport of body portions presumably for human consumption. Moreover, the mammoth bones were distributed through the cultural layer and apparently did not exist as a bone accumulation on the periphery of the site. At the same time, the faunal profile of the cultural layer contained a diversity of carnivores, of which the cave lions, wolves, and possibly brown bears could have been partially responsible for some of the herbivore remains at the site. It is possible that humans were hunting and eating the bears, given occasional cutmarks on bear bones at other MUP sites (Wojtal 2000; Münzel and Conard 2004).

The Shoulders and Arms of Sunghir 1 to 3

The three partial skeletons from Sunghir retain substantial portions of their shoulder and arm remains, from the proximal clavicle to the distal radius and ulna. The scapulae, as with most of those from the Pleistocene, retain principally the spine, the glenoid area, the coracoid process, and the axillary border. The left forearm of Sunghir 2 is absent (as is his left hand), and the left humerus consists of a diaphyseal section without the metaphyses and a partial proximal epiphysis. It is nonetheless possible to assess both overall upper limb proportions (chapter 11) and a number of aspects that relate to upper limb asymmetry, clavicle and scapular morphology, glenohumeral proportions, diaphyseal robustness, cubital articulations, and reflections of pronation-supination hypertrophy for all three of them. Although humans are considered to be bilaterally symmetrical in their limbs, there are small degrees of asymmetry in most limb bones. These asymmetries are frequently exaggerated in the human upper limb, given our handedness and the subsequent preference for use of the dominant arm in more mechanically demanding activities (Raymond and Pontier 2004). In general, the level of asymmetry in the dimensions of epiphyses, and especially of articulations, is modest. However, substantial asymmetry in measures of upper limb diaphyses (particularly of the humerus) have been documented in samples of recent humans (e.g., Ruff and Jones 1981; Fresia et al. 1990; Trinkaus et al. 1994; Roy et al. 1994; Churchill 1994; Steele and Mays 1995; Sakaue 1997; Mays 2002; Auerbach and Ruff 2006; Cowgill 2008; Auerbach and Raxter 2008), as well as in a number of Late Pleistocene humans (e.g., Trinkaus et al. 1994; Churchill and Formicola 1997; Cowgill 2008; Shang and Trinkaus 2010; Cowgill et al. 2012b; Mednikova 2012; Volpato et al. 2012). Moreover, as is indicated by labial anterior dental striations and one individual’s forearm bones, such handedness extends back through the genus Homo (Weaver et al. 2001; Frayer et al. 2012).

The Axial Skeletons of Sunghir 1, 2, and 3

Given their burial positions, on their backs with the trunks and limbs extended, the Sunghir 1 to 3 individuals should have retained major portions of their axial skeletons. This is the case for Sunghir 2 and 3, both of whom retain all of the cervical vertebrae, most of their thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, and major portions of their sacra. Sunghir 2 preserves portions of 23 of the 24 ribs, and Sunghir 3 retains at least a small piece of each of her 24 ribs. Moreover her left fifth and sixth ribs lack only their costal cartilage surfaces. Only Sunghir 3 preserves any elements of the sternum, two partial and separated sternebral segments. In contrast, despite the apparent presence of major portions of the axial skeleton in situ, little remains of the Sunghir 1 vertebrae, ribs, or sternum. The cervical vertebrae are absent, unless pieces of them are mixed with the collection of what appear to be thoracic and lumbar fragments. Only two vertebrae remain reasonably intact, the T1 and T2. There are eight pieces of vertebral bodies, one of which has a pathological growth (chapter 17). The ribs consist of small pieces, except for a largely intact left first rib. Although evident in the in situ photographs, nothing remains of the manubrium. There is also a piece of distal middle rib, which is of use for the age-at-death assessment. Some of the vertebral and rib pieces have been sacrificed over the years for direct radiocarbon dating (e.g., Kuzmin et al. 2004). Others pieces, heavily fissured and hence probably descending into fragments during excavation, were only partially retained. There are nonetheless a few aspects of the Sunghir axial skeletons, beyond age assessments (chapter 6), the pathological lesions on the Sunghir 1 vertebrae (chapter 17), use of the sacra in the pelves (chapter 14), and body length scaling for Sunghir 2 and 3 (chapter 11), that are of interest.

Assessing the Paleobiology of the Sunghir People

During the Mid Upper Paleolithic, the period of Late Pleistocene human existence within the Interpleniglacial, human foraging populations developed an increasingly sophisticated, elaborated, and complicated existence across Eurasia and probably across most of the Old World. This period of the Paleolithic saw the emergence of various forms of elaborate technology (e.g., ceramics and textiles, as well as elaborations of lithic and organic tool manufacture and use), expanded artistic manifestations, complex social behaviors (especially reflected in personal decoration and mortuary behavior), and increasingly effective and flexible means of subsistence and food processing. For these reasons, the people of this period were referred to, a dozen years ago, as the “Hunters of the Golden Age” (Roebroeks et al. 2000). In those and other assessments of these people, referred to as “Gravettian” in central and western Europe and by other names further east, there is frequent reference to the material from the northern Russian site of Sunghir (Сунгирь; Sungir’). The references to Sunghir are especially to the extremely rich human burials discovered during excavations in 1964 and 1969. The human paleontological materials from Sunghir, however, have only been superficially integrated into the broader assessments of human existence during this time period of hunter-gatherer fluorescence. Several volumes (and innumerable articles) have been written on aspects of the archeological work done at the Sunghir site (e.g., Sukachev et al. 1966; O.N. Bader 1978; N.O. Bader 1998; Seleznev 2008), and there have been two edited volumes concerned principally with the human remains from within and without the burials (Zubov and Karitonov 1984; Alexeeva et al. 2000). However, all of these volumes (as is appropriate) are in Russian, and only the last of them contains extensive English summaries of the contributions. As a result (given the linguistically challenged nature of many Western anthropologists—including one of us), detailed assessments of the Sunghir site and the Sunghir human remains have been slow to permeate the broader anthropological community. Originally, in the 19th century and through much of the 20th century, the focus was on the populational affinities of human remains that emerged from the Upper Paleolithic of Eurasia.

The Abnormalities of the Sunghir People

Throughout the previous chapters detailing and comparing the Sunghir human remains, there have been frequent references to their abnormalities. Some of these unusual features are obvious and sufficiently pronounced as to remove the bones from direct paleobiological consideration (e.g., the Sunghir 1 pollical osteoarthrosis and the Sunghir 3 femoral diaphyses). Other features are modest and had no apparent effect on the functional anatomical interpretations (e.g., the Sunghir 1 ulnar carpometacarpal osteoarthrosis). A few aspects may modify either the considerations of the osteometric morphology (e.g., the Sunghir 1 frontal midline protrusion) or discrete traits (e.g., the Sunghir 2 dental asymmetries). Some of these features are obviously pathological and represent reflections of developmental or degenerative strains on the body (e.g., Sunghir 2 and 3 dental enamel hypoplasias (DEH), or the Sunghir 1 manual osteoarthrosis). Other aspects may not be pathological sensu stricto but they represent variations that push the limits of “normal” human variation (e.g., the Sunghir 1 femoral asymmetry and the Sunghir 3 foramina transversaria). These aspects that have been described in detail in previous chapters are referred to here, but the others, whose description has been deferred, are detailed in this chapter. A number of these abnormalities of the Sunghir human remains have been noted previously, beginning with Debetz’s (1967) initial observations on the Sunghir 1 skeleton, the initial description of the Sunghir 2 and 3 remains (Nikityuk and Kharitonov 1984), and Bukhman’s (1984) radiographic analysis of the Sunghir 3 remains. These and further observations and interpretations were made in the context of the 1990s’ reanalysis of the Sunghir remains (Buzhilova 2000b, 2000c; Mednikova 2000c, 2000d). There have subsequently been additional analyses of specific aspects of these abnormalities, including differential diagnosis of the Sunghir 3 femoral deformities (Formicola and Buzhilova 2004), description of the T1 injury to Sunghir 1 discovered in 2009 (Trinkaus and Buzhilova 2012), detailed assessment of the Sunghir 2 and 3 DEH (Guatelli-Steinberg et al. 2013), and assessment of the degree to which the deformities of Sunghir 3 might have affected her activity levels (Cowgill et al. 2012b).

The Pelves of Sunghir 1, 2, and 3

The pelvis forms the interface between the trunk and the lower limb, as well as supporting the pelvic viscera, and as such its size and morphology reflect a diversity of biological pressures. Aspects of the Sunghir pelvic remains relating to the assessment of sex (pubic morphology, greater sciatic notch shape) and age (auricular surface, epiphyses) are presented in chapter 6, and the features of the sacrum (and coccyx) that are more strictly axial are discussed in chapter 10. The discussion here is concerned with the overall configurations of the Sunghir pelvic remains and more detailed aspects related to function. Given the male sex of Sunghir 1 and the prepubescent ages of Sunghir 2 and 3, reproductive issues beyond those related to sex assessment are not relevant to these remains. Unfortunately, the pelvis for which comparative data and biomechanical models of function exist, that of the adult male Sunghir 1, is the least complete, sufficiently so as to prevent the articulation of the elements. In contrast, the two immature pelves are quite complete, despite problems with reassembly given their immature status. Yet assessing their proportions is inhibited by issues of growth and development. The pelvis of Sunghir 1, as with most of its trunk (chapter 10), suffered extensively from vertical compres­sion in situ. The pubic bones are absent, and the ilia and ischia sustained considerable damage, much of which has been restored in wax. For example, the left acetabular rim is largely intact, but the lunate surface and acetabular notch are blended together with wax, obscuring details. The sacrum retains neither of its alae intact to the auricular surface. The Sunghir 2 and 3 pelves, in contrast, are largely present, with varying degrees of edge damage and loss of the thinner cortical bone, especially within the iliac fossae of Sunghir 3. However, both pelves retain their more cranial sacra, at least one intact sacroiliac articulation, and variable portions of the ischia and pubic bones. The primary difficulties in assessing the Sunghir 2 and 3 pelves derive from their immature status.

The Body Sizes and Proportions of the Sunghir People

Considerations of the body proportions and estimates of body mass and stature of the Sunghir people provide a general baseline for the assessment of a variety of aspects of their paleobiology. They also furnish some indications by themselves. Some of these aspects have been men­tioned with respect to sexual assessment of the adult remains (especially Sunghir 1 and 4; chapter 6), and methodological considerations have been addressed in part in chapter 5. What is presented here is a more detailed assessment of size in terms of body mass estimation and stature, and considerations of body proportions to the extent that they can be evaluated for Sunghir 1, 2 and 3. Body mass estimation was discussed in chapter 5, and it is done here exclusively using the dimension of the weight-bearing femoral articulations and/or metaphyses. It provides insights into trends in overall body size and health, but it is also central to the appropriate scaling of other aspects of morphology, from limb length and strength to brain size. Since the early comments of Boule (1911–1913) and Coon (1962), there has been a series of attempts to evaluate the body proportions (principally using limb segment lengths but also body breadth and trunk length) of Pleistocene humans as indications of both ecogeographical patterning among Late Pleistocene humans and possible reflections of their population dynamics (e.g., Trinkaus 1981, 2007; Walker and Leakey 1993; Ruff 1994; Holliday 1997a, 1997b, 2000, 2006a; Trinkaus and Zilhão 2002; Frelat 2007). The critical problem in assessing body proportions is to determine the independent variable. This must be done a priori, based on biological considerations. Stature estimation presents a variety of difficulties among Late Pleistocene humans, given variation in linear body proportions, but it can provide an indication of overall health, especially given the trends evident through the European Upper Paleolithic (Formicola and Giannecchini 1999; Holt and Formicola 2008). Assessments of body proportions depend in part on body mass estimation, and stature predictions depend on body proportions.

The Mortuary Behavior at Sunghir

Considerations of the mortuary behavior at Sunghir concern principally the two elaborate graves, Graves 1 and 2. Although each exhibits patterns evident elsewhere in Mid Upper Paleolithic burials, the combinations of features and the richness of the two graves is truly exceptional. Yet there is additional evidence for mortuary behavior, principally associated with the Sunghir 5 cranium and for the burial above Grave 2 (here designated as Grave 2bis). The Sunghir graves have been described in detail by O.N. Bader (1998), and additional analyses of the associated materials have been done by White (1993, 1999) and Khlopachev (2006). Information on them is available from additional sources (e.g., Bader 1978; Soffer 1985; Abramova 1995; Bader and Bader 2000; Pettitt 2011), as well as from numerous short reports. Of these, the primary sources are those of O.N. Bader from the excavations and excavation analysis and of White and Khlopachev from analysis of the original material in the Vladimir District Regional Museum. The description here is an amalgamation of information from these and other sources. There are some inconsistencies between the different sources, and when possible they have been sorted out using the diagrams, and especially the discussion and in situ photographs, provided by O.N. Bader (1998). In the discussions of the graves and their contents, it should be kept in mind that many of the objects found in the graves and clearly associated with the human remains also occur in reasonable numbers in the cultural layer (cf. Bader 1978). This applies to the ochre, the several varieties of ivory beads, small stone pendants, animal figurines, tubular bones, pierced canines (arctic fox and wolf), and ivory spears (or fragments thereof). Additional decorative objects not found in the burials, such as shell beads and engravings, also derive from the cultural layer. It remains unclear whether these finds from the cultural layer were artifacts and aspects of body decoration that were common among the individuals at Sunghir (some of which happened to be preserved in abundance in the graves), whether their occurrence in the cultural layer is the result of pieces lost in the process of preparing the burials, whether the isolated pieces are from disturbed (unknown) burials, or whether (as suggested by Bader 1978) they come from discarded pieces of clothing.

The Sunghir Human Hands

As the interface between the body and technology, in all of its myriad forms, the skeletal hand morphology of Late Pleistocene humans has received increasing attention since the work of Sarasin (1932) and especially Musgrave (1970, 1971, 1973), as paleoanthropologists have documented a series of contrasts between archaic Homo and recent human hand bones (e.g., Vlček 1975; Trinkaus 1983b; Vandermeersch 1991; Niewoehner et al. 1997; Niewoehner 2001, 2008; Crevecoeur 2008; Lorenzo 2007; Trinkaus in press). However, since there were major changes in human technology between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic, and especially with the Mid Upper Paleolithic (MUP), the comparisons of concern should be between late archaic humans and early modern humans. For the Early Upper Paleolithic, the latter include relatively complete hand remains from Nazlet Khater 2 and scattered hand bones from Tianyuan 1 and Brassempouy (Henry-Gambier et al. 2004; Crevecoeur 2008; Shang and Trinkaus 2010). There are then relatively abundant hand remains from the MUP (Verneau 1906; Matiegka 1938; Mallegni et al. 1999; Sládek et al. 2000; Trinkaus 2006c; Trinkaus et al. 2010, 2014), including some immature ones (Mallegni and Parenti 1973; Sergi et al. 1974; Trinkaus et al. 2002b). Yet few of them have been described in detail. In this context, the Sunghir manual remains are described and select aspects are compared across Late Pleistocene samples (principally features that appear to change with the emergence of modern humans). For these descriptions and comparisons, the Sunghir 1 hand bones are paleontologically well preserved. Of the 54 bones potentially present for Sunghir 1 (not counting pollical sesamoid bones), 49 are known, and none sustained more than minor marginal erosion. The originally missing bones include one pisiform bone and four distal phalanges from the ulnar digits. During and after excavation, the right and left hands were mixed, so that the bones have been sorted based on morphology and (for the ulnar middle and distal phalanges) size.

The Site of Sunghir: Contents and Chronology

The open-air Upper Paleolithic site of Sunghir (Сунгирь; Sungir’) is located along the northeastern edge of the Vladimir urban area, Russia, 192 km north of Moscow (56°10'30"N, 40°30'30"E). It is within the village of Dobrogo, currently absorbed into the city of Vladimir. The site is on the high left bank of the Klyazma River and on the right bank of the Sunghir stream close to where it flows into the river, ~750 m from the former, ~600 m from the latter, and ~50 m above the current level of the Klyazma. At the time of its discovery in 1955, the site was buried under several meters of loess, which were being removed with heavy equipment by the Vladimir Ceramic (or Brick) Works. The archeological material (see Bader 1978) was first unearthed in June 1955 by A.F. Nacharov, operating a power-shovel to remove sediment from the clay pit of the Vladimir Ceramic Works. During the summer, bones and eventually artifacts and hearths were turning up in the bucket of the equipment in a layer 15 to 20 cm thick and 2.8 to 3.2 m below the surface. Nacharov turned the artifacts and some of the bones over to the Vladimir District Regional Museum; the site was then repeatedly inspected by local individuals and V.M. Maslov, with word of the site eventually reaching O.N. Bader. The site was further investigated during the summer of 1956, with the first assessments of the nature and extent of the Paleolithic remains. As a result of the richness of the material, and especially the location of the site—it was the furthest north Paleolithic site known at the time—it was visited by series of specialists and in 1957 systematic long-term excavations were begun under the direction of O.N. Bader (archeology), V.I. Gromov (geology, fauna), and V.N. Sukachev (flora). Systematic excavations then proceeded for sixteen seasons from 1957 to 1977; more limited work has been undertaken recently (Seleznev 2008).